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

Hawks to open up Harrington talks

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

  • #61
    Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

    Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
    I do wonder if any local Indy stations will mention this.
    WTHR 's
    Henry Wofford


    I beleive he said we can have his head if he was wrong


    Why Not Us ?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

      So wait i'm confused. We aren't getting Al? For real? Can something give me a update because this thread is way to long to read.

      Thank god. I like Al but i'm so happy that we aren't getting him. To much money and not a good fit.

      I just hope this doesn't mean we go after Bonzi.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
        Jeesh the doom and gloomers are out in full force!

        One} We are still in the middle of the Summer and not done dealing.
        I sure hope you're right. I still can't bear the thought of SJax being on this team when training camp opens. And we need some 'real' depth at PG. Right now we've got Tinsley and the third-stringers. Sounds like a band that played the Greenwood HS homecoming dance back in the day...

        Two} We can do better than Al with the trade exception. That's why I didn't care if we signed him or not. Two better times to make trades is near the trade deadline and during next years draft.
        Don't usually see lopsided trades that require a huge trade exemption during the draft, do we. Aren't those usually pick-for-pick with a second-tier player or future pick thrown in to balance it out.

        And who is going to give us such a huge contract - during the season - for so little value that we throw in a huge trade exception?? If they're concerned about the LT, a mid-season trade is not the way to handle that. Its pretty much only good for a S&T, so what is the expiration date, before or after next seasons free-agent crop can sign contracts? That just isn't going to happen during the season.

        Three} This will be a good team!
        Define good. For the past two seasons, we've had an average team. Do you think - based on what's happened (or not happened) so far this summer - we're going to be so much better than average that we can be called good? If so, why do you think that. If you're predicting a Tinsley trade or SJax trade as part of the "This will be a good team!" comment, then make that clear, too. Given the absurd pessimism around here, I've been accused of being Sally Sunshine, but I don't think this team is better than about 43-39 right now.

        Granted, I don't think this team is a 25-win team, unless Tinsly really misses 50-60 games this year. Otherwise, that's obnoxious, too. Really, compare this roster to the mid-80s Pacers. Those teams were very lucky to get up to the low-to-mid twenties for wins. I mean they were just plain awful. This team may have several flaws but they are not going to be awful.
        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


        • #64
          Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

          Originally posted by Frank Slade View Post
          WTHR 's
          Henry Wofford


          I beleive he said we can have his head if he was wrong

          Muhahaha.......here Henry Henry Henry.......

          Although I do like Henry on the SportsJam a lot. I like his energy, I'll spare him.
          Super Bowl XLI Champions
          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

            Originally posted by t1hs0n View Post
            There seem to be far too many people that can't see beyond this summer.

            I think Hicks should add this smillie...

            It is a perfect fit for all the spewers of brimstone and hellfire that will cast judgments every week till the season starts.
            I like it!
            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


            • #66
              Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

              I know the link was posted, but for those who missed it..


              By SEKOU SMITH
              The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
              Published on: 08/19/06


              The Hawks' proposed sign-and-trade deal sending Al Harrington back to the Indiana Pacers is dead, the free agent forward said Friday.

              The deal was dealt its fatal blow when the Pacers owners declined to agree to take Harrington — whom the Hawks were to sign to a six-year, $57 million deal — and third-year center John Edwards from the Hawks in exchange for a future first-round draft pick.

              After negotiating the deal one way, the Pacers owners decided they wanted to do a shorter deal, four years, and for far less money, $36 million.


              The Denver Nuggets, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Lakers and Minnesota Timberwolves, all teams that have been in the Harrington mix from the start, are now poised to land the highest-profile player left on the free agent market.

              Friday's development, though, ends a month-long saga that would have returned Harrington to the Pacers franchise that drafted him, the team he spent his first six NBA seasons playing for in the city his mother and father now call home.

              "I'm just ready to know where I'm going to be playing next year," Harrington said by phone. "The Indiana deal was something that I really wanted to do. I was looking forward to it since it's a place I'm so familiar with. But it didn't happen. I want to be somewhere I'm wanted, and these other teams are really interested.

              "I feel like I can make an impact with any of those teams, whichever uniform I end up wearing. But ultimately, you have to go where you are wanted."

