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 oneofthesedays View Post
    Did you guys miss this part?

    "I tried not to come out here this year. I wanted to stay away from a lot of the talk because it's an emotional time for me to talk about being traded," he said. "I get emotional talking about it because I always told Reggie [Miller] I'd win a championship for him, and for whatever reason we've had some tough times up there [in Indiana]. I thought if I came out here [to Los Angles], it would help persuade me to make the decision that I need to make. My decision is for me to get better as a player, and if things don't work out this year, I have an option in my contract next year and I will opt out and become a free agent."

    He's basically saying trade me now or lose me next year for nothing. He's going to be traded this summer, there is no way Indy lets him walk and gets nothing for him.
    we read it... a lot of it is open to semantical interpretation. IF things don't work out he has an option. and if he chooses he can become a free agent. he doesn't say THIS IS WHAT I'M GONNA DO! that is at least how i'm reading it.

    but the other fact is, unless he plans on taking a significant pay decrease (i.e. vets minimum ala grant hill) he'll have to be moved in a S&T for him to get to a contending team. opting out doesn't mean lost and gone forever. its a business decision. and if he goes for the vet's minimum then yes we could lose him but he is more likely to want something around Odom money (or at least murphy money ) so a trade will probably be necessary.
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
      My decision is for me to get better as a player, and if things don't work out this year, I have an option in my contract next year and I will opt out and become a free agent."[/I]

      He's basically saying trade me now or lose me next year for nothing. He's going to be traded this summer, there is no way Indy lets him walk and gets nothing for him.
      You don't know what work out means. It could mean traded to LA who can't sign him if he did opt out or it could mean that Indiana improves.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


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

        Brad Miller wanted to go to Utah or Denver and ended up in Sacremento.

        Where did Artest want to go? Probably not Sacramento - seeing as how his 11th hour tantrum almost botched it and ended up costing us Kevin Martin.

        I'm not a fan of JO's posturing, but there is no "trade me" demand in there. I don't think he wants out of Indiana, I just don't think he wants to follow Indiana further down into the lottery.

        You know what, Reggie never faced this predicament. The 2000-01 team, although it had a number of changes, still had enough pieces to play 0.500 under a rookie (and bad) coach.

        Right now, we're a 35-win team that, for the last six months, was reeling. We held onto the wrong coach for too long, and some of the wrong players for too long, and its going to take a long time to dig out of this mess.

        Who can blame him for wanting a change of scenery. Between Ron and Stephen's selfishness, Bird's arrogance, Rick's stubborness, playing alongside Jeff Foster and being forced to do all the scoring and all the dirty work, the inconsistency resulting from Jamaal's injuries, Peja's softness, and the outrageous criticism he receives from Pacers fans who expected him to be able to overcome all that bull**** and lead the team to The Finals anyway... I'd want a change of scenery, too.

        But he's not demanding a trade publicly, he's just answering questions about a summer full of trade rumors.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


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

          JO issued just as much of a trade demand as Kobe did - once you get past him blurting something out on a radio show (which he recanted pretty quickly).

          Kobe basically said, "If you aren't going to get me players who can helps us win I want to be traded."

          How is that different from what JO says in this article?

          Now JO phrased it much more intelligently and MUCH less arrogantly but in essence Kobe and JO said the same thing - they want to be on a team that can win now or they'd like to be somewhere else.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
            JO issued just as much of a trade demand as Kobe did - once you get past him blurting something out on a radio show (which he recanted pretty quickly).
            and then he recanted his recant. and recanted his recanted recant.

            Kobe basically said, "If you aren't going to get me players who can helps us win I want to be traded."

            How is that different from what JO says in this article?

            Now JO phrased it much more intelligently and MUCH less arrogantly but in essence Kobe and JO said the same thing - they want to be on a team that can win now or they'd like to be somewhere else.
            kobe was much more aggressive about it and later said there was "nothing" the lakers could do to keep him, his mind was made up. i just see JO being willing to comeback to indiana (at least in rhetoric). how is this different than what he said at the end of last season or midseason or what he has said all-along: if the team wants to rebuild, its probably in his and the team's best interest to part ways.

            the kobe bryant issue was an immature, self-obsessed star throwing a tantrum. jo is saying what most fans here have been saying too, its well reasoned... if we're going to rebuild, ya know what, maybe we should start that with using our lone star to get some young prospects and help our way along...

            like i said above the big difference is that now he seems pretty convinced that the pacers are going to rebuild instead of just considering it.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              Nothing? Do you really think he'll take an MLE from a contender, or sign with a nobody that's far enough under the cap to give him big money? No, he'll want an S&T, in which there's a good chance we can get more than Bynum and crap.

