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

Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 9
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 template Next
  • #1

    Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

    Despite Bird's rant, it seems likely that the Pacers were getting serious with NJ.....

    http://www.nj.com/nets/ledger/index....650.xml&coll=1

    Nets see good in BC's Williams
    Talent outweighs issues for shot-blocking forward
    Friday, June 29, 2007
    BY DAVE D'ALESSANDRO
    Star-Ledger Staff
    The Nets got bigger last night. So did their baggage.

    As they embarked on their annual pursuit of size, they were stonewalled in a bold attempt to land Jermaine O'Neal, so they opted to fill the gaping hole in the middle of their defense with the troubled but talented Sean Williams of Boston College.

    The 6-11 forward, who was the best shot-blocker in the nation last season before Eagles coach Al Skinner threw him off the team for a positive drug test last January, was taken 17th in the NBA Draft last night because the Nets concluded that his talent was just too good to pass up.

    "There were several players we were interested in, and several didn't make it down," said Rod Thorn, perhaps referring to shooting guard Nick Young of USC, who was taken by Washington one spot earlier. "Our feeling is, at 17, Williams was the one player who had a tremendous upside. Obviously there have been issues. We got all the information we could, we looked at it very closely in the past month, and our feeling was the potential was worth the risk, so to speak.

    "We met with him several times. He's a bright young man, made over 1,200 on his boards. One thing that's not known about him is that after he was dismissed, he stayed in school and completed the semester there. He's a player we felt (whose) upside -- where we were drafting -- was definitely worth the risk."

    An even larger risk had emerged in the previous 48 hours, when the Nets thought they could get Indiana interested in parting with O'Neal, the perennial All-Star power forward. The Nets, who have been shopping Richard Jefferson throughout the league the last few weeks in hopes of landing a quality big man and also put Nenad Krstic and Jason Collins on the table, initiated the talks.

    According to two members of the Pacers' organization who requested anonymity because of the nature of the topic, discussions were still going on yesterday afternoon, but both believed that the deal had very little chance of happening.

    Even Jefferson had his doubts: "They told me that they would keep us together," he told ESPN last night. "They said, 'Don't believe all the talk. We're not trading you.' They said they want to keep the team together. I want to stay. I want to win games in New York."

    Freudian slip aside, he got his wish -- at least for one more day. Thorn himself would not address the O'Neal discussion, stating, "I can't remember a time when there were so many rumors involving trades involving star players. Jermaine O'Neal, Kobe Bryant. Every time you turn on TV, there was as rumor about Amare Stoudemire, somebody. As usual, the vast majority of it was fluff, no credence."

    For now, however, the Nets president seemed perfectly satisfied with Williams. Thorn and general manager Ed Stefanski had flown to Houston Monday afternoon to watch the Mansfield, Texas native work out with John Lucas at Rice University. They had spoken with Williams only once previously. By then, however, both Nets officials had seemed to make up their minds, due in part to the character reference Thorn received from Skinner, who played for Thorn when he was a Nets assistant coach in the ABA.

    http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?...Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

    Nets eyeing Pacers' O'Neal

    Friday, June 29, 2007

    By AL IANNAZZONE
    STAFF WRITER



    EAST RUTHERFORD – The Nets are trying to make themselves an Eastern power by adding an All-Star big man to their roster.

    They have had discussions with the Indiana Pacers about Jermaine O'Neal, offering Richard Jefferson and Nenad Krstic as the two biggest pieces, multiple league sources said. Other players may have to be involved to make it work for salary cap purposes.

    Indiana wanted Marcus Williams, too, but the Nets are reluctant to part with the talented point guard. That could change, of course.

    New Jersey would rather give up Jason Collins than Krstic, but Indiana wants a scoring big man back. The Lakers also are trying to get O'Neal, but likely won't be able to if they don't part with Andrew Bynum.

    It's hard to gauge how serious the talks are, but O'Neal coming to the Nets is a possibility, although Indiana isn't ready to pull the trigger on anything yet.

    O'Neal could be the missing piece to the Nets' championship puzzle. Teaming him with Jason Kidd and Vince Carter, who by all accounts will agree on a new deal with the Nets as early as Sunday, would give the Nets a formidable team.

    However, they would lose two starters, two quality scorers and could deplete their bench if they land O'Neal.

    With Carter's new deal and O'Neal's $19.7 million salary next season it would be difficult for the Nets to sign free agents without going too far over the luxury tax.

