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

Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

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

  • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    If he only spent a month in Indy, then you'd have a point, but he spent his ENTIRE summer/fall here.

    You're talking about a vacation, I'm talking about him actually LIVING here.

    If being in LA was so important to him, I think he would take advantage of it, instead of leaving there in order to spend his time in Naptown.

    EDIT: And anyways, LAC are going to have to make some pretty tough decisions. Their #1 target is Dwight. They already have Blake and EJ. Each team can only sign one max player to their roster. Two of them are going to have to take paycuts in order to stay with the Clippers, if Howard joins, and one is going to have to even if he doesnt.
    Hmmm...but they could make up the money by being playoff contenders every year. Plus, where is it written that the teams HAVE to offer the max and players have to accept it?

    We'll just have to agree to disagree. Where a player spends his time during the summer is not enough evidence for me to determine that the player wants to play for that team. For all we know, he could be a momma's boy, but his mother refuses to leave Indiana, so he decides to spend his entire summer every year with her.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

      Originally posted by daschysta View Post
      I disagree.
      A top five point guard, possible top 3? for a possible good player in the future = no-brainer.



      Either way I think they want Roy and DC for Rondo.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
        That spot could be addressed later. George Hill is ideally 6th man, he could be a reasonable stop gap though. He is a very good defender.
        So why put ourselves in a situation to address it when it's already addressed? Now you're just giving up Paul George for the sake of saying "We have Rondo", but you don't have a backup plan to address the "hole" left by Paul George.

        Sounds like a lateral move to me...unless you're planning to start giving Rush and Jones additional minutes at the SG spot.

        EDIT: Nevermind, you edited your comment.

        So a

        Rondo
        Hill/Rush

        rotation is better than a

        Rondo
        George/Hill

        rotation? You can live with that rotation to start the season?
        Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 11-30-2011, 12:01 PM.


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Rondo is so much better than Steve Nash right now defensively it's not even funny. Plus Rondo is probably the best passer in the league right now.
          People bent about Rondo's lack of an outside shot aren't looking at the big picture. Rondo's defense and passing are elite, and we have a ton of shooters. This team desperately needs someone who can CREATE, preferably one thats not a defensive liability. How about the best defensive PG in the league? Rondo is a perfect fit.
          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

          - ilive4sports

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            So why put ourselves in a situation to address it when it's already addressed? Now you're just giving up Paul George for the sake of saying "We have Rondo", but you don't have a backup plan to address the "hole" left by Paul George.

            Sounds like a lateral move to me...unless you're planning to start giving Rush and Jones additional minutes at the SG spot.
            There is a lot of free agents that can fill that position, I wouldn't worry to much about it, we would still have cap space to fill that position.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
              So why put ourselves in a situation to address it when it's already addressed? Now you're just giving up Paul George for the sake of saying "We have Rondo", but you don't have a backup plan to address the "hole" left by Paul George.

              Sounds like a lateral move to me...unless you're planning to start giving Rush and Jones additional minutes at the SG spot.
              Shooting Guards are a lot easier to find than Point Guards, and we also have an All Star small forward who's a great shooter. We have talent at the wing spot.
              "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

              - ilive4sports

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Rondo is a proven problem child? Based on what? His NBA championship, his multiple conference finals appearances? His multiple NBA finals appearances?

                Jesus, when has this guy ever done anything even approaching what Artest or SJax did? All we've really even heard is that he's "moody", what the hell does that even mean? You could probably say that about 90% of the NBA. Heck, Roy Hibbert is "moody" he's just moody in the sense that he gets down on himself easily.

                So far the biggest criticism we've really heard is that he's moody.

                And as far as people are saying, "Why would we want Rondo if Boston is trying to move him?" Let's not act like Danny Ainge is some sort of trade savant here. The guy lucked out once when he had a ton of cap space and landed KG and Ray Allen.

                This is the same Danny Ainge that traded his interior defensive anchor (Perkins) for a middle of the road swing man (Jeff Green). He's more than prone to making stupid decisions.
                Thank you. I was waiting for someone to bring up a number of these points. This guy didn't go into the stands to punch a fan.

