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

The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

    Originally posted by 1980ROY View Post
    What I heard;

    Bynum, Kwame, Cook, McKie (cash to buy out McKie), #1 and Jordan Farmar for O'Neal.
    What I heard: "it aint gonna happen sonny, so move on"

    bye bye
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

      This guy is obviously a Laker fan!


      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...=tsn&type=lgns






      Pacers trade O'Neal? Probably, it's no deal

      Pacers trade O'Neal? Probably, it's no deal
      By Sean Deveney - SportingNews



      There would be some coincidence if, indeed, Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal is shipped to the Lakers to play alongside Kobe Bryant. After all, no pair of players has been more bizarrely uncertain of their desire to be traded this summer than Bryant and O'Neal.
      Bryant's trade-me/Laker-for-life escapades have been well-documented. O'Neal's aren't nearly as whimsical or controversial as Bryant's have been, but still, the big guy's words have followed an odd trajectory -- he told reporters that if the Pacers are rebuilding, he'd like to be dealt to the Nets or Lakers. He was also quoted as saying that Larry Bird was trying to gut the Lakers in his trade demands, but then O'Neal denied ever making that statement. By the end of Tuesday, he was firmly stating his desire to remain in Indiana.
      That might not be up to O'Neal. His waning trade value might be what keeps him with the Pacers.
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Once the Timberwolves moved Kevin Garnett, most around the league expected that O'Neal would be the next trade target. But as difficult as Garnett was to move because of his contract, a trade for O'Neal will be even tougher. That's because, dollar-wise, O'Neal is not far behind Garnett on the league's pay chart. He has three years remaining on his deal, at $63 million. And, like Garnett, he has some sway over where he is dealt -- he has an opt-out after next year, so he can threaten to bolt if he doesn't like his new home.
      The bigger difference is that O'Neal is not nearly as good as Garnett. He shot just 43.6 percent last year, and the 19.4 points per game he averaged were his lowest in five years. True, he has become a better shot-blocker and passer as he has matured, but, despite the fact that he is only 28, you have to wonder about his injury history. O'Neal missed 13 games last year, 32 the previous year and 28 three years ago.
      The funny thing is that O'Neal's phantom statement about the Pacers not being able to get a deal done because Bird wants to gut the teams he is making a deal with looks to be true. In any O'Neal discussion, the Pacers are asking for more in return than the Timberwolves got for Garnett. But O'Neal is not Garnett.
      One general manager wonders about O'Neal, "What's a fair-market value for a guy with that contract and injury history, coming off a bad year like that? He's an All-Star, in the East. But where does he rank on the list of forwards in the league? Not even Top 10."
      In fact, look at the All-NBA voting from last year. O'Neal got one measly vote, exactly as many as Tyson Chandler. That doesn't mean Chandler is as good as O'Neal, but it is evidence that O'Neal's status in the league has slipped, even though the Pacers aren't treating him that way in trade talks. Among centers and power forwards in All-NBA voting, O'Neal was tied for 15th. Garnett was sixth.
      To answers the GM's question, we can say for sure that O'Neal's market value is not at the Richard Jefferson/Nenad Krstic level, which is the package the Pacers discussed earlier with the Nets. That deal is off the table, because New Jersey realizes that's way too much to give up for O'Neal. In fact, though it is not quite possible to compare the two (because the Timberwolves sought and got payroll relief), it could be argued that the Jefferson/Krstic package for O'Neal would be better than what Minnesota took in for Garnett.
      The market for O'Neal is also not at the Lamar Odom/Andrew Bynum level. That's the package the Pacers want from the Lakers. The Lakers know that, and kudos to them for not making a deal simply because they're under pressure to do so. They want to give up only Kwame Brown and Bynum. That's not quite enough to get O'Neal, but the only other option for the Lakers is to give up Odom in a deal for O'Neal. That really doesn't do the team any good. It's likely that the Pacers will lower the asking price for O'Neal as the summer wears on. They'll probably never lower it to Brown/Bynum status, though, and (unless some third team gets involved) it's difficult to see any other way for the Lakers and Pacers to work out a deal that suits all sides -- the Lakers don't really have other assets to bolster the Brown/Bynum package to the point at which it makes sense for the Pacers to pull the trigger. L.A. just does not have the kind of young players other teams are after. Indiana does not want to pack its already loaded roster with so-so prospects like Jordan Farmar and Ronny Turiaf. So, O'Neal can waffle on his future with the Pacers. Or he can insist he's been clear all along, and only wants a trade if the team is rebuilding (which O'Neal says it is not). If O'Neal is sticking with his current stance, the one where he wants to stay in Indy and not be traded, he probably will get his wish. But not because the Pacers haven't tried.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

        this all might turn into a Jalen Rose style - it comes from the left wing all the while Rose is saying "I do not want to be traded"....