    They may be unable to re-sign Mikki Moore and may have to sign free agents to minimum contracts.
    Last edited by RSmits; 06-29-2007, 10:30 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

    Here's the Net players salaries in question.

    Jason Collins NJN $6,100,000 $6,200,000
    Richard Jefferson NJN ETO-10 $12,200,000 $13,200,000 $14,200,000
    Nenad Krstic NJN $1,889,760
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

      So you mean we could have Shawne and Marcus Williams reunited at last ?

      RJ and Krstic intruiging but I wonder how both are healing or have healed from thier surgeries. Although I don't see why we would want our highest paid player to play the same spot as Granger that would make little sense..

      Why Not Us ?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

        The deal with LA is much more preferable when you just look at the health of the players. RJ and Krstic could be damaged goods due to the injuries they've amassed, while I believe that JO is equally damaged goods because of the health problems he's had. I don't know if I can go through another year of JO missing random *** games because of these reoccuring knee problems.

        If the Lakers will give up Odom and Bynum, who are both relatively healthy compared to RJ and Krstic who have had major injuries, well by all means take the LA deal. I know that Odom has had some health problems but its nothing that is possibly career crippling like what has happened to RJ and Krstic.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

          If we can get RJ, Kristic, and Marcus Williams ..... I would surely be interested.

          Kristic, and Marcus gives us the young PG, and C we lack, and I'd love to move RJ for a true SG in a year or two. I'm diggin it.

          -- Steve --

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

            I just love it "speaking on the condition of anonimity". I wouldn't give two cents for any employee doing this whether they were right or wrong.
            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

              im not sure its fair to say jeff/krstic are injury prone...

              krstic in his three seasons has played 75, 80 and 27 games. a torn ACL isn't usually career threatening.

              jefferson has played 79, 80, 82, 33, 78 and 55 games in his six seasons. the 33 game season was for a ruptured wrist lig. and this most recent season was for ankle issues/surgery.

              jermaine's injuries have seem to be lingering and reoccuring.

              that being said, i wouldn't really understand this trade... jefferson isn't a shooter and i'm not sure he can play SG
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                I'd certainly be interested. I remember Krstic from the playoffs 2 years ago, our big guys couldn't contain him. Nenad still has a big upside and he would look great next to Diogu.

                What if a 3rd team takes on RJ and we get a PG and/or SG?

                I think of Bibby who also is on the hot seat in Sactown and RJ could be a good replacement for RA, who could be traded to Miami for Jason Williams.
                Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                  Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                  I just love it "speaking on the condition of anonimity". I wouldn't give two cents for any employee doing this whether they were right or wrong.
                  I don't disagree. This could however be a nice way to leak some info by TPTB so that others on another possible deal would feel some pressure.

                  IMO nothing is to be believed until it happens. The unfortunate part is that sometimes these media hacks are right, but the deal doesn't happen. Makes 'em look stupid, which also sometimes they are.
                  Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                    Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                    I'd certainly be interested. I remember Krstic from the playoffs 2 years ago, our big guys couldn't contain him. Nenad still has a big upside and he would look great next to Diogu.

                    What if a 3rd team takes on RJ and we get a PG and/or SG?

                    I think of Bibby who also is on the hot seat in Sactown and RJ could be a good replacement for RA, who could be traded to Miami for Jason Williams.
                    i was wondering about that too... but my thought was the jazz... with JO, AK and Jefferson/Krstic being the principles... maybe include Almond to the Pacers

                    although i suppose it would probably be easier to just do a Jersey Utah two way like that.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                      I don't see the point in a trade like this for us. All it would do is make us a really bad version of what the Nets have been the last few years.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                        Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                        I'd certainly be interested. I remember Krstic from the playoffs 2 years ago, our big guys couldn't contain him.
                        If we traded for every player that looked good against us, we'd have about a 300-player roster.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                          Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                          I don't see the point in a trade like this for us. All it would do is make us a really bad version of what the Nets have been the last few years.
                          which is a little better than the atlanta-all-SF-all-the-time model we've been using lately. at least new jersey has sniffed the finals in the last decade.
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            which is a little better than the atlanta-all-SF-all-the-time model we've been using lately. at least new jersey has sniffed the finals in the last decade.
                            Really bad version = all the scrubs, none of the stars

                            Add to that that the players we'd be getting are horribly injury-prone, and it gets a big "no thanks" from me.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                              If we trade Jermaine, Foster is our only tough big man (I dunno about Maceo)!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 template Next
                              Working...
                              X