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

Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

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

  • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

    Originally posted by tadscout View Post
    I agree, then we draft a SG at 19 (Almond or Belinelli) and we'll have solid round talent at every position... and have 2 more first rounders next year to fill everything out... basically this would be taking the bulls approach building through young talent...
    Except the Bulls didn't have terrible contracts weighing them down.

    I'm telling you, if we don't move Murphy it's going to come back and bite us in the patookus.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

      Who the Lakers take at #19 on Thursday should tell us whether a trade is going down or not. If they take a shooter, then they're most likely drafting for us.

      Comment


      • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

        Pwee which players will make it likely that the Lakers and Pacers will deal?

        Rudy Fernandez?
        "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

        Comment


        • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

          Originally posted by Smashed_Potato View Post
          Pwee which players will make it likely that the Lakers and Pacers will deal?

          Rudy Fernandez?
          Well I think Rudy would be the main guy. Bird has really been on his trail the last few years.

          I don't think Kobe is going anywhere, and the Lakers have bigger worries then a backup SG behind Kobe, so I think if they go SG at all, that player will be a Pacer.

          Rudy, Belinelli, N.Young, Almond would probably all be Pacers if the Lakers were to pick one.

          Comment


          • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

            Hasn't Rudy been a name in the draft the last 3 years? I"m not sure I want to use a 1st round pick on someone that might never make it to the United States.

            Comment


            • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
              I'm certainly not exactly a Troy Murphy fan, but despite defensive liabilities, his offensive production hasn't been too bad.

              01/02 - 6 / 4 (Rookie)
              02/03 - 12 / 10
              03/04 - 10 / 6
              04/05 - 15 / 11
              05/06 - 14 / 10
              06/07 - 10 / 6 (Traded to Pacers)

              This last season, I'm guessing that his injury problem had something to do with his productivity. Being traded to a new team without benefit of much practice time to develop chemistry can also keep productivity down a bit.
              You're forgetting something even bigger than "maybe an injury"...TEMPO. Jack and Al saw numbers go up and I (despite allegedly being a Jack fanboy, which I'm not in any way) was quick to point out that really he was doing THE SAME there as Indy because they simply had a lot more trips per game.

              See the thing is that I ran Troy's per minute (and that doesn't even account for tempo) rebounding and he was always below what Foster has been doing the last few years. So even if JOB goes up tempo and it gets Troy back to 9-10 boards, that would likely mean 13-14 boards by Jeff instead. And if the guys from last year are the ones shooting 3s...let's just say a lot of rebounding will be required.

              I do like Troy's offense in general, though I'm not sold on him as a key passer/pivot. He's often been an end-point, either spotting up or working the iso under Rick. I've said it before, Troy would APPEAR to be the perfect JOB player, a guy lacking in defense that can be inspired to work the team defensive scheme much better simply by getting the green to bomb away at the other end, which he can actually make good on around 40% of the time.

              Pair him with Danny and Shawne and you have guys that COULD D it up pretty well and then run up the score from the arc at the other end. Hey, it's got me curious enough that I want to check it out at least.

              Comment


              • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                Bynum, Brown, Farmar, S/T McKie, 19th pick, 2008 1st round pick

                Well. That certainly wouldn't be the worst trade in the world. Two young guys and two first round picks. I don't like that we didn't get a proven vet player, but it looks like they DID at least concede on Farmar. And honestly a decent young pg is probably more valuable to us than someone like Odom. Instead of Odom and his contract we get Farmar and a future first. That deal is certainly not 'crap,' IMO, but it depends on what you think of Farmar and Bynum. I think they'll both be very solid players, and given the positions they play, that's a pretty sweet deal for us.
                Seems too good to be true to me, though I really would like JO to stay.

                Your 3 young prospects: Bynum, Farmar and perhaps an SG like Rudy (seems likely). Not sure if 2008 pick helps or not.

                Tins, Farmar
                Dun, Quis, #19
                Granger, Shawne
                Foster, Ike
                Troy, Bynum

                It's possible for JOB to ease in both Ike and Bynum thanks to having vets Jeff and Troy on the roster. You get Troy's 3 and Jeff's rebounds together, most of your offense comes from Dun, Troy and Granger, with Quis leading off the bench. And as things progress you move Ike and Bynum up the scoring totem pole, and if they don't it's not a total disaster.

                Really doesn't change too much when you think about it. I mean isn't the big question next season centered on what Troy and Dun can deliver? With or without JO this team is only going to go as far as those 2 can take them if they are both still around.

                Comment


                • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                  Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                  Hasn't Rudy been a name in the draft the last 3 years? I"m not sure I want to use a 1st round pick on someone that might never make it to the United States.
                  Yeah but he has pulled out b/c his buyout has been so terrible. And it will be again, but he's in the last season of his contract so whomever drafts him will either hope to come to terms, or wait a year before his arrival (which is something I don't want the Pacers to do)

                  Here is a link to an article regarding his situation. It's the last article

                  http://draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=2132

                  I personally don't think Rudy will be the pick, but if he is I believe he will be a Pacer.

                  I honestly think Belinelli will be the pick if he's there, and it's not a given he will be there. I'm hearing he's the 3rd best SG behind Brewer and Nick Young, and Brewer being a SG is questionable.

                  I'm also hearing that Koponen is the 4th best PG behind Conley, Law, and Crittenton. He's probably going to go late 1st, though 19 would be a bit of a reach.

                  Again my guess is Marco Belinelli

                  Comment


                  • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                    Originally posted by Smashed_Potato View Post
                    According to AM570 Pacers are willing to take Odom/Luke/#1 could be why Indy_Dave stated talks will be on hold until July since Luke can't be included in any deal until July.
                    I like the other deal discussed here WAY better.
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                      Just didn't want to lose track of this thread...

                      Technically it's more accurate, since the 4-way is dead.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                        Can someone refresh my memory, isn't Luke Walton a pretty good shooter?

                        If so... you don't think that's the "great shooter" Larry Bird is talking about do you.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                          This has probably been mentioned - but I just heard on ESPN NEWS that the talks of KG to the Lakers is dead, but that the Lakers have re-engaged talks with the Pacers for JO.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                            Chad Ford was on Mike and Mike, but I couldn't listen I had to go to work, which keeps getting in the way of following this. Does anyone know what he said.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                              Originally posted by Speed View Post
                              Chad Ford was on Mike and Mike, but I couldn't listen I had to go to work, which keeps getting in the way of following this. Does anyone know what he said.
                              Sounds like you need to quit your job. Where are your priorities?

                              I heard part of what Chad said, although if he talked about JO, I must have missed it. Chad said there is a rea possibility that the Suns will trade Amare for KG, or at least they are willing to. Amare isn't always an easy guy to coach or play with

                              Comment


                              • Re: Jermaine To L.A. Talks Continue?

                                Here is a link that I pulled off the IS.

                                http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...s_oneal-1.html

                                Not sure if this has already been posted.
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X