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

Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

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

  • #31
    Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

    I could see doing the hypothetical 3-way w/ NJ and Orlando. But
    no fricking way on the deal just with NJ.

    Kidd is close to being on his last legs and VC is a no-defense-playing
    gunner with a 5-yr, $75-80 mil albatross of a contract. If TBTP was
    ever dumb enough to make a deal like that, I'd probably just stop
    following the Pacers altogether.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

      Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
      I could see doing the hypothetical 3-way w/ NJ and Orlando. But
      no fricking way on the deal just with NJ.

      Kidd is close to being on his last legs and VC is a no-defense-playing
      gunner with a 5-yr, $75-80 mil albatross of a contract. If TBTP was
      ever dumb enough to make a deal like that, I'd probably just stop
      following the Pacers altogether.
      OOH! TWO snapths in a cthircle! Haaaated iiiit
      Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

        Kidd wants to go to a winning team that has a chance to win a Championship. There is no way that he will want to come to a borderline Playoff team ( in the East no less ) like the Pacers.

        He may not have a No-Trade Clause like Kobe does.....but that doesn't mean that he will be happy goiing to any team that the Nets will send him to.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

          from Yahoo! Sports Basketball Blog
          http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba...?urn=nba,64142

          Shocking dialogue: Jason Kidd meets with Rod Thorn
          By Kelly Dwyer
          Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 12:15 pm EST

          Jason Kidd wants out of New Jersey, and Nets personnel boss Rod Thorn is more than willing to aid in any transaction that eases Kidd out of a Net uniform. The other day, Kidd's agent Jeff Schwartz told Thorn of Kidd's demand to be traded, and yesterday Kidd followed up on the demand in a meeting with Thorn.

          You might not believe it, but we have the transcript in hand


          Jason Kidd: Jeff told you, huh?

          Rod Thorn: Yes sir.

          Kidd: Preferably, I'd like to go to the Lakers, Yankees, Mavericks, Heat, or Celtics.

          Thorn: Yankees?

          Kidd: Or Red Sox.

          Thorn: The baseball-Boston Red Sox?

          Kidd: I don't want Jason Collins to be traded with me. Dude steals my triple-doubles.

          Thorn: What does that mean?

          Kidd: A triple-double is when you get double-figures in points, rebounds, and assists.

          Thorn: I know that, I meant ...

          Kidd: No teams with blue uniforms.

          Thorn: Have you seen what Dallas wears?

          Kidd: On the flight out, I want an aisle seat. Something light for a in-flight entertainment. "Daddy Day Care" or that Rock movie with the girl and the ball with the sparkles.

          Thorn: Jason, I'm going to have to stop you there.

          Kidd: Nothing can stop me on my way to a championship. That's what I was put on Earth to do.

          Thorn: Jason, you're not being interviewed, stop it. You do realize how hard it is to trade someone who makes as much money as you, right? You're making 19.7 million dollars this season.

          Kidd: Yeah. I'm awesome.

          Thorn: Be that as it may, we have to match that salary in any trade we make.

          Kidd: Kwame makes that much.

          Thorn: Kwame doesn't make that much. Very few people do.

          Kidd: You make that much.

          Thorn: No, I don't.

          Kidd: Know why?

          Thorn: Why, Jason?

          Kidd: NO TRIP-LE DOUB-LESSS!

          Thorn: Great. Either way, there's not a lot we can do under NBA salary cap law that could ease you into a new team.

          Kidd: I break laws all the time. I don't even have draft picks to do it with.

          Thorn: What?

          Kidd: I mean, it's easier for you to break a law, because you can just send someone a draft pick to make up for it.

          Thorn: No, I mean, you break laws all the time?

          Kidd: Did you see where I parked today? Look. (Points to a window, Thorn peers outside.)

          Thorn: Right on the sidewalk. Ran over some kid's bike, too.
          (Kidd beams.)

          Thorn: Brav-o.

          Kidd: Not even my car. It's Josh Boone's car. I took it, I'm keeping it. Josh Boone gets NO TRIP-LE DOUB-LES!

          Thorn: You know, Malik Allen called me about this same sort of thing last month, and I just thought he was joking, or drunk, or both.

          Kidd: Patriots!

          Thorn: You like the Patriots on Sunday?

          Kidd: You can trade me to the Patriots, broseph.

          Thorn: No. No, I can't.

          Kidd: Salary cap law? I told you: draft picks!

          Thorn: Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Not without hurting my team. Not without taking back contracts of players that I don't want. Not without having to trade for Lamar Odom ...

          Kidd: NO TRIP-LE DOUB-LES!

          Thorn: Or Jason Terry ...

          Kidd: NO TRIP-LE DOUB-LES!

          Thorn: Or Nene Hilario ...

          Kidd: NO TRIP-LE ... oh. My thoughts and prayers are with him, and his family. He just wants to win a championship, like me. That's all we're in it for.

          Thorn: Jason, again, no reporters are here.

          Kidd: What if you traded half of me to a team, like with Vince Carter, and I could play half the time with the Lakers for half-price, and part of the time with the Nets?

