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

Baby Al wants out of Oakland

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

  • #16
    Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    I think this is why we traded Al in the first place, along with his inability to fit in with Carlisle's system. He's a malcontent.

    He has no idea how good he has it in GS, and to me it proves that he won't be happy anywhere.
    I could actually see valid reasons why he would be happy playing with the Warriors...or specifically Nellie and his penchant to play Small Ball. Playing Harrington at the Center spot isn't necessarily a good idea....talk about setting up one for failure.

    I don't know if he would be any worse playing in another Up-tempo offense like the Pacers....but he can't be any worse of a malcontent then Tinsley is.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

      Originally posted by tbabyy924 View Post
      Cause people always hate on Jack, rarely giving him his due. Jack one of my favorite players and people, a lot of people just take him the wrong way. Who ever thought Al was the better player in that deal was proven wrong these past years in GS. Jack has been tearing it up, but it looks like he might be on his way out of GS as well.
      Isn't that the way it always is with guys like Jax - people just don't understand. Why would he be on the way out? Isn't he the captain. Time to right the ship sir.
      Last edited by ABADays; 07-04-2008, 07:08 PM.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        It's been brought up....but Bird should call up Mullin and see if they would be interested in swapping Tinsley+Graham for Harrington.



        And before you say it....yes, I would do it just to get Tinsley off of our books. We need to get rid of Tinlsey and Harrington is somewhat ( if barely ) serviceable as a rotational PF.
        Dare to Dream....
        Al for Tin's as center-pieces in Any deal is a no-brainer for us. The Tin-man needs to go ASAP, & we need a low post 4 who can shoot in JOB's offense. Do that deal yesterday!!!.....
        Last edited by PacerGuy; 07-04-2008, 08:13 PM.
        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
          Exactly... Nellie tried to make the most of him and yet Al struggled to find a consistent role - not due to Nellie's rotations and strategies - but due to his own flaws and inability to do what the team needed. He was yanked in and out of the starting lineup due to his rebounding deficiencies. Then, Nellie tried to insert him as the 'super-sub', providing a quick spark off the bench when BD and Jack were tired, and that netted sporadic results to say the least. And Al's last - and most predominant role in '07-08 - was to be the 3-point specialist and bring the opposition's big guy outside and allow the big three to drive to the hoop at will. He got tons of open looks from deep (the most I've ever seen actually in the NBA), yet was underwhelming in terms of overall production.
          You know the best part? Every single word here is perfect for Austin Croshere, except substitute "Zeke" for "Nellie."
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

            PacerGuy-

            Maybe, but do we really need an 'all about me' guy like Al who
            has no interest in playing defense and even if he did, would
            probably take at least a year before he'd figure Harter's
            system out (or, was he here the first go around w/ Dick ?) ?

            If Tinsley is heading to GS, given that Al's contract would be a
            another dealable expiring at the end of next season, I suppose
            it might be palatable. But otherwise no thanks.

            Note: Croz24 tossed out the notion of taking Al to try an pry
            Brandon Wright loose. I haven't seen enough of BW, but
            if he's a legit, potential long term fit at PF, that might make
            some sense too.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              You know the best part? Every single word here is perfect for Austin Croshere, except substitute "Zeke" for "Nellie."
              Wow you are right.

              "Exactly... Isaiah tried to make the most of him and yet Austin struggled to find a consistent role - not due to Isaiah's rotations and strategies - but due to his own flaws and inability to do what the team needed. He was yanked in and out of the starting lineup due to his rebounding deficiencies. Then, Isaiah tried to insert him as the 'super-sub', providing a quick spark off the bench when Reggie and JO were tired, and that netted sporadic results to say the least. And Austin's last - and most predominant role in '99-'00 was to be the 3-point specialist and bring the opposition's big guy outside and allow the big three to drive to the hoop at will. He got tons of open looks from deep (the most I've ever seen actually in the NBA), yet was underwhelming in terms of overall production."

              Plus he is (was) really overpaid!

