Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

    Yesterday I wrote in my "NBA summer predictions" thread a proposed trade I thought up that I thought made sense, where I had Jermaine O'Neal headed to Chicago. I made that prediction based on my opinion that Chicago is the one team in the league that JO could turn a good team into a legitimate championship contender, and that would have enough pieces remaining after a deal to remain viable.

    Previously I had emailed Sam Smith from the Chicago Tribune about the basic parameters of my trade idea, and asked him if he thought the Bulls would have any interest in my exact idea or something close to it. I hadn't heard from him as of yesterday, so I went ahead and put it in the thread just for discussions sake, and since I had put together enough information from Phoenix' s side that I reasonably thought they could be interested.

    Anyway, this morning Sam took the time to write me back, and informed he had informally brought up again to Paxson during the lead up to the draft if he had any interest in Jermaine, since he had mentioned the idea of JO to the Bulls in some previous columns. Smith's email to me this morning told me that Chicago was leery of adding any big money long term contracts for a short term run, and would not be interested in any deal that added payroll to them, especially for future years down the road. Smith speculated that the Bulls feel that Luol Deng is a max player in waiting, and the Bulls do not want long term money committed to JO or anyone else that may put them in a bind where the luxury tax is concerned.

    So apparently, at least this morning, a fairly reliable source has told us the Bulls arent a player for O'Neal, Gasol, or anyone else, and they will probably go to camp with what they have now, plus some cheaper fill in type role players. The Bulls are apparently willing to stand pat for now.

    Just wanted to let you all be in the know today!


    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

    I can't really see the Pacers trading JO to another team inside our division..but the Bulls could definitely work out a trade with us if they really wanted to. They definitely have all the pieces.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

      I still contend that JO isn't going anywhere, not this year and perhaps not until his contract runs out 3 yrs from now unless something really phenominal takes place. He's a 6-time All-Star (whether 1st or 2nd team is irrelavent) and a consistent 20/10/3 player over a 7 year span. There's just no way the Pacers should even entertain the notion of trading him unless they received the same or better caliber player back. Believe me, DW and Bird both know what they have in him and they're not about to let him go for peanuts much like what happened w/the Artest/Peja trade.

      (Okay, so Peja wasn't exactly nothing; under the circumstances they got the very best deal they could, but to lose the guy after just half a season...I don't think the Pacers want to go through that again. This time, it's a buyer's market as far as the Pacers are concerned. I seriously doubt they're in any big hurry to sell.)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

        Makes a lot of sense. Deng's coming into his own, and at least in the Miami series he showed promise of being a go-to guy.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          Makes a lot of sense. Deng's coming into his own, and at least in the Miami series he showed promise of being a go-to guy.
          Maybe. But I'd love for the Bulls to make him a "max" player.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            Maybe. But I'd love for the Bulls to make him a "max" player.
            I think Pax will make him earn it, first. If he doesn't step up and lead them to the Finals, I doubt he'll come close.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

              I ran into Scott Skiles at a bar in bloomington about 6 weeks ago. In our conversation I brought up some JO trade, and he told me he wasn't a big fan of JO. Take it for what its worth.


              On a side note, I met Mark Cuban at the same bar a month earlier. I got to take a picture with him. He was a real nice guy.
              I was ready for Josh Smith to go to Indiana, but he went to the NBA. I am ready for him to come to Indiana once again.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                Just shows how savvy of a GM Paxson is, has a great record sans the Ben Wallace slip up, but even then it's not like they have him a completely crippling six year deal or anything like that.

                I wish the Pacers had that kind of leadership, but it comes with time, I hope.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                  Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                  Just shows how savvy of a GM Paxson is, has a great record sans the Ben Wallace slip up, but even then it's not like they have him a completely crippling six year deal or anything like that.

                  I wish the Pacers had that kind of leadership, but it comes with time, I hope.
                  The best thing Pax did on the Ben Wallace deal was to front load the deal, where Wallace's contract actually becomes less as each year goes by. I thought that was a really savvy move that alot of organizations wouldn't have done. of course, having the available cap space in Wallace's first season to do that obviously made that option viable in the first place.