        Comment


        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

          LAKERERIC-

          So, the Pacers are headed to the Lottery next year huh ?

          Good, I hope so. I know that's a distinct minority view.
          But if we don't make a Bynum deal, considering the crying
          need for talent at C and the G spot and the fact that there
          will be 3 C prospects (Hibbert, Thabeet and Jordan) and
          3 stud G's (Rose, Gordon and Mayo) in next year's draft,
          I'll take a shot at one of those guys over a 45-46 win season
          and brief playoff appearance any day.

          But that's just me. I'd have already made the deal for Bynum, etc....

          Comment


          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

            Actually, the Deveny article was pretty on point with the reality of the situation.

            Indy is asking too much, LA doesn't have enough with just Bynum/Brown for Indy to bite.

            What young prospects on other teams has Indy coveted? Everyone talks about Luther Head here but I don't recall Bird showing an interest.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

              2Cleva-

              Agreed. Devaney is pretty much spot on. LA just doesn't have another
              young 'experienced' guy to throw in at a position of need. It's too bad
              as Bynum + Brown + a G like Head or similar would be a nice deal and
              fill 2 positions of need.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                Ouch, that hurts, JO not one of the ten best power forwards in the NBA. That hurts.

                I knew JO's trade value wasn't very high, but it is actually lower than I thought...

                Comment


                • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                  LAKERERIC had some "colorful" things to say to me via PM after his got an infraction last night. He's out.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Ouch, that hurts, JO not one of the ten best power forwards in the NBA. That hurts.

                    I knew JO's trade value wasn't very high, but it is actually lower than I thought...
                    Top 10? In putting together all measures of value.

                    Better than JO
                    Amare
                    Duncan
                    KG
                    Brand
                    Bosh
                    Dirk

                    Arguable
                    Gasol
                    Boozer


                    Not as good as JO
                    Randolph
                    Odom
                    Rasheed
                    Jefferson
                    Aldridge

                    No one else worth mentioning
                    Last edited by 2Cleva; 08-09-2007, 10:27 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Ouch, that hurts, JO not one of the ten best power forwards in the NBA. That hurts.

                      I knew JO's trade value wasn't very high, but it is actually lower than I thought...
                      If I write a biased article saying that JO is the best player ever to live, will his trade value then increase?

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        LAKERERIC had some "colorful" things to say to me via PM after his got an infraction last night. He's out.
                        He will be dearly missed.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                          Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
                          Top 10? In putting together all measures of value.

                          Better than JO
                          Amare
                          Duncan
                          KG
                          Brand
                          Bosh

                          Dirk

                          Arguable
                          Gasol
                          Boozer

                          Not as good as JO
                          Randolph
                          Rasheed
                          Jefferson
                          Aldridge
                          I have to argue with the bolded ones.

                          Amare is a better offensive player, but also doesn't draw near the double and triple-teams that JO does. Plus, he's in a system run by Steve Nash. And JO's defense is worlds better.

                          Brand is about at the same level as JO.

                          Bosh has not proven yet that he's better, though he has the potential to be.

                          And Gasol...I can only assume that's a joke.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            LAKERERIC had some "colorful" things to say to me via PM after his got an infraction last night. He's out.
                            I bet he felt better after letting it all out. Thanks for making the world a better place.
                            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


                            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                              Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                              I have to argue with the bolded ones.

                              Amare is a better offensive player, but also doesn't draw near the double and triple-teams that JO does. Plus, he's in a system run by Steve Nash. And JO's defense is worlds better.

                              Brand is about at the same level as JO.

                              Bosh has not proven yet that he's better, though he has the potential to be.

                              And Gasol...I can only assume that's a joke.
                              I agree. If we're talking about stats alone, then it's a whole different story. I would go as far as to say Dirk's game is so different that you couldn't compare the two, but I will: I think JO is a better overall player than Dirk.

                              BTW, nice avatar.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Ouch, that hurts, JO not one of the ten best power forwards in the NBA. That hurts.

                                I knew JO's trade value wasn't very high, but it is actually lower than I thought...
                                he's also technically been playing the 5. i doubt jermaine is one of the 10 best SGs either.
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X