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

Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

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

  • #46
    Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

    No doub,t I saw Donnie mentioned he had received phone calls for arround 15 teams yesterday.
    I would expect the volume and intensity to pick up by Friday, after all the newly signed contract players can be moved.

    Why Not Us ?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

      I fully expect that most GM's opinions on Artest will change over the next few days. When the announcement first came out, most of them were probably thinking only of the negatives...

      By week's end, I wouldn't be surprised if the fear of a conference rival or the enticement of a great talent don't change some GM's minds and they really start to rethink what they would give up to have a player of Ron's caliber.

      Eventually I expect that the bad will be pushed into the back of people's minds and they'll get caught up in going for Artest, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get a decent talent in return.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

        Originally posted by blanket
        Wait a minute here.



        Both Donnie and the NY media have said that the Knicks have not (yet) contacted the Pacers about Ron. So how can they be one of the leading contenders?!? Either the poster from the Lakers board -- or Montieth -- is full of it. Or Donnie is lying...
        With 's past history as a cutting edge reporter always passing on breaking news and in-depth Pacers analysis of what's really going on behind the scenes, I know which scenario I'd pick.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

          MM and IT talk a lot, I would no be surprised

          oh and NY is only taken serious WITH Channing on the table, perhaps that is the reason for the "silence"
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

            I think it can be attributed to the fact that the Knicks are the default #2 front runner for every trade.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

              Originally posted by Fool
              I think it can be attributed to the fact that the Knicks are the default #2 front runner for every trade.
              We are THE team to be mentioned when a player/agent/GM tries to raise someone's trade/FA value.

              But nobody ever comes out to play.

              (I include Jerome James as nobody BTW)
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                Ummmmmm can we slow down with one piece of "info" that some of you are banking on?

                15 or so calls...

                If Donnie Walsh had received one or even none, what do you think he'd say? I bet he wouldn't tell you the phone has barely been ringing. I bet he'd say 15 or so calls.

                You say "every team in the league has called" and enough teams talk (plus know THEY didn't call) that they know that is BS (unless its true). You say 'half the teams have called' and then overall teams don't know one way or another whether that is true. And so that is a nice number to plant the seed that there are teams wanting Artest, yet not too many to get caught lying. And so teams have to think if they want in the game then they better make their move ASAP.

                So, I'd take DW's comment about how many suitors he has for Artest with a grain of salt. It's too early in the process to discount the possibility that it's merely posturing.


                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                  Originally posted by Bball
                  Ummmmmm can we slow down with one piece of "info" that some of you are banking on?

                  15 or so calls...

                  If Donnie Walsh had received one or even none, what do you think he'd say? I bet he wouldn't tell you the phone has barely been ringing. I bet he'd say 15 or so calls.

                  You say "every team in the league has called" and enough teams talk (plus know THEY didn't call) that they know that is BS (unless its true). You say 'half the teams have called' and then overall teams don't know one way or another whether that is true. And so that is a nice number to plant the seed that there are teams wanting Artest, yet not too many to get caught lying. And so teams have to think if they want in the game then they better make their move ASAP.

                  So, I'd take DW's comment about how many suitors he has for Artest with a grain of salt. It's too early in the process to discount the possibility that it's merely posturing.


                  -Bball

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                    This is where DW's rep as a shrewd negotiator does both harm and good.

                    No GM wants to be the next DW "victim" yet they fear losing out entirely. Noone wants to overpay...but there is Artest sitting there just waiting for them to gobble up. The former DPOY....the stone-cold lock down defender they covet, annointed by none other than Michael hisowndamnself. And all they gotta do is show him that if he behaves he can have it all. And Lord knows he'd surely behave for us.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                      Let's get off the "DW is lying; we didn't really get 15 calls" stuff. Just like if he had said "almost everybody"; these people have phones. He'd be caught within a day lying this way.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        Foyle is the only center GS has. They can't trade him.

                        Pietrus is untouchable.

                        Diogu hasn't played much, but would they give up on him so early when they already have a glut of swingmen?

                        The more I think about it, the more I think Dunleavy would HAVE to be the main piece involved in any Artest deal. Nothing else seems realistic.
                        About Foyle:

                        Although he is an anchor for the Warriors....he is expendable. With players like Diogu/Biedrins/Taft.....all talented projects....but players that need playing time to get to the next level.....Foyle is simply standing in their way.

                        I will admit that Foyle does exactly what I would want a Center to do....he rebounds very well and block shots like crazy...he plays pretty decent defense and is best suited to play as a backup Center.

                        The problem is that he has a big long term contract ( which Walsh won't like ) and worst of all....according to my friend that's a long time Warrior fan.....the guy has hands of stone. He may stay in the paint....but if you pass him the ball....more often then not...he may turn it over. Also...for whatever reason...despite the # of seasons he's been in the NBA...he's been slow to pick up the "be at that spot at a certain time to complete this play" concept.

                        If you want a Center that will help you rebound, block shots and do an acceptable job defending the paint against big men.......but will not be used extensively on the offensive end.....then Foyle is your man.

                        But if you want a Center like Foster....who can provide some decent inside scoring....then Foyle is not your man.

                        Pietrus:

                        He is the exact type of player that I want ( assuming that we make SJax the 2nd scoring option ).....a quick defending SG/SF perimeter defender that defintely has potential as a defensive stopper who can hit the occassional 3pt shot when left open. The problem is that the Warriors would be reluctant to let him go.

