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

Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

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

  • #31
    Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
    I would want a 2008, or a 2013 when hopefully the Laker's would be in the Lottery.
    Presuming we keep our pick for the next draft we will have a high lottery, i would be more then willing to aquire 1st round picks down the road. not having a 2008 first round pick from LA isn't a deal breaker.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

      this deal wont get done. The lakers wont part with both bynum and LO. The pacers wont do the deal without both included. I aslo have serious doubts that NJ will actually part with both Kristic and Jefferson. If that was the case then why hasnt management pulled the trigger. That deal is better than odom and bynum IMO.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

        Originally posted by purplengoldjonez View Post
        this deal wont get done. The lakers wont part with both bynum and LO. The pacers wont do the deal without both included. I aslo have serious doubts that NJ will actually part with both Kristic and Jefferson. If that was the case then why hasnt management pulled the trigger. That deal is better than odom and bynum IMO.
        First of all, I don't believe that the proposed Jefferson/Krstic deal is better than Odom/Bynum.

        Second of all, addressing your question as to why hasn't management pulled the trigger on the NJ deal. The simple fact that Jersey is another Eastern Conference team probably has a lot to do with things. I'm sure we'd rather send Jermaine to a team in the West than have to face him 4 times/year plus potential playoff games in the East.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

          Originally posted by rcarey View Post
          Second of all, addressing your question as to why hasn't management pulled the trigger on the NJ deal. The simple fact that Jersey is another Eastern Conference team probably has a lot to do with things. I'm sure we'd rather send Jermaine to a team in the West than have to face him 4 times/year plus potential playoff games in the East.
          Actually, I've always wondered why teams are so scared to send their (best) players to a team in the same conference. I thought a trade is all about making your own team better, who cares if you have to face your former star player more often?

          Btw, good to see you posting again, Scott
          Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
          Bum in Berlin on Myspace

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

            lol it's dead...stop holding onto false hope. Kobes gone..hahha
            "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

              I don't particularly like the NJ deal. In fact, I think it sucks. Maybe I'm undervaluing RJ, and putting too much emphasis on Kristic's knee surgery.

              But what it comes down to is that RJ is yet another 2/3. So, if we make that deal, we have to trade two of Granger/Williams/Dunleavy. Not that I'm particularly in love with any of those three, but we're already unbalanced and that trade makes it worse - and it's harder to work out mulitple trades than it is one.
              Last edited by Doug; 07-08-2007, 03:13 PM.
              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

              - Jimmy Buffett

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                Originally posted by indyman37 View Post
                I'd take the first deal in a heartbeat.
                So, let me get this straight...

                You'd trade a solid post-presence in JO and a decent big man who can shoot from the floor despite his foul troubles for: 1 "unproven" rookie (Crittenton), 1 player who just had two surgeries over the summer to date (Kwame), 1 post-player who has barely broken out of his rookie shell (Omar Cook), a post-player who barely plays at JO's level (Odom), and a future draft pick?

                No thanks!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                  The reason Indy hasn't already taken NJ's deal is pretty simple - RJ's contract doesn't end until 2011 and his best position is SF.

                  Why would Indy want to invest that much in another SF, when Granger is one of their cornerstones, Williams has shown flashes, and they're already overpaying for another small forward in Mike Dunleavy.

                  Pigeon-holing RJ at SG might make them playoff contenders but the worst position you could put a franchise in is perennial 1st/2nd round fodder - not good enough to contend, but too good to get a good lottery pick - that's basically the same position the Lakers are in. What's worse, they be as such with a bloated payroll.

                  Personally, I'd rather win 1 championship and go lottery for 4 years then wallow in that situation for 5 years.

                  Make the deal for Bynum, Crit, future pick, and expiring Ks and you'll be 10mil under the cap next summer to go along with a talented young core. I've also heard rumors that you intend to deal Foster for an expiring K and pick. Do that and you'll be 15mil under instead.

                  avoidingtheclowns made a point that Indy is a hard place to sell FAs on, but you could always do what Charlotte (for J-Rich) and ATL almost did (for Amare) by taking back extra salary in a trade. So not only do you put yourself in position to be a player in one of the best FA classes in years, but you could instead consume a large contract from a team trying to clear cap-space to score one of those FAs.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                    Originally posted by gng930 View Post
                    Laker fan here -

                    You don't want Cook, soft big man who does nothing but shoot. Threw his warmups at Phil Jackson's feet at one point this season. He's easily my least favorite player on the team. Troy Murphy does the exact same but gives you rebounding and some interior strength.