              AJC

              Why Not Us ?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

                This has to be the most bizarre on-again, off-again trade I've ever seen. It doesn't help that it's a slow summer, so every media outlet that covers the NBA has been weighing in on it.

                I can understand the hesitation in not wanting to sign Al to a six year deal.

                On the other hand, I don't see who they can get that would be better. The nice thing is that we now know for certain Donnie's got a pair of balls when he negotiates. If he'll walk away from Al because he doesn't think it's right, he'll walk away from anyone.


                "Like [Jonathan Bender], AMC's Pacer was supposed to be fitted with a rotary engine--but both rotaries had technical problems late in their development (read: after incurring heavy research costs) that prevented them from seeing the light of day. Of course, both vehicles had plenty of problems that did reach production. The Pacer was a dud in terms of quality, execution and particularly styling. Make your own assessment about its bizarre proportions, but don't miss the one door that's bigger than the other."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

                  even if the pacers get Al Harrington, they wont win the championship.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

                    Well, I'm kinda glad it's over, one way or the other.

                    I would have liked to see Al come here, but oh well.

                    The Simons look pretty silly at this point... from my point of view, anyhow. So much for wins, eh?
                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

                      Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                      So we are really stuck holding the cards. We have a useless trade exception, a team full of really young small forwards and no second option. We are not going to be bad enough to be in the Oden hunt but not good enough to compete for a playoff spot. Also, we don't have a lot of young promissing players that give us hope for the future. It would be better to be a Hawks fan now. Well, I guess the return to the 1980's Pacers had to happen at some point. Everything comes full circle.
                      oh please give me a break. If our future is as bleak as you make it seem then management made the right decision not to bring in Al Harrington here.Listen I wanted Al here just as bad as most of you, it sucks but theres still plenty of time to get other deals done. As far as not having a bunch of young promising players, many on this board have already pointed out Granger is going to be a star in this league, Marquis Daniels has the ability to be a star, we have David Harrison who has the potential to be a starting caliber center for many years, Shawne Williams is very talented.I don't think we have a problem with the talent on this roster.Now whether that talent is ready to breakout this season we'll just have to wait and see.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Hawks to open up Harrington talks

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                        Jeesh the doom and gloomers are out in full force!

                        One} We are still in the middle of the Summer and not done dealing.

                        Two} We can do better than Al with the trade exception. That's why I didn't care if we signed him or not. Two better times to make trades is near the trade deadline and during next years draft.

                        Three} This will be a good team!
                        I agree, and I WANTED AL. The pick probably was NOT the hang up we thought it was anyway, but still they did keep it in a deep draft. I'd rather have the certain thing in Al, but they should have a shot at a decent player if they end up in the 17-22 range again. I wouldn't bank on that, but its not worthless either.


                        The fact is that JO and Tinsley's health will impact the team A LOT more than getting Al would have. Put a healthy JO, Foster, Tinsley, Granger and Jack on the court with a revamped bench (that I like more actually) and you can win some games and stay competitive as you reload, rather than tanking like idiots.

                        Plus the summer isn't over as Able pointed out. Let's see what happens.


                        Finally, Shawne Williams has a 4 year deal and will then need to be paid. If the Pacers balked at going beyond 4 years for Al, who wants to bet that resigning Shawne was a factor in their thinking (they admitted that Peja was passed over because of Granger).


                        Originally posted by Jay
                        For the past two seasons, we've had an average team. Do you think - based on what's happened (or not happened) so far this summer - we're going to be so much better than average that we can be called good?
                        Haislip made it an average team? Croshere being so injured he shot 26% from 3 made it an average team? Gill getting serious minutes made it an average team? The team WON like an average team, but the circumstances the last 2 years suggested something far less than average would be the outcome.

                        The team had a long list of reasons why they should lose 50 games or more and they didn't. It's possible that those reasons will not be back this year - no Ron demand, an end to the injuries to JO and Tinsley, half the injured bench players gone (AC and Fred). That alone would be enough for the team to be better.

                        Take an average team, put Tinsley in for AJ, put JO in for another 25-30 games, give Granger a year of experience, give SarJas a year of experience. That's improvement.



                        To your TE question, it was negotiated AFTER the trade moritorium ends so the Pacers could easily work a SnT that became official on the first day of dealings next summer.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X