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

Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

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

  • #61
    Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Henry Wolford? he's semi-credible. he did have the Al Harrington signing before anyone else (about 6 weeks before it became official)


    One thing everyone is overlooking, maybe JO asked TPTB to trade him.
    There is a SI article on Hoopshype that kind of dispells that idea. The writer asks Bird about it and Bird basically says JO is still thinking about it, but leaning towards staying.

    I'd post it here, but it is a two page article, and I'm horrible at cut and paste stuff.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

      Originally posted by Tom White View Post
      There is a SI article on Hoopshype that kind of dispells that idea. The writer asks Bird about it and Bird basically says JO is still thinking about it, but leaning towards staying.

      I'd post it here, but it is a two page article, and I'm horrible at cut and paste stuff.
      A tip for you Tom. Usually there's a Print View button on these articles. Click it and it gives you a nicely formated text article all on one page.

      Actually, I'm gonna move this to it's own thread. Here it is:

      http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...681#post556681
      Last edited by Kegboy; 06-01-2007, 09:51 PM.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Henry Wolford? he's semi-credible. he did have the Al Harrington signing before anyone else (about 6 weeks before it became official)


        One thing everyone is overlooking, maybe JO asked TPTB to trade him.
        Its possible and if so we have to appreciate him keeping it behind close doors and doing it the professional way.
        Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-01-2007, 09:42 PM.


        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

          Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
          Its possible and if so we have to appreciate him keeping it behind close doors and doing it the professional way.
          Now that I actually agree with.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
            A tip for you Tom. Usually there's a Print View button on these articles. Click it and it gives you a nicely formated text article all on one page.

            Actually, I'm gonna move this to it's own thread. Here it is:

            http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...681#post556681
            Thanks Kegboy. Actually, if I'm at work I can do it pretty well from my laptop computer. At home I just use an old WebTv unit, and its cut and paste capabilities are....let's say tragic.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

              Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
              Well Peck, bball, I'm going to miss you guys. After all, with JO no longer a Pacer, neither of you will have anything to post about anymore.
              To quote Bon Jovi....

              ..."We're halfway there..."

              And then I will say "Tinsley".

              Altho I certainly don't expect Tinsley to be moved necessarily with JO. Tinsley's baggage will make him next to impossible to move on the up and up unless some deal can be worked out where he's just filler and/or would be somebody's roll of the dice while sending us back their filler and roll of the dice for us.

              Tinsley's value to a trade is a negative IMHO.

              There's a big difference in why I feel JO needs to be moved and why I feel Tinsley should never be a Pacer ever again.

              -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


              • #67
                Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                Thanks Kegboy. Actually, if I'm at work I can do it pretty well from my laptop computer. At home I just use an old WebTv unit, and its cut and paste capabilities are....let's say tragic.
                Oh, well yeah, that makes sense.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  To quote Bon Jovi....

                  ..."We're halfway there..."

                  And then I will say "Tinsley".

                  Altho I certainly don't expect Tinsley to be moved necessarily with JO. Tinsley's baggage will make him next to impossible to move on the up and up unless some deal can be worked out where he's just filler and/or would be somebody's roll of the dice while sending us back their filler and roll of the dice for us.

                  Tinsley's value to a trade is a negative IMHO.

                  There's a big difference in why I feel JO needs to be moved and why I feel Tinsley should never be a Pacer ever again.

                  -Bball
                  It's all timing. If tinsley had two instead of four years left on his contract he could be moved quickly as a solid backup pg. Perhaps next year he will begin to look better in a trade. My take on tinsley is that he didn't want to play in Indy and he didn't want to play for RC. He might be a bit better this fall.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Now that I actually agree with.
                    Hurrah!


                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                      Originally posted by maragin
                      If we get Farmar and Bynum (and my fav, Turiaf) then we've basically stolen the Laker's rebuilding efforts.

                      Which is awesome.
                      Yeah because that team was really going places with all that "talent"



                      Lottery; Here we come!
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        Lottery; Here we come!
                        You're already there. Maybe this time you'll keep your pick though.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          You're already there. Maybe this time you'll keep your pick though.
                          Yeah that's the strange common demeanour between LB and IT, they both can't seem to hold on to a draft pick
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                            So, is LA more interested in Camby or is it a ploy to spur the Pacers so to speak?
                            ================

                            Lakers talk with Nuggets about Camby
                            With Bryant pushing for change, the team looks at options -- and what it might have to give up.
                            By Mike Bresnahan, Times Staff Writer
                            June 2, 2007
                            It was all quiet on the Lakers' front, but not necessarily in their front office.

                            No statements were released by the organization and there were no public words Friday from Kobe Bryant, which meant relative silence for the first time in six days, at least on the exterior.

                            Behind the scenes, Lakers officials continued to chase their goals of getting better in the frontcourt and appeasing their unhappy superstar.

                            The Lakers have begun talks with the Denver Nuggets regarding center Marcus Camby, the NBA defensive player of the year, who has led the league in blocked shots the last two seasons.

                            Camby, 33, averaged 11.2 points, 11.7 rebounds and 3.3 blocks last season. He has a decent midrange jump shot and doesn't demand the ball often in the post, doing most of his scoring with outside shots and after offensive rebounds.

                            The Nuggets are reportedly trying to lower their payroll, which would make Lakers center Kwame Brown a possibility in trade talks, a league source said.

                            Brown has only one year left on his contract, for $9.1 million; Camby has three years and about $26 million left on his contract. The Lakers might have to add another low-salaried player or a draft pick to make such a deal more equitable for the Nuggets.

                            Camby and Brown have missed their share of games because of injuries. Camby has played more than 65 games in a season only three times in his 11-year career. Brown has averaged only 61 games a season in his first six years in the league.

                            The Lakers have also been in contact with Indiana regarding forward-center Jermaine O'Neal, a six-time All-Star. If the Lakers trade for O'Neal, they would likely have to part with Andrew Bynum or Lamar Odom, or perhaps both.

                            O'Neal, 28, averaged 19.4 points, 9.6 rebounds and 2.6 blocks last season, although the Pacers missed the playoffs for the first time in his seven years with Indiana. He has three years and $64.1 million left on his contract, numbers that could ultimately put the Lakers over the luxury-tax threshold.

                            The Lakers have two centers on their roster, Brown and Bynum. Chris Mihm becomes a free agent next month, although he might be re-signed at an inexpensive price after sitting out last season because of ankle problems.
                            ===============

                            One thing I note is the comment about Kwame NOT needing the ball in the post...unlike JO, this would allow Kobe to continue to dominate the ball.
                            This trade actually makes sense for the Lakers...but if they could pull this off and STILL get JO too...
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                              getting camby only makes sense if you get another star because camby was playing on a team with carmelo and iverson and they still only won one game in the playoffs.

                              the real problem is if they trade kwame for camby, then the lakers would have to offer odom, vladrad, bynum and #19 for o'neal and i can't fathom the pacers taking back another terrible contract without giving the lakers murphy or dunleavy.

                              but to add murphy to that trade the lakers would have to give up odom, vladrad, cook, evans, bynum, farmar. and that doesn't make any sense. so at the very least another team will have to be brought into the mix one that might want a re-signed luke walton or such because thats really the only other player of value they have to offer.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Several NBA Officials Convinced JO To L.A. Will Get Done {Journal Times}

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                Yeah because that team was really going places with all that "talent"



                                Lottery; Here we come!
                                Only if you think both of those players have peaked does that make sense. Did you think O'Neal peaked in Portland? I doubt it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X