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

Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

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

  • #46
    Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I'm not. He seems to much like a shoot first point guard.
    Agree. Some of it has been playing in NJ where he became a scoring star. He's quick, but he tends to forget he has teammates. Instead of setting them up, he just makes moves and gets assists from dumps when he breaks people down. That's not the same as giving up the ball earlier and trusting that it might come back to you. He wants to do it all, and unfortunately CDR and Lee have similar approaches. All this with Lopez on the team.

    I like Harris and maybe he'll get back out of this mindset, but for now I'm wary.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

      Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
      I wouldnt be surprised if theres a tentative deal already in place that would make Foster a Celtic at the deadline.
      And Troy a Cav if they can't get Jamison for a good price.

      They might not make a deal, but it won't be for lack of trying. Sometimes you just get beat to the punch. Jamison is going to command more value, I hope the Pacers realize this.

      I'm not in a rush to see these deals done, take your time and do it right, look for a slight edge to them if it can be found, but get something done at the deadline. (within some reason of course)

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

        Well, racing season starts next month, I just wonder how long I can ignore the idea of wanting a trade until then.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

          This bit about New Jersey wanting to trade Harris? I don't believe it. He's a way better point guard than anyone else on the Nets roster, so the question is why would they trade him?

          No, I think what the Nets are doing is seeing what offers they can get for Harris in case they get the #1 pick in the draft.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            This bit about New Jersey wanting to trade Harris? I don't believe it. He's a way better point guard than anyone else on the Nets roster, so the question is why would they trade him?

            No, I think what the Nets are doing is seeing what offers they can get for Harris in case they get the #1 pick in the draft.
            Three reasons:

            3. Dump salary
            2. Trade him for multiple talent
            1. Extra first-round draft pick

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              This bit about New Jersey wanting to trade Harris? I don't believe it. He's a way better point guard than anyone else on the Nets roster, so the question is why would they trade him?

              No, I think what the Nets are doing is seeing what offers they can get for Harris in case they get the #1 pick in the draft.
              John Wall would be a good reason for them to test the market.

              While Harris was playing really, really well last year, I think he's over-rated. He doesn't have much of a perimeter game and doesn't distribute all that well. At this point this year, he's playing terrible and NJ cannot be that pleased. They will deal Harris and pick Wall if given the chance. At his size and with his skills, Harris isn't a legit SG. He reminds me a bit of a poor man's Monta Ellis.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                Chad Ford is a journalist, first and foremost, whose job it is to create interest in what he has to report on, which is the NBA. Of course he is going to spread any rumor floated out there whether there is any truth to it or not.
                Ford has said some sources have tried to play him. He's said he usually needs multiple sources before putting rumors from those guys in his columns. So obviously he just doesn't float any and every rumor he hears.
                Last edited by Will Galen; 01-19-2010, 11:33 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                  Originally posted by focused444 View Post
                  There has been a lot of D. Harris talk lately, and I wanted to add some things. This is only to inform you of the sentiment for Devin Harris of people in the metropolitan area. I have good friends who have attended every game at the Izod center since J Kidd was in town, At first when Devin came to the Nets they were what I'd describe as highly optimistic, and there was no question the Nets won that trade.

                  Now they have completely turned on him. The main thing when griping about Harris is he is SOFT, to put it nicely. Next is on to his mental ability to lead a team deep into the playoffs. Also they say how he "wants to be a huge star". Which I only mention because I wonder would he conflict with Granger.

                  Now the talk is that it has become evident through out the organization and immediate fan base that D Harris is not the type of leader to carry a championship team. Which is why he is suddenly expendable.

                  Again this is what people here are saying every time the Nets are brought up. Sometimes looking deeper into a situation there is no one better than the local/die hard fans to diagnose their team, but then again what do they know, they're Nets fans
                  I'd have to ask those fans a question. "When was the last time a team with three wins qualified as anything close to a playoff or championship level team?"

                  That's like putting a jockey on a cow and then complaining that he will never win the Kentucky Derby.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                    Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                    He's also a journalist that has probably close to the most connections/ sources in the NBA than anyone... so it would serve him nothing to be making up stuff... If he makes up stuff the sources tired to those teams wouldn't trust him anymore... so he has no value to pull stuff out of his butt if he has people will to supply him info.

                    So therefore I'd trust his rumors 100 x's more than your gut feelings... for none the less at least his make sense

                    note: haha Hicks beat me to the point...
                    I hope there is some truth to what Chad Ford wrote.

