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
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    If a trade with the Nets is done, I want Sean Williams. Ain't no way Krstic is going to give us help in the paint. Like I said before, Krstic is the reason the Nets want JO!
    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


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

      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
      The NJ deal saprks my interest, but not a whole lot. For one, it would instantly give the Nets a better "big 3" then what they had. The Nets would be a serious contender in the East.... our conference.
      We need to face facts. We're not going to be a contender the next couple years, no matter what we do. And a couple years is really all the window NJ has left with Kidd.

      My only problem is I hated when SA won their first title, because I wanted to be the first ABA team to win an NBA championship. I consoled myself that, as long as we won a title before New Jersey, we'd be the only team to win both championships. But even while they may very well do well in the East, I still find them beating SA or Phoenix doubtful.
      Last edited by Kegboy; 07-01-2007, 09:59 PM.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
        We need to face facts. We're not going to be a contender the next couple years, no matter what we do. And a couple years is really all the window NJ has left with Kidd.

        My only problem is I hated when SA won their first title, because I wanted to be the first ABA team to win an NBA championship. I consoled myself that, as long as we won a title before New Jersey, we'd be the only team to win both championships. But even while they may very well do well in the East, I still find them beating SA or Phoenix doubtful.
        We're not if we make the NJ deal, and may not be no matter, but I think there's deals out there for JO that we could make, that may leave us in better shape then we thought we could be in.

        NJ could be a really good team if they landed JO. They played the Cavs well during the playoffs without JO, and probably would've won with him. Maybe the Pistons would've beat them, but the Nets probably would've made the Finals and competed better then the Cavs! JO upgrades there frontcourt tremendously, and Nachbar or Wright would just step in as a 4th option for Jefferson who was the 2nd or 3rd option.

        The only concern for the Nets would be depth and durability... which can be overcome

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Y2J View Post
          I like the Nets deal a lot. I didn't at first, but upon further review of Nenad Krstic I've concluded that he's on his way to being a stud. He has so much offensive talent, I'd say more right now at the age of 23 than J.O. has ever had or will ever have. He needs to work on his rebounding and defense some, but he's well worth the risk in my opinion. His offensive game would also compliment Ike Diogu a lot. Then you throw in another 20 point guy like Jefferson, and a young point guard with some potential, and I don't think even Larry Bird could turn the deal down.
          I'm not sold on Krstic. Honestly, right now, is he really any better than Troy Murphy? At best he'll be Mehmet Okur... at worst he'll be injury prone and be a weak rebounder. Sure he shot the ball like an All-Star against us in 2006 but he then disappeared against the Heat in round two. :

          I don't like this trade at all. We'd be giving the Nets a path to the Finals in the weak east, Jefferson is too injury prone and not consistent enough when he is healthy, and I'd hate to see JO play in the east and have to watch him drop 30+ on the Pacers 3-4 times a season.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
            Jefferson is too injury prone
            He's had 2 injuries, a torn ligament in his wrist a few years ago (that he says was blown when Chauncey Billups undercut him on a layup), and bone spurs in his ankle this past winter. He had surgery for both and recovered fine. The other 4 years of his career he averaged 80 games a season. Only Pacer I can think of that can match that was Reggie.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              He's had 2 injuries, a torn ligament in his wrist a few years ago (that he says was blown when Chauncey Billups undercut him on a layup), and bone spurs in his ankle this past winter. He had surgery for both and recovered fine. The other 4 years of his career he averaged 80 games a season. Only Pacer I can think of that can match that was Reggie.
              Would DG play at SG, we would have just too many SF, and a soft-front court

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                Would DG play at SG, we would have just too many SF, and a soft-front court
                I think Jefferson and Danny can play together, regardless of what position you want to call them. Same as he and Carter, I wouldn't call Vince a natural 2. I think he's a lot better equipped to defend the smaller, quicker 2-guards than Dunleavy is.

                Yes, Krstic isn't a bruiser, but he's already very skilled for 23 and he's gonna get better. Plus he won't get in Diogu's way down low. Defensively, yeah, it's gonna hurt, but our perimeter defense will be greatly improved.

                But I think the key to this is Williams. NJ doesn't want to lose him because he's Kidd's successor. Hell, they almost traded Kidd away.

                Bynum's still got a higher ceiling than Williams, no doubt about it. But I sure like Krstic and Jefferson more than Odom and Farmar, both on productivity and how they'll fit our team.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  I think Jefferson and Danny can play together, regardless of what position you want to call them. Same as he and Carter, I wouldn't call Vince a natural 2. I think he's a lot better equipped to defend the smaller, quicker 2-guards than Dunleavy is.

                  Yes, Krstic isn't a bruiser, but he's already very skilled for 23 and he's gonna get better. Plus he won't get in Diogu's way down low. Defensively, yeah, it's gonna hurt, but our perimeter defense will be greatly improved.

                  But I think the key to this is Williams. NJ doesn't want to lose him because he's Kidd's successor. Hell, they almost traded Kidd away.

                  Bynum's still got a higher ceiling than Williams, no doubt about it. But I sure like Krstic and Jefferson more than Odom and Farmar, both on productivity and how they'll fit our team.

                  I just don't know where our perimeter shooting is going to come from if your playing Granger and Jefferson together.Jefferson can defend two guards and he's more then capable of getting 18pts a game, the question is he a good fit for this team when he making 12million per year.

