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

Emeka Okafor's value?

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

  • #31
    Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Okafor's value is higger than Murphy's, also Okafor is a better defender/banger and he could be the perfect complement for Hibbert.

    I don't understand why people are reluctant to take on his contract if that means that we are also getting Chris Paul.
    To start, you're overstating Okafors defense. Most people do.

    Secondly, Chris Paul doesn't want to come here, so getting him is something that won't happen anyway. Making the reasoning for taking on that contract, no good.

    Third, Okafor and Paul account for 28 million in salary. If we take on those two contracts, that's the team we will have for a couple of years. It would almost single handedly eliminate all of our cap space and flexibility. Is that roster really worth trapping ourselves like that? I don't believe so.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

      Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
      To start, you're overstating Okafors defense. Most people do.

      Secondly, Chris Paul doesn't want to come here, so getting him is something that won't happen anyway. Making the reasoning for taking on that contract, no good.

      Third, Okafor and Paul account for 28 million in salary. If we take on those two contracts, that's the team we will have for a couple of years. It would almost single handedly eliminate all of our cap space and flexibility. Is that roster really worth trapping ourselves like that? I don't believe so.
      How you know that Chris Paul does not want to come here?

      A team with Chris Paul, Brandon, Danny, Okafor and Hibbert could have a chance to compete and maybe make it to the finals, I also don't undertand why some guys are so worry about the cap flexibility, why do you want to be flexible for? to get young players and bad contracts in return? have you ever seen an NBA team winning a championship and been under the cap at the same time?

      When healthy Chris Paul is the best point guard and one of the top five players in the league you don't think that is worth it?
      Last edited by vnzla81; 07-25-2010, 11:56 AM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I also don't undertand why some guys are so worry about the cap flexibility, why do you want to be flexible for? to get young players and bad contracts in return?

        We will have to keep enough flexibility to sign Hibbert and Rush in a couple of years, other than that I am all for signing the right players even if they have a moderatly bad contract. I wouldn't go as far as a Gilbert Arenas type contract.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

          [QUOTE=Justin Tyme;1042740]
          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post



          I said early when Okafor was 1st being mentioned this off season there were reasons why Charoltte and N.O. wanted to move Okafor. Whether it's his play, albatross contract, or both. I'm not in favor of taking on another albatross contract to replace an albatross contract that is finally expiring after having waited 4 years for it to expire. Surely, Bird has learned from past FO mistakes!
          The fact that this albatross contract is tied to a inside defender and shot blocker and rebounder that would fill a REALLY nice role next to our own beloved Roy Hibbert is the difference.

          I'm guessing TPTB would make the trade in a minute to get a Chris Paul. I think the real reason is the $$ risk if you can't sign Paul long term. ANd it sure sounds like he's on board the "star team" concept.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post

            Third, Okafor and Paul account for 28 million in salary. If we take on those two contracts, that's the team we will have for a couple of years. It would almost single handedly eliminate all of our cap space and flexibility. Is that roster really worth trapping ourselves like that? Oh HELL yes.
            Fixed.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

              I guess to me, even if Okafor is 'garbage', I'd still like to see us trade some of our garbage for their garbage. Although if he really is garbage, then the length of his deal is a problem. So I see the point in not pursuing him. But just on a talent level, I'd like to have a new set of problems just if for no other reason I'm sick of having the same one again and again. Too bad his deal isn't shorter.

              Though, again, I'm not convinced he's as bad as some of you seem to think he is. But I could be wrong.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                How you know that Chris Paul does not want to come here?

                Wrong question. How do you know he would want to come here? He wants to play on a winning team. He already plays on a better team than the pacers. And i don't think we have a better upside than the hornets.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                  Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                  Wrong question. How do you know he would want to come here? He wants to play on a winning team. He already plays on a better team than the pacers. And i don't think we have a better upside than the hornets.
                  The Hornets are in rebuilding mode, the owner is trying to sell the team and CP3 knows this, that is the reason why he wants to be moved.

                  I think he would want to come here if the Pacers keep Danny and Hibbert, like I said before in another thread you can sell him that he could have his own big three in Indy (CP3,Danny,Okafor or Hibbert), by the way if he comes here this would be his team not Danny's anymore.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    Wrong question. How do you know he would want to come here? He wants to play on a winning team. He already plays on a better team than the pacers. And i don't think we have a better upside than the hornets.
                    So you think they hornets have a bigger upside in the next few years. when i think of a team having a better upside then another, that means that team has better young assets that can be consistently productive.

