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

2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

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

  • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    I know.......I know that this is the likely reality of the situation we are in....I just don't look forward to 2 more years of another Playoff-bubble push where we end up with the 13th or 14th pick again.

    But as you suggested, the only real silver lining that comes out of all of this where we hopefully do not add any more players to take minutes away from our likely future core of BRush/Granger/TH/Granger/Jones and ( hopefully ) AJ/McRoberts. I admit that the only real joy that I had last season was seeing Granger/BRush/Hibbert develop together and build some chemistry....seeing that primary core expand to include Jones and possibly AJ and McRoberts does picque my interest as a "hardcore" fan. I don't think it would excite the common fan....but at least there's something for us to enjoy.

    I completely agree. I hope this year one of the young guys will be on the floor at all times, it was really when I would watch with enthusiasm.

    Comment


    • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I think that AJ was drafted as insurance for Jack leaving....whereas Jones was brought in to fill the role that Marquis, Graham and Dunleavy ( due to his injury/recovery ) vacated. Defensively, Jones will help out.....but assuming that we sign AJ....I'm thinking that we'll still sign some Vet PG to help fill out our PG needs.
      I was looking at Jones' signing more in terms of "help-defense" in the backcourt, not for him running the offense. Re-reading my post, I realize I wasn't clear enough in my thought process, but it seems you interpretted my meaning well enough.

      Bruno just posted a follow-up on this very issue.

      To fill the void, the Pacers could of course look to acquire another experienced backup – preferably someone with a bit more size – or they could entrust the reserve minutes to Diener and/or Price.

      Coach Jim O'Brien couldn't say enough about how well Price performed in the latter stages of the Orlando Summer League. The second-round pick from Connecticut produced 33 points, 12 assists and just one turnover in the final three games.

      Beyond that, he executed the offense and ran the team with confidence, showing sound decision-making skills and NBA 3-point shooting range (making 8-of-14).

      So Price looks like a keeper and Diener is clearly capable of much more than last season, when offseason surgery foot surgery effectively sidelined him the first couple of months and pushed him to the end of the bench.

      Though size is a problem, if the Pacers do indeed sign Dahntay Jones, he's fully capable of defending the biggest point guards as they become problematic.

      Comment


      • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

        I never thought Jack was anything more than a decent combo-guard off the bench. I found the talk that he could be another Chauncey Billups to be wishful thinking from desperate fans. I say save the cash for another day and let him walk.

        Comment


        • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

          I (& this team IMO) will miss Jacks intensity & will. He has the tough demeanor we want, & he fits our system. It's a mistake IMO to let him go for what amounts to +/- 1 mil/yr. I think we should resign him & then we have till the last game to make trades to free up cap room. Jack is a known & valued commodity. Bringing in some tool to plug a hole at your most important position is foolish IMO. Cut elsewhere, don't cut where you just spent an entire year proping up & patting yourselves on the back that you "largely upgraded" only to **** it away the next year & try & smooth it over w/ praise of Price - a 2nd rounder that everyone passed on once, & most twice.
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

            Mentions that the decision on Jack might not be made as of yet:

            http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...+Dahntay+Jones

            Pacers expected to sign free agent Dahntay Jones
            By Mike Wells
            Posted: July 13, 2009


            The Indiana Pacers are expected to announce the free agent signing of guard Dahntay Jones on Tuesday.

            Jones, a defensive specialist, agreed to a four-year, $11-million contract with the Pacers last week.
            Advertisement

            Jones averaged 5.4 points and 2.1 rebounds for the Denver Nuggets last season.

            A Pacers spokesman said the team will make an announcement regarding restricted free agent Jarrett Jack once they decide if they're going to match the four-year, $20-million offer by the Toronto Raptors over the weekend.

            The Pacers have seven days to decide if they’re going to match it.

            Comment


            • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

              The way that article reads, they are still considering. Of course, it's their position to make Toronto sweat a little bit.

              Comment


              • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                Sounds more like they told the local reporter guy "we'll tell you when we're good and ready". Not much information there.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  Sounds more like they told the local reporter guy "we'll tell you when we're good and ready". Not much information there.
                  The wording of Wells' articles, blogs, and posts has had a sudden change. Otherwise I'd agree with you.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                    Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                    Mentions that the decision on Jack might not be made as of yet:

                    http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...+Dahntay+Jones

                    Pacers expected to sign free agent Dahntay Jones
                    By Mike Wells
                    Posted: July 13, 2009


                    The Indiana Pacers are expected to announce the free agent signing of guard Dahntay Jones on Tuesday.

                    Jones, a defensive specialist, agreed to a four-year, $11-million contract with the Pacers last week.
                    Advertisement

                    Jones averaged 5.4 points and 2.1 rebounds for the Denver Nuggets last season.

                    A Pacers spokesman said the team will make an announcement regarding restricted free agent Jarrett Jack once they decide if they're going to match the four-year, $20-million offer by the Toronto Raptors over the weekend.

