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

    JO for Alston/Battier/Head/Sura/Lucas would work, although it wouldn't give us a big to replace JO's shot blocking.
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

    Comment


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

      "It has been long rumored that Indiana might buy out veteran Darrell Armstrong, who has two years remaining on his deal. The 39-year-old has many of the skills the Nets would need, but Thorn cannot comment on a player still under contract with another team..."

      Buyout? I thought we owned the option in the contract?

      -Bball
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
        Am I the only one that is sickened by that prospected NJ Nets deal? I'm not sold on Krstic and I'm not sure that Jefferson will be enough. Ultimately, I think having those two players would make the Pacers considerably worse and without any salary relief.
        Nope. I hated that trade.

        The quote from Donnie posted above about how we would only do the trade if we could move RJ somewhere else makes sense to me.
        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


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

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Wow, no kidding. Put Bynum Brigade on suicide watch.
          Are all these quotes coming from the fact that one writer chose to use the word "persuade"? If anything, it seems like he was just throwing this idea out there, which suggests he's not very in the loop on this one.

          I think you guys are a little off base. Not saying the trade will happen, but it's a ridiculous to be jumping all over the LA kids because of this source.

          Originally posted by Doug View Post
          Nope. I hated that trade.

          The quote from Donnie posted above about how we would only do the trade if we could move RJ somewhere else makes sense to me.
          I agree with both aspects of that, Doug. I don't want RJeff, but moving him on makes sense. Maybe swing him to the Mavs for Devin Harris? That would be a nice PG fix for us, and I've heard they've been dangling him while looking for a swingman scorer to take pressure off Dirk. RJ's a playoff and finals tested swingman that can score at the rim, maybe they'd be interested? It's just his contract that doesn't really work for us.

          Getting Nenad and Devin Harris as part of a JO package would seem great to me though.

          Edit: This works in ESPN trade checker. We get Harris, Krstic, and DJ Mbenga from the Mavs, who get R Jeff, and we get a ton of filler with small, expiring contracts (and some prospects). Maybe a draft pick or two our way. Details on the trade board: http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...429#post584429.
          Last edited by bulldog; 08-03-2007, 12:21 PM.
          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by bulldog View Post
            Are all these quotes coming from the fact that one writer chose to use the word "persuade"? If anything, it seems like he was just throwing this idea out there, which suggests he's not very in the loop on this one.
            Who would be "in the loop"? The only writer people would argue is Vecsey, and he said this trade was a done deal 2 months ago.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by blanket View Post
              JO for Alston/Battier/Head/Sura/Lucas would work, although it wouldn't give us a big to replace JO's shot blocking.
              Wow...what an awful trade for the Pacers.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                Who would be "in the loop"? The only writer people would argue is Vecsey, and he said this trade was a done deal 2 months ago.
                Sure, I just meant that if we're going to dissect his words, he seems to suggest almost that he just threw this out there, that its his idea or that he's passing along something he read briefly, which means he hasn't been paying attention to the ongoing JO to LA saga too much, so his words shouldn't really be dissected.

                Honestly, even I'm kinda confused by what I meant. I guess my point is to not look at it too closely.
                2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                Comment


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

                  First of all that article is bogus. The Lakers don't have to "persuade" the Pacers on a LO+AB trade. That's what Walsh has been wanting all along. Walsh needs to persuade the Lakers to make that deal.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Not that some Pacer fans don't overvalue JONeal, but the way I see it is that Laker fans are willing to overvalue Bynum and tout him as the next future all-star but will undervalue JONeal and what impact that he could have in the next 2-3 seasons if he were in a Laker uniform.

                    I am one of the few here in PD that would begrudingly accept a JONeal trade centered around a Bynum+Kwame+Crit+future considerations.....but just like you say that we are overvaluing JONeal...you are doing the exact same for Bynum.

                    The difference is that you're doing it based SOLELY on potential and what he could do in the future ( for both Bynum and to a greater extent Crittenton ) when we already know that JONeal is a proven 20ppg/9rpg/2bpg player. Name me any other player that doesn't put up those numbers that wouldn't have significant value.

                    Heck, even if JONeal plays 2/3 of the season over the next 2 seasons ( the time that the Lakers have before Kobe can opt out ), I am pretty sure that with a Kobe/LO/JONeal combo would get the Lakers further in the Playoffs then a Kobe/LO/Bynum combo would in the same timeframe ( if not further ). The difference is that you can hit the ground running with a proven 20ppg/9rpg/2bpg PF or do the same with a 8ppg/6rpg/1.5bpg Center that is still learning the ropes. Don't get me wrong, I think that Bynum COULD be a solid Center of the future....the only question is how long it will take him to do it. That's the question you have to ask yourself....do you honestly think that Bynum will develop into the player that the Lakers need before Kobe has the option to opt out? I think he can be...I just don't think that he will reach the same level that JONeal is at right now in a short period of time.

                    But just like the Pacers FO has to decide whether to "stay put" or "rebuild".....I think the Lakers FO has to decide whether they want to "win now" or hopefully "win later".