                  As far as Kristic is concerned, he's got alot of talent and he's going to improve.Even if he didn't improved and stayed at his current level he's a borderline allstar center.The question is how bad will our fontcourt defense be with Diagu/Kritic in the game?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    I think Jefferson and Danny can play together, regardless of what position you want to call them. Same as he and Carter, I wouldn't call Vince a natural 2. I think he's a lot better equipped to defend the smaller, quicker 2-guards than Dunleavy is.

                    Yes, Krstic isn't a bruiser, but he's already very skilled for 23 and he's gonna get better. Plus he won't get in Diogu's way down low. Defensively, yeah, it's gonna hurt, but our perimeter defense will be greatly improved.

                    But I think the key to this is Williams. NJ doesn't want to lose him because he's Kidd's successor. Hell, they almost traded Kidd away.

                    Bynum's still got a higher ceiling than Williams, no doubt about it. But I sure like Krstic and Jefferson more than Odom and Farmar, both on productivity and how they'll fit our team.
                    I really like the way our team could look with the New Jersey trade.

                    Jefferson is a very good player. He has improved his shooting each year. Although he has always played with Jason Kidd so that makes you wonder what can he do when he isn't playing with one of the best point guards in the league? But I think he would be just fine. He also improves our perminter defense a lot. Him and Granger would be a nice 1-2 punch.

                    Down low I think that on offense Ike and Kristic would be a great complament to one another. Ike scoring on the blocks and Kristic can face up ala Pau Gasol. Not saying he is on Pau's level but he reminds me of Pau somewhat. However both need to improve a lot on defense and rebounding, especially Kristic.

                    Here is what I don't get. We had the chance to grab Marcus Williams last year but decided to go with Shawne Williams. Now Marcus is the hold up in this deal? Please no. We don't need another possible problem child. We can't just cut him like we will be able to with Kareem Rush. Another thing I don't get is why didn't we just tell the Nets we wanted their pick in this draft and have them pick for us?

                    Jefferson, does he have injury issues? The past 3 years he has played in 33, 78, and 55 games. We need to be as sure as we can that he will be healthy for us.

                    There are some things I really like about this trade but other things that make me pause.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      I think Jefferson and Danny can play together, regardless of what position you want to call them. Same as he and Carter, I wouldn't call Vince a natural 2. I think he's a lot better equipped to defend the smaller, quicker 2-guards than Dunleavy is.

                      Yes, Krstic isn't a bruiser, but he's already very skilled for 23 and he's gonna get better. Plus he won't get in Diogu's way down low. Defensively, yeah, it's gonna hurt, but our perimeter defense will be greatly improved.

                      But I think the key to this is Williams. NJ doesn't want to lose him because he's Kidd's successor. Hell, they almost traded Kidd away.

                      Bynum's still got a higher ceiling than Williams, no doubt about it. But I sure like Krstic and Jefferson more than Odom and Farmar, both on productivity and how they'll fit our team.

                      I also know that Nenad is a solid player, is young, and can/should improve, but let's not forget that who he was playing with.
                      Kidd is one of the best PG's ever, even a Vince Carter settling for bad shots in a dangerous Vince Carter, and I think we all know that Jefferson is pretty good when healthy!

                      That being said, look at what Mikki Moore did when Krstic went down. He put up some pretty solid numbers as well, and those numbers improve as the season went on and he got more minutes and more comfortable.

                      There's no near Kidd's talent at our PG position. Vince Carter is still better then any of our wing players right now, so let's not overvalue Nenad please.
                      Last edited by pwee31; 07-02-2007, 02:30 AM. Reason: misread. thanks for pickup Mal

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                        I'm not sold on Krstic. Honestly, right now, is he really any better than Troy Murphy? At best he'll be Mehmet Okur...
                        I think he could be as good as Memo right now. Nenad is only 23 (24 in a few weeks), whereas Memo is 28. Nenad actually reminds me a little of Rik Smits. I think he could have an even better career than Rik had. He's certainly better at a similar age I'd say. Then throw in a top-10 SF and a possibly a promising young point guard. I don't know, that'd be hard to pass up. I do prefer Andrew Bynum though, but only because I think so highly of him. I still like the Nets deal.

                        Comment


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

                          The only problem that I with this trade is RJeff....he's a "close to" All-Star level SF....but his contract is very prohibitive. Although 2 season...he played 78 games.....but the season before that....he played 33 games and this last season played 55 games.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


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

                            Kegboy said "isn't a bruiser".

                            Comment


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

                              I think RJ is underrated. Since Vince has gotten there, he really has not been that aggressive on offense. He's very capable of scoring off the bounce, but he has been held back and resigned himself to playing good D, being a finisher in transition, hitting spot up jumpers, curling off picks, slashing and occassionaly going one-on-one from the wing.

                              They never call anything for him like you always hear about Marion, and he gets all his points in the flow of the offense. I think he's capable of being somewhere in the neighborhood of Paul Pierce/Luol Deng-type scorer if he was asked to do more. He has the same penetration style as those two and the same excellent mid-range game. Also can post a little and shoot the three a little. Look at the year before Vince got there, when he was taking 5 more shots a game and putting up 22 per game. His normally 45% + shooting dropped down to 42% or so that year, which might suggest he took more bad shots when he was asked to do more, but I would argue that his game and generally understanding of how to score has evolved since then.

                              Essentially, he's what we're hoping Danny will become. And he has that savvy, intelligence of, say, Derrick McKey.

                              All that said, we probably don't need RJ if we already have Danny. Clearly better, but all in all, a little redundant.
                              Last edited by JayRedd; 07-02-2007, 02:37 AM.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


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

                                We need to accept this deal without Williams (who I don't think they will give up any time soon and instead demand a future 1st). I think that RJ could easily become our franchise guy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X