                    So with paul out of the equation competely. if you were paul which team would u choose.

                    Collson 22
                    posey 33 thorton 23
                    peja 33 wright 23
                    west 29 songalia 32
                    okafor 27

                    got pondexter and brackins in 2010 draft

                    highlighted: young talent to build on

                    AJ 23, Stephenson 19, ford
                    rush 25, jones, paul 20
                    granger 27, dunleavy
                    murphy, tyler 24, mcbob 23, rolle 24
                    Hibbert 23, Foster, Solo

                    highlighted: not in the pacers plans for the future except maybe dunleavy might get sign to a much smaller deal.

                    so compairing those teams. which team has the brighter future or better upside with paul. I know for new orleans west and okafor are good but, they dont want okafor and i see west being some bait for picks or young talent.
                    2012: Pacers return to glory

                    Paul George All Day

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                      [QUOTE=vnzla81;1042812]

                      he could have his own big three in Indy (CP3,Danny,Okafor or Hibbert) /QUOTE]


                      I was eating a piece of cornbread when I choked on it after your comment that Okafor as part of a big 3. This is the same player who has been traded twice in the last year, and is on the trading block NOW. If Chris Paul believed that, it would be easy for the new coach and GM to sell him on staying while they find the 3rd player. Chris Paul knows Okafor isn't even close to being an Allstar like Bosh or Amare!

                      Chris Paul wants to go to a team where he can truly compete winning a ring and that lets out the Pacers. If CP wants to be mired down playing for a team that is not going to compete for a ring, and one who competes for being mediocre or less he can just stay in New Orleans.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                        [QUOTE=Justin Tyme;1042828]
                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                        he could have his own big three in Indy (CP3,Danny,Okafor or Hibbert) /QUOTE]


                        I was eating a piece of cornbread when I choked on it after your comment that Okafor as part of a big 3. This is the same player who has been traded twice in the last year, and is on the trading block NOW. If Chris Paul believed that, it would be easy for the new coach and GM to sell him on staying while they find the 3rd player. Chris Paul knows Okafor isn't even close to being an Allstar like Bosh or Amare!

                        Chris Paul wants to go to a team where he can truly compete winning a ring and that lets out the Pacers. If CP wants to be mired down playing for a team that is not going to compete for a ring, and one who competes for being mediocre or less he can just stay in New Orleans.

                        That was the reason why I named Hibbert(I think he could be a good 3rd option),either way Paul could have a Robin to play with in Danny.

                        To me Okafor is a good player but I think he is been playing out of position for a long time, with Hibbert as the center he could go back to his natural position at power forward.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                          Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                          We will have to keep enough flexibility to sign Hibbert and Rush in a couple of years, other than that I am all for signing the right players even if they have a moderatly bad contract. I wouldn't go as far as a Gilbert Arenas type contract.
                          CP3 is more of a player than those two combined !

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            Wrong question. How do you know he would want to come here? He wants to play on a winning team. He already plays on a better team than the pacers. And i don't think we have a better upside than the hornets.
                            That's Because They Have Chris Paul.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              The Hornets are in rebuilding mode, the owner is trying to sell the team and CP3 knows this, that is the reason why he wants to be moved.

                              I think he would want to come here if the Pacers keep Danny and Hibbert, like I said before in another thread you can sell him that he could have his own big three in Indy (CP3,Danny,Okafor or Hibbert), by the way if he comes here this would be his team not Danny's anymore.
                              He can go wherever he wants to so I am not sure why you think the pacers would be on his list.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Emeka Okafor's value?

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                He can go wherever he wants to so I am not sure why you think the pacers would be on his list.
                                He has absolutely no say in where he goes. If he is lucky the hornets will give him a gift and try to put him on a team he likes. Paul doesn't have a no trade clause in his contract. meaning they can trade him wherever they want. if they want to trade him to indy they can. If i was the team though i would be doing whats best for the Hornets NOT FOR PAUL. And if the best thing for the hornets is trading with the magic then paul is lucky
                                2012: Pacers return to glory

                                Paul George All Day

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X