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

more drama in LA

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

  • #16
    Re: more drama in LA

    Originally posted by owl View Post
    I firmly believe there is no other team that LA can trade with. And still get a great player back. Garnett is NOT available. They are still trying to build around him, as witnessed by the recent trade. Phoenix is not looking to take on huge salary plus Marion is not what they really need. They need a big to
    contend with Duncan. No, Pacer-Lakers is the trade they have to make.
    In the current diluted NBA it only takes 2 All-Stars to potentially win a title.
    Kobe and Oneal makes 2. Now if they really go for it all they try and get Ron a
    and you have 3 all stars although the third is not mentally stable. So they take risk but that is what I see as there best and really only good option.
    No LA-Pacer trade, then Kobe will be gone. And that will be a real bath
    for them. NO ONE will give them value for KObe.
    I couldn't have said it better !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: more drama in LA

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      I think this is wishful thinking on your part. Chicago has a lot of small contracts and if they traded for Kobe, they would have to gut their team so much that Chicago would be no better than the Laker's are now.

      If Kobe gets traded, I see him going to the Knick's. Isiah would do everything he could to land him, Paxton won't.

      I agree with what Chris Sheridan writes here except for his last line;

      http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...sheridan_chris

      Chicago: This is the team I hear as one of the strongest possibilities, although its questionable whether John Paxson would be willing to gut the core of his team to get Bryant.

      Paxson would probably have to start with Luol Deng and Ben Gordon, and perhaps Chris Duhon, and he would probably have to include a signed-and-traded Andres Nocioni or P.J. Brown to make the salaries work.

      That would be an enormous amount for Paxson to surrender, especially given the way he has shaped the team's salary structure for the next 3-4 years.

      New York: If Chicago is one of the logical places for Bryant to end up, that raises the question of which team could make a competing offer. That's where Knicks coach and president Isiah Thomas would come in.

      I've known Isiah a long time, so trust me when I tell you he would go to the end of the earth and do whatever it takes to get a deal like this done. He wants his legacy to be something special in New York, and Kobe Bryant could help assure that. Furthermore, Bryant has previously expressed interest in lighting up Gotham.

      As a trade partner, what the Knicks lack in quality, they have in quantity. In terms of volume, Isiah could overwhelm almost any other offer out there, starting with combo guard Jamal Crawford, rebounding machine David Lee, Knicks starting power forward Channing Frye, a pair of unprotected No. 1 picks (let's say 2008 and 2010) and sundry throw-ins, including Nate Robinson, Randolph Morris, Renaldo Balkman, et al.

      Crawford can score 20 points a night, and he'll go prolific for you at least twice a month. Lee is a double-double man, and the most popular player on the Knicks, an energy guy who will easily play in the league for 10 more years if he stays healthy. He's far from a bum, and the same goes for Frye, who could start for the Lakers for the next seven seasons.

      No, there's no superstar in here, but it's a lot of lumber. And if you're rebuilding, you need a cache of young talent. Lee, Frye and Robinson are still on their rookie contracts. Crawford has a reasonable long-term deal ($7.9 next season, with a contract that ends after he makes $10.08 million in 2010-11). The Lakers would actually have cap space, lots of it, after Lamar Odom's contract ends in the summer of '09.

      Nothing, however, will happen unless Kobe forces Buss' hand. That hasn't happened yet, and it still might not happen if the Lakers can make a major deal to put some new talent around Kobe and placate him. Certainly we've all heard about the possibility of Jermaine O'Neal and/or other players joining Bryant in L.A.

      But if that doesn't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if Kobe pipes up publicly again, this time demanding -- not requesting -- a trade.

      And if that happens, I think he'll end up in Chicago or New York.
      Will,

      Do you remember when the last time one of ESPN's experts predicted, or had sufficent evidence of anything that happened as far as a trade is concerened?

      What many on the Digest do not understand is that teams like the Lakers use the media to help them trade. Its nothing but a scare tactic by a desperate larger market team on the skids...see the New York Knicks since Isiah has been there....nothing but publicity or issues...something to keep a bad team in the limelight, or the flashbulbs.

      Has anyone noticed that when the Pacers have made moves NOBODY heres about it until it happens......Its called flying under the radar, and you and I both know this is what happens by superior management. They broker the deal, discuss the deal, finalize the deal.....
      I think the Pacers are betwen discuss and finalize...especially since Kobe is over shooting his mouth off in Spain.