              This is an excellent point. JO opting out and the Pacers letting him walk
              would be highly unlikely.
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


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

                Maybe I'm too much an optimist, but I'm looking at this in a different way right now.

                Maybe, the "deal" has been in place for some while. And maybe,JO being the professional he is, he has timed this announcement with the wishes of TPTB.

                I realize he stated he doesn't want to be part of any rebuilding, so the FO has been working on this deal and finally got it done, keeping him in the loop all along.

                Now, that all the i's has been dotted and the t's crossed, the FO asked him to make some sort of an announcement to further appease the fans of Indy.

                I wouldn't be a bit surprise to see that announcement of a trade this week.

                JMT's....


                I just wanted for you guys to see Lindsay again.....
                Last edited by indyblue47; 08-06-2007, 11:54 AM. Reason: forgot something

                Comment


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

                  Somewhere in this huge thread I think I said that JO will not be traded. I'm calling my shot again by saying that JO will not be traded but if he is traded it will not be to the Lakers.

                  Trade rumors that drag on this long NEVER happen, especially if they envolve the Pacers (the Al Harrington trade doesn't count because TPTB admitted that they were working on that deal but it just took a while to get ATL's ownership to agree and Al to settle on a salary amount among other things).

                  Comment


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

                    JO is a classy guy. Even though he's taking these demands publicly now he's doing it in a way that is not hurtful to your organization. He's saying what he feels flat out and I respect that. Kobe went out of his to diss our FO and organization and even some of his teammates. There is a distinct difference between how he and JO went about their trade demands.

                    I get the feeling the Nets are gonna swoop in and make this deal. Our FO is useless, they can't get anything done and would rather sit on Bynum than roll the dice to help make us contenders.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by indyblue47 View Post
                      Maybe, the "deal" has been in place for some while. And maybe,JO being the professional he is, he has timed this announcement with the wishes of TPTB.

                      I realize he stated he doesn't want to be part of any rebuilding, so the FO has been working on this deal and finally got it done, keeping him in the loop all along.
                      The Pacers aren't rebuilding, they're retooling. Besides, how can they rebuild without trading JO anyway?

                      This was worth noting from that article as well:

                      "We just want to make sure that our thought processes are similar and now we're going to let the business handle itself. I mean, we could talk for years, but if [Lakers GM] Mitch Kupchak and [Pacers president] Larry Bird don't decide to make the deal, then it's all talk."
                      That doesn't sound anything like a trade demand to me.
                      Last edited by naptownmenace; 08-06-2007, 12:18 PM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                        JO is a classy guy. Even though he's taking these demands publicly now he's doing it in a way that is not hurtful to your organization.
                        What demands?

                        (Hint, if you answer this question, you've missed the point. I'm questioning your reading comprehension, in particuar around the word "demand"; I'm not asking you to provide a quote of JO answering a reporters' questions about the various trade speculation taking place all summer.)
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          If he opts out that would easily be the best way to completely get 20 million off the Pacers cap, he'd be doing them a favor.

                          Awesome that he actually has opened the door to not get traded by saying he would personally provide cap relief by turning down all that money, excellent.

                          If I was the FO I would rather have the cap space after next year than the poor offers being made now or only accept a trade for high draft picks (trade him to a poor team) and expiring contracts.
                          This is pretty much what the Lakers are offering.

                          Picks: Bynum (would have been #3 in 2007), Crit (if the 2007 draft were re-done right now, he might have gone lottery), future #1 (probably mid 20s.)
                          expiring Ks: Kwame, Sasha, Evans, McKie

                          As for "high" picks, as you said, it would require trading him to a sorry team. Knowing that JO would opt out, no team will trade away a high pick that could help them for almost a decade.
                          Last edited by gng930; 08-06-2007, 12:28 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Kwame I can deal with, but dead weight in Sasha, Evans and McKie is unbearable.
                            Last edited by LG33; 08-06-2007, 01:15 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                              Kwame I can deal with, but deal weight in Sasha, Evans and McKie is unbearable.
                              They're just expiring Ks. Other than Evans, I'm not going to BS you by saying they have any value otherwise. Evans is a actually a solid bench player; he'd provide some backcourt depth. McKie and Sasha would likely be waived. And you only need to take 2 of the 3. Take Evans and McKie, whose contract the Lakers would pay for by throwing cash in the deal.

                              Comment


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

                                I don't want to say I told you so but.....

                                Lets not be in denial, JO wants out. Either trade youth for a quality player or trade JO to L.A.

                                I will be back about 3pm to discuss further.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X