                    Your best bet is Mo and Sasha - both expiring, both will get minutes. Although Sasha won't contribute as much as Brian Cook, but he's about $9 million cheaper. The Lakers would probably try to push McKie instead of Mo though. In the end, I doubt they hold out for Mo.
                    Tx for the input. What are your thoughts on Crittenton? If we bypass going for Odom....which means we are going for the complete rebuild...I would much rather have him over Farmar. I have read from several Laker posters that suggest that he would definitely fit in the Triangle offense.....but do you think that he would be a major hurdle that the Lakers would put up in any negotiations?

                    I suspect that the Lakers would prefer ( as you suggest ) to push Cook, McKie and/or Farmar instead of Crittenton and MoEvans......both players that I suspect the Pacers would want ( Crittenton...for the obvious upside and MoEvans mainly cuz of his Expiring Contract ).
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                      I still am not willing to cave in from LO and Bynum. There are not enough attractive pieces that I would want that I would move JO for.
                      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                        Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                        So, let me get this straight...

                        You'd trade a solid post-presence in JO and a decent big man who can shoot from the floor despite his foul troubles for: 1 "unproven" rookie (Crittenton), 1 player who just had two surgeries over the summer to date (Kwame), 1 post-player who has barely broken out of his rookie shell (Omar Cook), a post-player who barely plays at JO's level (Odom), and a future draft pick?

                        No thanks!
                        I just liked the deal cause we got Bynum and Crittenton, dang. Kwame is an expiring contract anyways so who cares about him. That and I've never liked Harrison. And now I'm to the point where I almost feel sorry for JO having to play here, even though I know I shouldn't be.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Tx for the input. What are your thoughts on Crittenton? If we bypass going for Odom....which means we are going for the complete rebuild...I would much rather have him over Farmar. I have read from several Laker posters that suggest that he would definitely fit in the Triangle offense.....but do you think that he would be a major hurdle that the Lakers would put up in any negotiations?

                          I suspect that the Lakers would prefer ( as you suggest ) to push Cook, McKie and/or Farmar instead of Crittenton and MoEvans......both players that I suspect the Pacers would want ( Crittenton...for the obvious upside and MoEvans mainly cuz of his Expiring Contract ).
                          I honestly haven't seen enough of Crit to make an assessment. He seems to have to tools to be a star in the league and that is consistent with many of the posts that I've read about him. Make no mistake...he is going to be a project.

                          As for the triangle, he is a perfect fit because of his size and because he ran it throughout high-school. As you can see, he has more experience with it than most of the Laker squad.

                          I'm not sure where the org stands on Farmar VS Crit. They'd probably need to get a good look at them during the SPL and training camp to make a final decision. I know that Farmar's performance in the SPL last year was a pleasant surprise. Crit clearly has greater potential, but Farmar seems to have better point-guard instincts.

                          If Indy insists on Crit, then it comes down to Odom VS Crit for the Lakers in which case it is no contest. Personally, I'd make the same decision.

                          As for Mo, I don't think the Lakers turn down the deal just to keep him. They will definitely try to push McKie instead until the final hour though.

                          It will also come down to Cook VS Sasha. I hate both since neither can play a lick of defense, but at least Sasha tries. Cook has a bad attitude and the fact that they gave him that extension continues to bother me to this day. Still, for some reason, Phil and the rest of the org has a man crush on who I consider to be the tallest (and slowest) shooting guard in the league. The team would probably rather send out Sasha, but if you want Cook instead he's all yours.
                          Last edited by gng930; 07-08-2007, 11:29 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                            might as well just wait and see how JO performs under JoB.
                            http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                              I have a feeling the longer the Pacers drag out this deal any longer, it eventually hurts the Pacers more than the Lakers. The Lakers already have a second thought about moving Andrew Bynum. Bynum already shows sign of improving. He had been working out daily, which impress the Lakers FO. As of right now, the Lakers will only move Andrew Bynum for KG, because that is the only way of keeping Kobe. Dr. Buss willing to give up on Bynum if it means to keep Kobe. JO is not the player that makes Kobe take back his trade demand, which I think will hurt the Pacers chance of acquiring Bynum or make a deal happens.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Lakers-Pacers deal still lurking I think

                                The longer this drags out, the less likely it ever happens.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X