                    One more thing, before you bring up the "injury-prone" stuff about JONeal, I have no doubt in my mind that if the offense did not run through JONeal ( like it does here in Indy but wouldn't be the same on the Lakers ) where he was not double-teamed as much and wouldn't have to work so hard on the offensive end, he could easily average 70+ games a season.
                    Well let's compare JO to Bynum

                    JO - proven
                    Bynum - potential
                    JO - huge contract
                    Bynum - rookie contract
                    JO - injury prone
                    Bynum - not injury prone
                    JO - not a true center
                    Bynum - true center
                    JO - jumpshooter
                    Bynum - back to the basket game

                    JO's defense is much better as of right now, but Bynum has showed that he has the potential to be a very good defense player as well. I know you say you believe JO will not get injured, but that is the same as Bynum's potential. They are both unknowns. As you don't want to take a chance on Bynum's potential the same risk exists with JO's health concerns. And to be honest I'd rather gamble on Bynum's potential then JO's health.

                    With all this talk about how Bynum will not develop in time before Kobe can opt out, well I say first of all Kobe is on a grandfathered contract and I doubt he will opt out of it. Lots of money for him to lose. And let's say you believe Kobe will opt out, if we get JO and he finds out he's not the answer then Kobe will still opt out anyways. Then we are stuck with no future, no Kobe, plus JO's huge contract. Not a very nice looking future at all.

                    So I understand why you don't want to trade JO, but please don't act like the Lakers must make a trade just to make a trade and accept any offer the Pacers throw at them.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      It's entirely possible that he can make a similar jump....but it's also entirely possible that he won't.

                      Can you explain to me why Bynum didn't get more minutes as the season progressed and why his scoring #s didn't improve as the season ended?

                      If he is ready to make that jump...why doesn't Phil play him more?

                      I'm not asking as a "hater" ( or even disagreeing with you ), I'm asking only because I can go off of what I see in what he produced last season. He started off before the ASB with an 8.4ppg/6.6rpg/1.65bpg average then ended up averaging 6.6ppg/5.5rpg/1.4bpg after the ASB. Averaging these #s in his sophmore year is pretty good considering that he didn't really play in this rookie season.....but there wasn't any significant improvement over the course of the season ( especially since his performance seemed to slow down a little towards the end of the season ), that can guarantee that he will put up better #s in his 3rd season. I guess the answer is that he's a Big Man...and they...especially young ones....take time to develop.

                      Again...the question is...does Kobe have the patience to wait it out?
                      It was mainly due to the fact that Bynum has played very little organized basketball and that his stamina was just not there. Also that the Lakers were making a push for the playoffs and didn't have the luxury of playing youngsters unless absolutely a must. He seems to have been working on that though.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Purple & Gold View Post
                        Well let's compare JO to Bynum

                        JO - proven
                        Bynum - potential
                        JO - huge contract
                        Bynum - rookie contract
                        JO - injury prone
                        Bynum - not injury prone
                        JO - not a true center
                        Bynum - true center
                        JO - jumpshooter
                        Bynum - back to the basket game

                        JO's defense is much better as of right now, but Bynum has showed that he has the potential to be a very good defense player as well. I know you say you believe JO will not get injured, but that is the same as Bynum's potential. They are both unknowns. As you don't want to take a chance on Bynum's potential the same risk exists with JO's health concerns. And to be honest I'd rather gamble on Bynum's potential then JO's health.

                        With all this talk about how Bynum will not develop in time before Kobe can opt out, well I say first of all Kobe is on a grandfathered contract and I doubt he will opt out of it. Lots of money for him to lose. And let's say you believe Kobe will opt out, if we get JO and he finds out he's not the answer then Kobe will still opt out anyways. Then we are stuck with no future, no Kobe, plus JO's huge contract. Not a very nice looking future at all.

                        So I understand why you don't want to trade JO, but please don't act like the Lakers must make a trade just to make a trade and accept any offer the Pacers throw at them.
                        BYnum has played all of two season at no where near the minutes JO has played. Using not being injury prone as an advantage for Bynum is a dumb argument. JO probably wouldn't have been considered injury prone in Portland either his first two seasons.


                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by blanket View Post
                          JO for Alston/Battier/Head/Sura/Lucas would work, although it wouldn't give us a big to replace JO's shot blocking.
                          I'd stop being a Pacer fan until Bird and Walsh died if that trade happened.


                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                            BYnum has played all of two season at no where near the minutes JO has played. Using not being injury prone as an advantage for Bynum is a dumb argument. JO probably wouldn't have been considered injury prone in Portland either his first two seasons.
                            i would consider bynum's oliver-miller-esque conditioning to cancel out JOs injury history. sure bynum's conditioning could improve (nene's did this season...oddly after he signed a contract) but injured or not, JO could give you 19 and 9 without much help around him (see 06-07 Pacers season). bynum sucking air gonna give us that much per night? nope.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                              Sure, I just meant that if we're going to dissect his words, he seems to suggest almost that he just threw this out there, that its his idea or that he's passing along something he read briefly, which means he hasn't been paying attention to the ongoing JO to LA saga too much, so his words shouldn't really be dissected.

                              Honestly, even I'm kinda confused by what I meant. I guess my point is to not look at it too closely.
                              It's not your fault. It was a poorly written article.

                              The writer just seemed to rehash the previously JO trade rumors that have been circling for the past month and a half. I bet he doesn't even know that the Nets signed Magloire last month.

                              Comment


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

                                This deal for me is officialy over and it should be for the rest of the Laker fans too. It has become obvious Walsh is not going to back off his demands. It is time for us Lakers to look elsewhere or get used to the fact Bynum will be in LA next season unless the tide changes. To all of you Pacer fans, a genuine good luck in getting a good deal from NJ or keeping JO.



                                Goodbye,
                                Bynum Brigade.


                                P.S. I will be back during the season to rub it in your face when Bynum is putting up 15/10/3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X