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

Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

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

  • #31
    Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

    Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
    I personal think JO will still end up in LA. Reports there say Kobe thinks Odom & Bynum is too high a price. If as reported Dr. Buss is taking control I think he will get JO for Kobe.

    In the end the Pacers could end up getting perhaps the 19 this season ,a future #1 in 2009 and "future considerations" to allow Odom to remain a Laker.

    A compromise deal of Andrew Bynum , #19 this season, #1 in 2009 , Kwame Brown (his 9 mil expiring deal), Jordan Farmar , and filler for JO. The Lakers get their big 3 Kobe, JO and Odom.

    Pacers gain youth Bynum and Farmar + 2-#1's , Brown's contract for trade or cap space , "future consideration " which could amount to money or a pick .

    Just my thoughts.
    I'm beginning to think the same. But if we can get a future 1st in 2009 and Cash....then I guess I can live with it....begrudgingly.

    I mentioned this before...but I think that we should involve Walton in a S&T to a 3rd team. I think that he can command a decent 3 to 4 mil contract in a S&T ( he earned 1.25 mil last year ) that can net us some other player.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

      The general public isn't going to accept this trade unless it involves Bynum AND Odom and I would hope TPTB know they can't afford to have anymore bad press with the average Pacer fan.


      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

        Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
        The general public isn't going to accept this trade unless it involves Bynum AND Odom and I would hope TPTB know they can't afford to have anymore bad press with the average Pacer fan.
        You can't make your moves thinking like that (I know some will argue they did with our last trade, but I'm light years away from being in the mood to go there). They booed Reggie Miller when we drafted him over Steve Alford. Fans can be dead wrong (but before anyone wants to jump on that either, it goes both ways).

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

          Jordan Famar will never be as good as Tinsley is now, and that's saying something. No deal!

          Plus, the first round pick will be in the early 20s at the least.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

            The problem with filler is that filler most likely will be Rodmanovic. That would add another PF that likes the 3 and can't play inside that will be here for 4 more years.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

              Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
              The problem with filler is that filler most likely will be Rodmanovic. That would add another PF that likes the 3 and can't play inside that will be here for 4 more years.
              Not unless we just move JONeal and don't include additional players like Tinsley or Murphy.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Not unless we just move JONeal and don't include additional players like Tinsley or Murphy.
                On realgm the only trade that does not include Odom that I can get to work has Rodmon in it. Or we would need to do a sign and trade with Mihm, McKie, or Walton. But why would we want to sign one of them. I don't know

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                  I don't know how you say that Farmar wouldn't be as good as Tinsley is now. If he can learn to keep his cool under playoff pressure than I see him as a good as Tinsley.

                  I should mention that I'm not much of Farmar fan but I am not dazzled by Tinsley ability to walk into the lane and miss a layup.

                  I really hope Odom isn't apart of the deal especially if he doesn't want to be here in the first place. This deal is like the gas prices. We get used to getting screwed so the pill is easier to swallow now.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                    Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                    On realgm the only trade that does not include Odom that I can get to work has Rodmon in it. Or we would need to do a sign and trade with Mihm, McKie, or Walton. But why would we want to sign one of them. I don't know
                    I could be wrong...but I'm not sure if the Trade Checker on RealGM uses the 2007-2008 contracts yet.

                    Correct me if I am wrong...but you could calculate whether a trade works by adding up the 2007-2008 salaries on Hoopshype Salary page and as long as the salaries are within 25% of each other + 100k...then the trade should work.

                    Pacers:

                    JONeal - outgoing 2007-2008 salary $19.71 mil

                    Lakers:

                    Kwame - outgoing 2007-2008 salary $9.075 mil
                    Bynum - outgoing 2007-2008 salary $2.72 mil
                    Farmar - outgoing 2007-2008 salary $1.009 mil
                    Maurice Evans - outgoing 2007-2008 salary $1.5 mil

                    The Lakers would have to send the Pacers about $15.9 mil in contracts to make the deal work.

                    The remaining "balence" of the trade that includes Kwame+Bynum+Farmar+Evans would either be a S&T of any Laker Player 2007-2008 Free Agent where the 2007-2008 contract is about $2.0 mil and/or the likely contract that the 19th pick gets. As DD00 suggested.....this can happen after Free Agency period begins.

                    I'm not saying that the above trade is fair...but from a Salary POV....I think it works.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                      Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                      On realgm the only trade that does not include Odom that I can get to work has Rodmon in it. Or we would need to do a sign and trade with Mihm, McKie, or Walton. But why would we want to sign one of them. I don't know
                      I think that Walton can be S&T ( probably between $2.5 mil to $3.5 mil a year ) as part of this deal to get a player in return that we can use.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                        Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                        Jordan Famar will never be as good as Tinsley is now, and that's saying something. No deal!

                        Plus, the first round pick will be in the early 20s at the least.
                        Does he have to be. Our whole backcourt has to be addressed.We could use a starting pg, backup pg and depending upon how high you are on Daniels/Dunlevy we probably need to add a two guard. The way I look at it if Farmer can give us 15-20 solid minutes off the bench then thats one less role we need to fill.

                        With the 19th pick this season I think it's a good chance that some combination of Belinellie, Fernandez, Cook and Young will be available.They all have a shot to be solid NBA players and at least one of them will be a very good player for somebody.Hope we pick the right guy.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                          Originally posted by Mal View Post
                          You can't make your moves thinking like that (I know some will argue they did with our last trade, but I'm light years away from being in the mood to go there). They booed Reggie Miller when we drafted him over Steve Alford. Fans can be dead wrong (but before anyone wants to jump on that either, it goes both ways).
                          Oh I agree, but at the point they drafted Reggie the franchise was so low we needed to take some sort of chance. The average Pacer fan is spoiled and fickle and isn't going to accept any trade that doesn't involve Odom and Bynum and at this point if we can't get them to do a deal where we get both I don't see much reason to do a deal with them at all.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                            Does anyone think the Lakers would still take Murphy if the trade on the table was like: JO/Murphy for Bynum/Kwame/Radman/Evans/19th? I don't have time to see if the trade works finanacially so sorry if it doesn't.
                            I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                              Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                              I personal think JO will still end up in LA. Reports there say Kobe thinks Odom & Bynum is too high a price. If as reported Dr. Buss is taking control I think he will get JO for Kobe.

                              In the end the Pacers could end up getting perhaps the 19 this season ,a future #1 in 2009 and "future considerations" to allow Odom to remain a Laker.

                              A compromise deal of Andrew Bynum , #19 this season, #1 in 2009 , Kwame Brown (his 9 mil expiring deal), Jordan Farmar , and filler for JO. The Lakers get their big 3 Kobe, JO and Odom.

                              Pacers gain youth Bynum and Farmar + 2-#1's , Brown's contract for trade or cap space , "future consideration " which could amount to money or a pick .

                              Just my thoughts.
                              I might do that, but who's our go to guy?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Other Possible JO Trade Mentioned on Sporting News Radio?

                                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                                I might do that, but who's our go to guy?
                                Danger of course

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X