                    From my personal observations about our team, though, the two most frustrating players for Jim O'Brien, the coach we extended and I would assume we are trying to get players for since we don't have any other coaches waiting in the wings and the fact that Bird has publicly stated that the players who don't want to play for this coach are likely to be traded, are unquestionably Brandon Rush and the forever benched Josh McRoberts. He can't figure out what to do with either of these players, and I am sure he would like nothing more than to trade them for draft picks if nothing else.

                    The third banished player at this point is TJ the untradeable, which leaves him out. Diener shoots the three, which ultimately leaves him here as much as his perpetual injuries, Price is beginning to make his presence felt, leaving Watson as expendable, and he has shown enough here to possibly warrant interest on a team that wants a veteran pg as an insurance policy.

                    We also can't / won't trade Dunleavy due to the size of his contract (its value will increase substantially next year after he heals more fully and is in its expiring year).

                    We likely won't trade Danny either as the face of the franchise due to the decreased value his recurring health concerns place on him.

                    Bird wants to see Hansbrough pan out here, so he is not being traded.

                    Solo is Solo and might be included as salary equalizer with Rush, otherwise he is not tradeable.

                    Hibbert is our "center of the future" and won't be traded due to being another fan favorite.

                    Dahntay Jones is well known, and his reputation can't have been helped because of his inability to even help our inept defense at all, and his contract is way too long and expensive for a player that most teams would have as an 8th man

                    Luther Head is a streaky player who is well known in the league who would possibly be another filler in a larger trade, but not anyone that would be actively pursued.

                    Foster still has next year on his contract and back issues that have basically permanently sidelined him, so unless he is being bought out in some twist of the CBA rules, I can't see any team having interest in playing him (unless we have been holding him out at the request of other teams who are interested to prevent further degradation of his back).

                    Murphy will also increase in value going forward, but I guess rumors = fact and he is all but on the bus to Cleveland or parts unknown playing for a title with one of several contending teams looking for a stretch 4 that can shoot a trailing 3 and rebounds better than anyone not named Dwight Howard .

                    Yep, Chad Ford is likely right on the button. I am sorry for doubting him and his ability to ferret out the truth behind the rumors that he is constantly fed by GM's with no reason to talk to him other than to spread rumors that benefit their own efforts to trade their own players. While they do want him to have SOME credibility and would likely not flat out lie to him, they all know from speaking to each other as well what rumors are being spread just as well as he does, and "confirm" those stories for him at times I'm sure.

                    As usual, when is the last time a trade from the Pacers was ever correctly predicted in the media, and who was it who broke the story? I don't remember one, either at any time since Donnie Walsh came to the Pacers, or since Bird took over.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                      As usual, when is the last time a trade from the Pacers was ever correctly predicted in the media, and who was it who broke the story? I don't remember one, either at any time since Donnie Walsh came to the Pacers, or since Bird took over.
                      I believe that the JO trade was leaked a few daysbefore it became a reality
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                        here is more info about the pacers and cavs

                        http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30421

                        John (Akron (Ohio))


                        What do you think is the most likely trade the Cavs will make?

                        David Thorpe (12:01 PM)


                        Troy Murphy.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          here is more info about the pacers and cavs

                          http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30421

                          John (Akron (Ohio))


                          What do you think is the most likely trade the Cavs will make?

                          David Thorpe (12:01 PM)


                          Troy Murphy.
                          nice catch

                          Frakin David Thorpe man, a munk has more words in a conversation
                          Sittin on top of the world!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                            nice catch

                            Frakin David Thorpe man, a munk has more words in a conversation
                            I know, he is bad in giving up information.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I know, he is bad in giving up information.
                              The funny thing is he enjoys the fact it frustrates others


                              Twitter , please go away
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Chad Ford thinks we'll trade Foster and/or Murphy by the deadline

                                Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                                nice catch

                                Frakin David Thorpe man, a munk has more words in a conversation
                                He's also the one that thinks Tyler's recent drop off in minuets played is b/c of performance and he has no clue about his ear/vertigo issue...

                                Tyler Hansbrough, Pacers
                                The Pacers currently aren't getting anything from their prized rookie who gave them some life in December. In January, he is averaging just nine minutes a game and has not scored more than four points in any game.

                                Finishing is still a problem for Hansbrough, whose shooting accuracy is worse than 30 percent this month. Meanwhile, his teammates are playing better, which is the biggest reason he's lost playing time. So staying hungry and working to refine his shot will pay dividends when he gets another chance to play more minutes.
                                Link
                                "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X