                        Diogu:

                        He's what we would need...a developing big/burly PF who stays in the paint, rebounds, scores from the low post, block shots and gets fouls. The problem is that that's exactly what the Warriors drafted him...he's exactly what the Warriors need....a low post scoring threat....which is the very reason why Diogu won't be traded.

                        Dunleavy:

                        To tell you the truth....as a SF....he's pretty decent as a 3rd scoring option...as that is what he does right now playing behind players like Baron/JRich and playing next to Troy Murphy. His defense isn't that great....but he's a pretty decent "all around player and can hit the 3pt shot. Also...for whatever reason...he's a pretty decent Point-Forward. IMHO...he's a solid 6th man option.

                        If we could pull off a trade that involved Foyle/Pietrus for Artest/Freddie ( which does work in Trade Checker ).....then I would be happy. I know that Walsh will balk on Foyle's contract.....but I get what I want....a SG/SF that can provide solid defense that can hit the 3pt shot and a backup Center that does nothing more then block shots and rebound.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                          Originally posted by Hicks
                          Let's get off the "DW is lying; we didn't really get 15 calls" stuff. Just like if he had said "almost everybody"; these people have phones. He'd be caught within a day lying this way.
                          I will stand by this (because it was my overall point):
                          Originally posted by Bball
                          So, I'd take DW's comment about how many suitors he has for Artest with a grain of salt. It's too early in the process to discount the possibility that it's merely posturing.
                          And that is part of a bigger point: Right now (IMHO) Walsh is not only fielding offers but doing what he can to gain some leverage back. It will be hard to separate his public comments (and leaks) from between stone cold facts vs posturing (Negotiating tactics, looking for leverage, marketing, making lemonade from lemons, etc).

                          He's truly going to be in spin mode and I think we need to remember that as the process plays out. I suppose you could call it lying, but I didn't mean that he was lying to the fans just to make us feel good and couldn't be trusted... I meant he's being careful with what he says and trying to paint a picture that puts him in the best negotiating stance possible... and it might take a white lie (or two) or bit of hype to do it.

                          We should expect that. And that is exactly what he should be doing.

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                            So if we do the trade you wanted CableKC, then we end up with Ron and Freddie gone, so we lose 2 SG/SF's. Ok, so we get Pietrus back... and he will take I'm assuming the SG spot, which leaves us with Jackson and Danger. I suppose we could make that work. Then we take a look at Centers... either Foyle just sits on the bench for us all year or we never play David Harrison in which case we're not building on our young talent. I don't like getting Foyle.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                              Originally posted by Jermaniac
                              OMG Jeff and Ron for Foyle and Dunleavy? Good God if we do that Donnie and Larry both need to just quit, lord what a horrible deal.
                              Jerm.....you and NorCal Pacerfan can probably relate to this since we are in the SF Bay Area.....but there's a part of me that really wants Pietrus and would trade Artest to the Warriors in a second if we could do it....but there's the part of me that wouldn't want Artest at the one game of the year that I get to see when the Pacers visit the Warriors in Oakland.

                              I would get to pull out my "Thanks for Nothing Artest" sign once every year.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Montieth says NY & GS lead (unconfirmed)

                                Originally posted by Mordecaii
                                So if we do the trade you wanted CableKC, then we end up with Ron and Freddie gone, so we lose 2 SG/SF's. Ok, so we get Pietrus back... and he will take I'm assuming the SG spot, which leaves us with Jackson and Danger. I suppose we could make that work. Then we take a look at Centers... either Foyle just sits on the bench for us all year or we never play David Harrison in which case we're not building on our young talent. I don't like getting Foyle.
                                I would start Pietrus at the SG spot ( I think he is that good ) playing about 25 to 30 mpg ( mainly cuz of his defense ). I would then let Sarunas backfill the rest of the SG minutes and play some backup PG minutes. I'm basically looking at a Guard rotation of Tinsley/Pietrus/Sarunas splitting time at the PG/SG spots with AJ playing garbage minutes. Splitting Tinsley/Pietrus/Sarunas at the Guard spots should allow for then to play between 28 to 32 minutes a game between the 3 of them. Pietrus is exactly what I am looking for...a 3rd/4th wheel that I want that can be effective on the floor when not touching the ball...something we need if we are to assume that SJax is going to be the 2nd scoring option.

                                Besides....the reason I suggest trading away Freddie is that I don't think the Pacers will resign him when he becomes a Free Agent.

                                Also....as an added plus....since Pietrus can play both the SG/SF positions ( where he's more of a SG then SF ), then he can fill in when needed ( due to injuries ) at the SF spot playing behind SJax and Granger.

                                Looking at the Center position....I don't expect that Pollard will be here for the long term since he will like be traded for cap relief cuz of his expiring contract. I know he has a huge @ss long term contract.....if we put that aside...which I know is not possible when it comes to Walsh....he can split time at the Center position behind Foster and ahead of / next to / behind the Hulk.....since he is best suited as a backup Center who can come in to provide some defense, rebounding and shotblocking. Just put him in with 4 other decent scoring options so he doesn't have to really score.

                                The problem is that I really doubt that Walsh takes on Foyle's contract. But since I'm not signing his paycheck, I look at it as a price that we have to pay in order to get Pietrus.....a guy that I really think will be a very solid perimeter defender as he gains more NBA experience.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X