      Whats your take?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: more drama in LA

        The only time people know what Pacer management is up to is when the other side talks. For instant, last year when we got Harrington from Atlanta, even one of the Atlanta owners was talking.

        I think when it's all said and done JO will probably be traded to LA, and it won't be quite the deal everyone thinks, but it will have Bynum and the 19th pick in it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: more drama in LA

          Another thought.

          IF Kobe does force a trade, the Laker's could still trade for JO. Say they keep Odom, and give us Bynum, Brown, Farmar, and the 19th pick, and their 1st pick in two years. Whatever, I'm just speculating that they keep Odom, and get JO.

          Then they trade Kobe to Chicago for Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Chris Duhon, the 9th pick, and a signed-and-traded P.J. Brown to make the salaries work.

          That's the makings of a pretty good team!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: more drama in LA

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            Another thought.

            IF Kobe does force a trade, the Laker's could still trade for JO. Say they keep Odom, and give us Bynum, Brown, Farmar, and the 19th pick, and their 1st pick in two years. Whatever, I'm just speculating that they keep Odom, and get JO.

            Then they trade Kobe to Chicago for Luol Deng, Ben Gordon, Chris Duhon, the 9th pick, and a signed-and-traded P.J. Brown to make the salaries work.

            That's the makings of a pretty good team!
            If they trade Kobe, they definitely won't trade Bynum.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: more drama in LA

              yeah, they'd be entering rebuilding mode too... like we as a team would be willing to give up danny and/or ike if it was to bring a backcourt player of kobe's ability to indiana. but we wouldn't trade JO to get kobe because that doesn't make a ton of sense. if they trade kobe, they'll be willing to be more patient with bynum.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: more drama in LA

                Once again there is Boston. If the Celts could pair up Kobe, Pierce and Jefferson, they'd be tough. Lakers would like the Clippers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: more drama in LA

                  I can't imagine what Boston could offer for Kobe without including Pierce.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: more drama in LA

                    Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                    Will you please STOP with the Kobe to Chicago BS.

                    Chicago would have to match up salaries andplayers thatthe Lakers would actuall want. This would surely includes Ben Wallace, Loul Deng and Ben Gordon for Kobe...That would put Kobe back at the same position that he is now. Start being realistic about these things will you.
                    I agree that gutting Chicago's roster in a trade would essentially put Kobe in the same position..... BUT he would be in the Eastern Conference. Let's say the Bulls send Deng, Gordon, Wallace and a draft pick to the Lakers.

                    That leaves a roster that looks something like this:

                    G Kirk Hinrich
                    G Kobe Bryant
                    F Andres Nocioni
                    F Tyrus Thomas
                    C P.J. Brown

                    With Duhon, Sefolosha, Sweetney, Allen, etc. off the bench. That roster might be over-matched in the West but it's a legit contender to make the Finals out of the East. That sounds like a better situation for Kobe to me.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: more drama in LA

                      Originally posted by ToTheAtom View Post
                      I agree that gutting Chicago's roster in a trade would essentially put Kobe in the same position..... BUT he would be in the Eastern Conference. Let's say the Bulls send Deng, Gordon, Wallace and a draft pick to the Lakers.

                      That leaves a roster that looks something like this:

                      G Kirk Hinrich
                      G Kobe Bryant
                      F Andres Nocioni
                      F Tyrus Thomas
                      C P.J. Brown

                      With Duhon, Sefolosha, Sweetney, Allen, etc. off the bench. That roster might be over-matched in the West but it's a legit contender to make the Finals out of the East. That sounds like a better situation for Kobe to me.
                      I wouldn't make that deal if I'm the Lakers. No way I take on Ben's huge salary.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: more drama in LA

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        I wouldn't make that deal if I'm the Lakers. No way I take on Ben's huge salary.
                        They're gonna have to take on someone's huge contract

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: more drama in LA

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          They're gonna have to take on someone's huge contract
                          That would be PJ Brown in a sign and trade.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: more drama in LA

                            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                            That would be PJ Brown in a sign and trade.
                            Exactly. S&T him for 10mil, 33% guaranteed.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: more drama in LA

                              I already have lost interest. Too much he said, she said.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: more drama in LA

                                If it's true that JO is still wanting out of here I can't thank him enough for not going to the media and keeping it behind closed doors like a true professional.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X