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

Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

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

  • #46
    Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

    I'm not sure why some people think Jackson is going to help our outside shooting so much. Last year he shot 34% from 3 and that was his best year from there. Unless he somehow starts shooting much better than he ever has he will be tied for the 5th best 3 point shooter on our team. Reg,Bender,Cro,and TINS all shot better % last year and AJ shot about the same. Some people will prolly say well he will have JO to play off of,but he had Duncan in SA and shot worse than he did with Atlanta.


    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

      Originally posted by able
      All I'm saying that making SJax 33d option is most likely not so good for team-chemistry.
      Jackson came in saying he didn't even care if he started or not. I doubt telling him he's 3rd fiddle will disrupts chemistry; he's here because he wants to win another title.

      Please before calling em dumb also take into consideration we still have a certain mr Miller, not a bad shooter himself, F Jones, up and coming shooter,
      I purposelly didn't mention Reggie because he no longer shoots when it counts; he passes up too many shots now for me to take him seriously as a major out-side threat. You leave him wide open, and sure, he's gonna burn people. But I'm ready for one or two people to start w/ JO that are ready and willing to be a part of the offense, not just trying to defer to someone else, which Reggie does. As for Fred, he's not going to play before Jackson or Reggie, so he's not in the equation this year.

      and a couple on the bench that are known for a decent shot, but shown it to little, however, where are the penetrators? Where are the inside players? who is there to help JO ?
      AJ and Cro can do it, but neither are in the role of being asked to do it as a major part of the offense. Peja and Jax would be. That's the difference. Their job will BE to take those shots. The rest are guys that simply have the shot to spread the floor and hit them when they're open. But their roles are to do different things.

      Penetrating players is something we've never had much of. Jackson should be able to give us some. We still don't have a lot, but like I said we never have. Tinsley sometimes will penetrate a defense, but that's not something to rely on consistently. Jackson will have to be it.

      In the meantime, you give the ball to JO like normal, and have Peja and Stephen waiting on opposite sides of the court looking for an open 3 ball if JO gets crowded. That's a GOOD thing.

      The bottom line for me is, I think it's crazy that some of you think having 3 capable scorers is a bad thing. That is crazy. The more guys who are capable of scoring the ball, especially when your team defense is good or more, the BETTER things are. Just because we basically relied on JO and Ron to score our points last year doesn't mean that's how it should or has to be. If we can have 3 guys start to give us points, GOOD.

      thank you
      You're quite welcome.

      [edit=12=1091806762][/edit]

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

        I wouldn't appease Peja's wishes if I were the Kings owner.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

          Yeah, its always good to force an unhappy guy to stay in an unhappy situation. He'll *never* pout, cause any problems or be a disruption when you force him to honor his contract just to prove a point.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

            I didn't say that. You did.

            All I'm saying is I would not trade him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

              He's asked you for a trade, and you don't? Have fun with THAT chemistry next season.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                Not only asked for a trade, but did so publicly versus privately. Went to the press before he went to management. I think that pretty much says how he feels about the Kings right now.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                  They have to pay him whether he sits on the bench or not. Your idea just gives him the money for NOT playing.

                  They're not gonna waste the money if they can be paying someone who WILL play in return.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                    Hicks, do you feel the Pacers should not have traded Antonio Davis?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                      I like Ron's game, and I certainly understand and respect the views of anyone who very much wants to keep him. However, for some reason--and I really can't put my finger on it--I would like to see him traded.

                      That said, I would be fine with getting Peja back for him. However, I think I would rather have Marion, as he is a better rebounder.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                        Here's your choice, MSA2CF. Keep him and re-build the team the way he wants, or keep the rest of the team and trade him. Otherwise, you run the risk of horrible chemistry.

                        As for AD, the Pacers had the same two choices, trade DD or Rik to make room for AD as a starter, or trade AD. The third choice, not trading him, was much, much riskier.

                        PacerMan and Hicks bring up an interesting point. I know Peja's contract is guaranteed. But I'm pretty sure he has to report to the team to be paid. If he no-shows for training camp, he can be fined. If he no-shows for the regular season, he'd be placed on the suspended list and I'm pretty sure they could refuse to pay him until he reports. He'll file a grievance with the union, and they'll publicly back him and privately tell him, "You signed a contract. If you want your money, then report." An arbitrator would eventually take some haircut off the fines and lost pay when he returns to the team, and then you're right back at scenario three: disgruntled player - potential lockerroom disruption - making $10 million.

                        And that could all be avoided by trading him for someone that could possibly make the Kings better, or at least happier.

                        Damn, we've been doing way too much litigation support at work. I've got to quit thinking that way - no wonder I've got an ulcer and it isn't even the playoffs.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                          Originally posted by MSA2CF
                          Hicks, do you feel the Pacers should not have traded Antonio Davis?
                          I really don't have a strong opinion either way on it. I liked Tony, but he wanted out. You don't want to keep a sulking player on a team trying to win. I liked that we got the #5 pick. And I do like Bender, but in hindsight there were much better choices than him (unless he changes this year).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                            Oh, and before there's any more confusion on salaries:

                            Ron Artest will earn $5,850,000 this season.
                            Peja Stojakovic will earn $6,975,000 this season.

                            Notice if we do this, the Kings not only get Ron, but SAVE money. Don't tell me they won't do it. Especially with Peja wanting out.

                            The salaries don't quite get within 15%, but they are very close, and you could make it work by adding some cash to the deal. So yeah, basically you can trade them straight up.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Peja apparently wants out of Sac-town

                              PEJA!? I hope I never see him in a Pacer's uniform. IMO straight offense and not a dash of anything else. I don't like his game at all. I wouldnt trade ANYONE for him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                From Bruno:

                                http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_040806.html

                                Q. Peja Stojakovic just requested a trade from the Kings. I had heard a rumor that the Pacers may be considering a trade for Peja, maybe (Ron) Artest straight-up. I had also heard that (Larry) Bird loves Peja, and would love to have him in blue and gold. Do you think the Pacers would sacrifice Artest's defensive game in order to gain another perimeter scoring threat in Peja? (From Andy in Elwood, IN)

                                A. Stojakovic has indeed asked for a trade, but it doesn’t appear he’s going to get one. Kings co-owner Joe Maloof told ESPN the team has “absolutely no intention and no plan to trade him. … I am confident what we can work this out as a family.” Given the fact Stojakovic is one of the best pure shooters in the game and, at age 27, still in the prime of his career, he would be hugely appealing to most any team, including the Pacers. As has been demonstrated by Team USA in its pre-Olympic exhibitions, perimeter shooting is a lost art in the NBA and thus is becoming an increasingly valuable skill. The Sacramento Bee, quoting Stojakovic’s agent (David Bauman), reported the Pacers had offered Artest in June but were “quickly shot down” by the Kings. That doesn’t make it sound like the chances of a deal are promising. And based on published reports of their salaries, a one-for-one deal couldn’t be made. For the moment, it appears to be talk show fodder, but not much more.
                                [edit=72=1091820612][/edit]
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X