              That being said I think Al would fit us better than Cro would now days.
              Last edited by PaceBalls; 07-04-2008, 07:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                PacerGuy-

                Maybe, but do we really need an 'all about me' guy like Al who
                has no interest in playing defense and even if he did, would
                probably take at least a year before he'd figure Harter's
                system out (or, was he here the first go around w/ Dick ?) ?

                If Tinsley is heading to GS, given that Al's contract would be a
                another dealable expiring at the end of next season, I suppose
                it might be palatable. But otherwise no thanks.

                Note: Croz24 tossed out the notion of taking Al to try an pry
                Brandon Wright loose. I haven't seen enough of BW, but
                if he's a legit, potential long term fit at PF, that might make
                some sense too.
                I don't think any of that is going to happen.

                The Warriors (just like 29 other teams in the league) don't want anything to do with Tinsley. Assuming the Warriors fall flat on their face and can't lure any FA, then I see a complete overhaul coming and both Jackson and Harrington will likely be dealt.

                And they won't be all that difficult to deal. Not nearly as difficult as Tinsley and Murphy, which is a big reason they made that trade to begin with. Certainly, they're not going to get rid of Brandan Wright just so they can drop Harrington's contract 1 year earlier.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  The Warriors (just like 29 other teams in the league) don't want anything to do with Tinsley. Assuming the Warriors fall flat on their face and can't lure any FA, then I see a complete overhaul coming and both Jackson and Harrington will likely be dealt.

                  And they won't be all that difficult to deal. Not nearly as difficult as Tinsley and Murphy, which is a big reason they made that trade to begin with. Certainly, they're not going to get rid of Brandan Wright just so they can drop Harrington's contract 1 year earlier.
                  Sad but true.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    I don't think any of that is going to happen.

                    The Warriors (just like 29 other teams in the league) don't want anything to do with Tinsley. Assuming the Warriors fall flat on their face and can't lure any FA, then I see a complete overhaul coming and both Jackson and Harrington will likely be dealt.

                    And they won't be all that difficult to deal. Not nearly as difficult as Tinsley and Murphy, which is a big reason they made that trade to begin with. Certainly, they're not going to get rid of Brandan Wright just so they can drop Harrington's contract 1 year earlier.
                    Agreed.
                    My point was we jump at almost any deal that sends Tin's out. I will admit to Al's faults, but vs Tin's, he is "Citizen of the Year". Hell, I'd do a Tin's & Daniels for K-Mart deal at this point just to say good by to Tins. It would fill our PF spot too. Now, this is far from an ideal deal too, but we are not going to get an "ideal deal" for Tin's at this point.
                    "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                    (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      And they won't be all that difficult to deal. Not nearly as difficult as Tinsley and Murphy, which is a big reason they made that trade to begin with.
                      Wow, somehow the Warriors managed to acquire Tinsley and send him back to us without him ever suiting up for the Dubs? Mullin's a genius!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                        I'm starting to understand why Al's so upset. Baron's #3 on his MySpace Top Friends list!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          You know the best part? Every single word here is perfect for Austin Croshere, except substitute "Zeke" for "Nellie."
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                            theres absolutely no player in this league who's not good enough to be traded for Tinsley. I would literally take any player available. I would welcome Al bck with open arms. This is no situation to be picky

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                              Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                              Isn't that the way it always is with guys like Jax - people just don't understand. Why would he be on the way out? Isn't he the captain. Time to right the ship sir.
                              Jack isn't looking to be part of a sinking ship. He doesn't want to rebuild. He's probably in his prime right now, and I wouldn't blame him for looking to go somewhere else and contend. Especially if one of his closest friends in Al leaves and there's rumors Monta might look to leave as well. Makes you think, who is gonna be the star of that team if the core leave? Marco Bellinelli might finally get his shot.
                              2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Baby Al wants out of Oakland

                                If this all happens there are going to be some P*SSED OFF fans in the Bay Area.
                                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X