                  I still wonder if Chicago is muddling along on a 48 win pace or so, and if their big weakness is still inside post scoring......would they re-evaluate this deal?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                    I still wonder if Chicago is muddling along on a 48 win pace or so, and if their big weakness is still inside post scoring......would they re-evaluate this deal?
                    I would say yes, especially now that they've got a scrappy guy who should be a good NBA rebounder and shotblocker in Joakim Noah who, for the next 4 years or so, will come at much less of a price than Big Ben.

                    And it was a great move by Paxson to frontload the deal, either way. I wonder why other GM's don't seem to usually do that. Probably because the ones that don't didn't make the right deals to give them the means to do it in the first place.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                      Smith's email to me this morning told me that Chicago was leery of adding any big money long term contracts for a short term run, and would not be interested in any deal that added payroll to them, especially for future years down the road.
                      Clearly, they're not committed to winning a championship--they're content with just being 'good.'
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                        The Bulls are so young that cashing in now is just silly. They have the core, they just need time to grow.
                        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                        RSS Feed
                        Subscribe via iTunes

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                          actually if they're actually looking to improve their current team, won't they HAVE to add payroll? so many of their parts are on their rookie contracts (like gordon and duhon) its going to be hard to bring in the player they need without adding. but i think its a fair point about o'neal not being what they're after... i would disagree but if they think they can land garnett... by all means...
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                            Pax and Skiles show a lot of savvy in not being interested in JO. As I've said on this board already, JO is not as good to others as he is to us. Yes, I know that's an extremely unpopular opinion. But here's how I see him: He's got a lot of milage at age 28, he's hurt 15 - 20% of any given season, he takes low percentage shots (turn-around jumpers), he doesn't make the role players around him better, and he's paid $5 - $6 million more than he's worth. Why would any smart GM go for a JO deal, especially since Pacer management feels they need a top 5 player in compensation in order to keep the local fans happy? Come October, JO will suit-up as a Pacer. And, he won't opt-out of his contract at the end of next season either because by then he'll be making $20+ million, and no one, absolutely no one, not even the Lakers, will give him a raise from there with a multiple year contract. With his record of injuries, etc., he's going to be a Pacer for at least two more seasons. P.S. We could (and have) done worse. Let's learn to enjoy winning 41 games and earning the 8th seed because with the talent and draft picks we have, that's actually a considerable accomplishment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Email from Sam Smith about JO and the Bulls

                              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                              The best thing Pax did on the Ben Wallace deal was to front load the deal, where Wallace's contract actually becomes less as each year goes by. I thought that was a really savvy move that alot of organizations wouldn't have done. of course, having the available cap space in Wallace's first season to do that obviously made that option viable in the first place.

                              I still wonder if Chicago is muddling along on a 48 win pace or so, and if their big weakness is still inside post scoring......would they re-evaluate this deal?
                              He did it with Hinrich too. He's making $11 million this year, but it will be down to $8.

                              The reason other GMs aren't able to do this is that they don't have the available cap space to give some one $17 in the first year. Usually, teams that are under the cap enough to offer the max are just barely able to offer the max.

                              But Paxson is very astute. In stead of saying, "I can get Big Ben for $14 this year and still have $6 to overpay someone I can get but don't really need" he only spends for what he really wants. Or better put, only what he can afford according to his long-term plan. Few GMs have a long-term plan, let alone the balls to stick to one, so they just sign all these backloaded contracts that they know will cumulatively kill their financials, but maybe keep them their jobs. Most of these guys act like college kids with a credit card and no understanding of the future of these financial decisions they're making.

                              The salary cap and the luxury tax threshold are always there, but GMs continue shelling out $6 million here, $8 million there, taking on a bad contract in a trade to get something they want there.

                              This is one guy who knows what he wants to do with his cap space and seems to have a plan to do that.

                              So far it's been:

                              A) sign Hinrich long-term
                              B) sign Ben Wallace

                              My guess is that C) is, and has been for some time, re-sign Luol Deng.

                              A couple more moves along with plenty of cap space and he's looking at plenty of flexibility to have a title squad in 2008/09.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X