                    The Pacers have seven days to decide if they’re going to match it.
                    I'm thinking that it won't happen....but I really hope that TPTB decide to match the offer on the 6th day on the 23rd hour.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                      I am fine with letting Jack walk. I really wish I knew exactly how good AJ Price is likely to become because I get the impression he could end up being really solid, perhaps even more. He seems to be a good fit if he can stay relatively free of injuries and behave himself. I'll also certainly feel much better after Tinsley is gone for good.

                      After taking some time to really think about it, I'd rather go without a PG of Jack's caliber for a year than be stuck paying him $5 annually for 4 years. I'm sure a trade can eventually be made to upgrade the position, perhaps by trading of an older player and Diener (expiring and other team still gets a PG in return) to upgrade what the Pacers have.

                      I feel like Jack had the opportunity to be a leader in a promising young core of players but took the bigger paycheck instead. If Bosh doesn't stay and things don't work out, he may regret this move more than Indiana. I don't see them doing much inside without him, and even Bosh is far from a bruiser himself. I'd rather Indiana have the financial flexibility they need to make moves in the FA market down the road. When they get to the point that they've stockpiled quality youth and have some financial flexibility, they could easily swing some big moves the way Boston and Detroit did to move toward title contention. Or keep what they have if that works best. Until then, let the team grow and let those who have other priorities go elsewhere.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                        If the Pacers can get Ramon Sessions in a S&T for Foster, then Jack not being re-signed is ok with me. Otherwise, I'm going to miss him as a Pacer.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          The way that article reads, they are still considering. Of course, it's their position to make Toronto sweat a little bit.
                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          Sounds more like they told the local reporter guy "we'll tell you when we're good and ready". Not much information there.
                          It would seem sensible to me for the Pacers to use all 7 days available to them. They can explore other possibilities the entire time, and I'd be willing to be that while they probably know they aren't going to match, they are trying to figure out if there's a way they can justify it.

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          The wording of Wells' articles, blogs, and posts has had a sudden change. Otherwise I'd agree with you.
                          I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers were directing that tone. It's likely that there were internal conversations that indicated what they would and would not match, but they were not for public consumption. Plus, I think they really would like to have Jack back. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if they've intentionally told Wells, etal, that matching is a serious consideration, perhaps even asked that he cool it on the "they won't match" stuff.

                          I doubt they'll match, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            It would seem sensible to me for the Pacers to use all 7 days available to them. They can explore other possibilities the entire time, and I'd be willing to be that while they probably know they aren't going to match, they are trying to figure out if there's a way they can justify it.



                            I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers were directing that tone. It's likely that there were internal conversations that indicated what they would and would not match, but they were not for public consumption. Plus, I think they really would like to have Jack back. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if they've intentionally told Wells, etal, that matching is a serious consideration, perhaps even asked that he cool it on the "they won't match" stuff.

                            I doubt they'll match, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.
                            They may also be buying themselves time while they work on a trade (not with Jack, of course) for another point guard. If they were to say publicly, right now, that they are not going to match, it might give leverage to any potential trading partner they are working with. Leaving the door open to matching the Toronto offer helps them in telling the other team "If we don't work out a deal with you, we will simply match Jack's offer.". Don't want to lose that leverage.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                              Or maybe they are thinking like I mentioned, that the justification in cost now is the price to pay for the flexibility to use TJ as part of a trade later this season.

                              I still think the ultimate goal would be a rotation of Jack/Price/Diener, though I'm guessing Price as a non-guaranteed 2nd round pick made the most sense simply as insurance to the situation. I'd also think that seeing him in the summer has modified their thinking toward keeping him even if they are too deep at PG right this minute.



                              Ultimately the Rush/Jack for Bayless trade loses some value if Jack just ends up walking now. You got Rush and you got the Jack rental, but losing him doesn't "save money" because you could have just drafted Rush and saved that money last year too. I'd like to think they felt they needed him as a PG and would still.

                              Or maybe Jack was health insurance on TJ last year?

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Or maybe they are thinking like I mentioned, that the justification in cost now is the price to pay for the flexibility to use TJ as part of a trade later this season.

                                I still think the ultimate goal would be a rotation of Jack/Price/Diener, though I'm guessing Price as a non-guaranteed 2nd round pick made the most sense simply as insurance to the situation. I'd also think that seeing him in the summer has modified their thinking toward keeping him even if they are too deep at PG right this minute.



                                Ultimately the Rush/Jack for Bayless trade loses some value if Jack just ends up walking now. You got Rush and you got the Jack rental, but losing him doesn't "save money" because you could have just drafted Rush and saved that money last year too. I'd like to think they felt they needed him as a PG and would still.

                                Or maybe Jack was health insurance on TJ last year?
                                Jack was an expiring contract. I wouldn't necessarily say filler, but he was an inclusion in the Rush/Bayless trade. I have said before that I would've considered him as a "loaner" for last season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X