          Thorn: I don't know where to start. "Like with Vince Carter?"

          Kidd: You know how he plays with the Raptors on the off days?

          Thorn: He doesn't play with the Raptors. He's been a Net since December of 2004!

          Kidd: He seems awfully tired. I just assumed.

          Thorn: I honestly can't fault you, there.

          Kidd: What if I go to David Stern, and say, like, "hey, David Stern. I'll give you, like, 14 triple-doubles if you let me go to the Lakers?"

          Thorn: How do you give someone a triple-double?

          Kidd: Just gave the Nuggets one.

          Thorn: Oh, I get it.

          Kidd: Gave the Bobcats two, gave the Magic one, the Hawks one, gave triple-doubles to the whole damn Eastern seaboard.

          Thorn: And what would David Stern do with his 14 triple-doubles?

          Kidd: Whatever the hell he wants! Steal some [stuff] from the Cheesecake Factory, cold-**** a red-headed dude just for the hell of it, burn [stuff] ... it's a triple-double!

          Thorn: I really wish I'd, you know, engaged in an actual conversation with you before signing that contract extension.

          Kidd: '85 Bears!

          Thorn: You want me to trade you to a football team from 23 years ago.

          Kidd: The Triple-Double Shuffle! (Rapping) "My name is J-Kidd, and I like to pass. Rippin' triple-doubles is better than ro-mance ..."

          Thorn: You know who could really use some triple-doubles? The Hawks.

          Kidd: I'm just here to win a championship. It's my life's ambition, and a dream I've had since I was a child. I'll do it anything for it.

          Thorn: Did you just set my desk on fire?
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

            ^^^^ I know that I'm gonna open up a huge can of worms with this post......but highly paid Franchise Players going public with their demands to be traded cuz they are getting older and don't want to be in a losing situation is one of the reasons why I want JONeal traded before the start of the 2008/2009 Training Camp.

            There....I said it....go ahead and flame me if you want.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

              Thorn: And what would David Stern do with his 14 triple-doubles?

              Kidd: Whatever the hell he wants! Steal some [stuff] from the Cheesecake Factory, cold-c0ck a red-headed dude just for the hell of it, burn [stuff] ... it's a triple-double!


              Thorn: Jason, you're not being interviewed, stop it. You do realize how hard it is to trade someone who makes as much money as you, right? You're making 19.7 million dollars this season.

              Kidd: Yeah. I'm awesome.



              That might be the best thing I've ever read.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                Originally posted by Pacers4Life View Post
                stacy paetz
                LOL, that's so true. She's my favorite reporter..

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                  Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                  LOL, that's so true. She's my favorite reporter..

                  Anyone who would travel outside their own neighborhood, let alone switch professional sports teams for Stacey Paetz has seriously bad taste in females or has just been that deprived of...whatever..for their entire lives. Maybe if you just got out of prison and it was a guaranteed toss, but let's be real...if you have seen her in person it's just not so tight. If you want a hot lady who is in to sports, come to the IU campus...it's a lot more....well, let's go with "fresh".
                  Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    ^^^^ I know that I'm gonna open up a huge can of worms with this post......but highly paid Franchise Players going public with their demands to be traded cuz they are getting older and don't want to be in a losing situation is one of the reasons why I want JONeal traded before the start of the 2008/2009 Training Camp.

                    There....I said it....go ahead and flame me if you want.
                    Why flame? That's already been the case three or four times, just every time it happens JO starts treading backwards saying he was misquoted.

                    Anytime something happens JO say's his misquoted. I mean it was just two weeks ago he said in the Star that he was thinking about sitting the season, then the next day it comes back that he wants to be back in two weeks?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                      I did a trade similar to this one in NBA 2k7 last year, but my trade didn't involve Oneal and Tins. It was Dunleavy and Murphy, for Just Vince Carter. My team was tight lol
                      R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                        The only way the Pacers are going to be an instant contender is if the Simons trade the whole team and coaching staff for what Boston has. And then Kidd can come here to be on a contender, but they'll still lose in the finals so as far as I'm concerned he's better off staying where he is.

                        In other words Jason, you had your shot in the finals and lost. Get over it. Not everyone can be Steve Kerr.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                          that was hillarious...
                          "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Why flame? That's already been the case three or four times, just every time it happens JO starts treading backwards saying he was misquoted.

                            Anytime something happens JO say's his misquoted. I mean it was just two weeks ago he said in the Star that he was thinking about sitting the season, then the next day it comes back that he wants to be back in two weeks?
                            True.......I'm just waiting for the day that JONeal does say that he wants to be traded cuz he says that he doesn't fit in with the Pacers plans.

                            Mark my words....it's going to happen sometime between now and February of 2009 ( the trade deadline in the 2008-2009 season ).
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                              I wonder if the Lakers will put together an Odom/Brown offer for Kidd again.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Kidd confirms that agent has been talking to Nets about trade

                                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                                I wonder if the Lakers will put together an Odom/Brown offer for Kidd again.
                                I don't know if that works moneywise...I think it clearly states in this article that Kwame alone makes as much as J Kidd
                                Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X