                I see Rondo as a workhorse guy that you hate when playing against him but LOVE him on your own team. Boston has too many ego's and Rondo is a stubborn guy that likely isn't backing down from the KG's of the world and thus gets "moody". Big effing deal.

                I see him and the combo of Vogel/Shaw being a perfect mix actually. They all love to get their hands dirty and provoke the fight. Throw in that many people say we want to play more of a smash mouth style and there isn't a PG in the league that better promotes that atmosphere.

                Do people here not understand how good of a defensive backcourt Rondo/PG and Hill would be? I can barely quantify how NBA sexy that is.
                I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the way

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                  Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post

                  This is probably blasphemy to most of the board, but I would absolutely give up Paul George to make this deal happen. Guard-Forward is a position of strength on this team, but losing Hibbert leaves us with a gaping hole in the front court. Being strong at the 1 and the 5 is so important in this league.

                  Paul George, DC, Stephenson, Pacers 1st round pick, Boston 1st round pick - to New Orleans.

                  CP3 - to Boston

                  Rondo - to Indiana

                  Rondo
                  Hill
                  Granger
                  David West?
                  Hibbert

                  I'd pull the trigger.
                  I like this I idea but I think they want Hibbert and probably DC for Rondo leaving the Pacers with

                  Rondo,PG,Danny Hans and Nene/Gasol?
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Rondo is so much better than Steve Nash right now defensively it's not even funny. Plus Rondo is probably the best passer in the league right now.
                    Steve Nash is arguably the greatest shooter of all-time. Four seasons of 50/40/90 (the holy trinity of shooting), and one season where he missed out by shooting .899 from the line. The rest of the league's done it five times total (Larry Bird, twice, and Reggie, Mark Price, and Dirk Nowitzki, once each).

                    For as large as the gap between their defense may be (and I don't think Rondo is near the defender he's made out to be), the gap between their offense is probably twice as wide, if not greater.

                    People keep pointing out that Rondo was #2 in the league is APG this past season. Guess who was #1, not only for this past season, but last season, too (and five seasons, total)?

                    I've give you small a hint: His name is Steve Nash and he plays for the Phoenix Suns.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                      Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                      Shooting Guards are a lot easier to find than Point Guards, and we also have an All Star small forward who's a great shooter. We have talent at the wing spot.
                      So who we sign to replace Paul George then? I'm curious...


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                        Man, with free agency kicking in and all of the Pacers buzz, I just think to myself: this is the reward for sticking with the team these last five-six years. It's going to be a fun ride folks.

                        Think about a couple of years ago, and how likely it would have been to entertain a deal for someone of Rondo's calibre. Think about how likely it would have been to think about a moderate to great free agent as a potential future Pacer.

                        I think some of the folks on this list are still going through a bit of an attitude adjustment. Some folks are thinking a little too narrowly about the opportunities that are starting to become available.

                        We now have a lot of leverage and young pieces. I'd poop my pants if we could hold onto some of our young core and pull in someone of Rondo's calibre at the same time... and still have cap space for more improvement. I'm still a little dazed about that potential.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                          A few things need to be emphasized.

                          1. Rondo is arguably the best contract in the NBA. He's locked up for 4 seasons at an average of $11.5M/season.

                          2. With Rondo, you'll have more flexibility and stability to sign better players than you would with Chris Paul or any of the other top point guards once they reach their next contract.

                          3. Whether or not you like Rondo doesn't matter. I'm not a big fan, but anyone who's watched the Celtics can tell you two things. 1. Rondo was the best player on the Celtics last season and probably the season before that, and 2. Rondo isn't great because he's surrounded by Hall of Famers. Rondo is actually helping them.

                          4. Rondo is better than any current Pacer by a wide margin, at arguably the most important position and our (by far) weakest position. Chris Paul would be better, but I'm not sure there is another player you can bring in that will have the positive impact that Rondo has. Hibbert, Hansbrough, George....if any of those three remain on the Pacers with Rondo here, he will open up their games so much. The Pacers haven't had a point guard that can even get the ball to Hibbert in the post; we've barely scratched the surface on how much better a good point guard can make our team, let alone great.

                          5. Our foes in the coming years will include the Rose-led Bulls, Wall-led Wizards, and probably Paul-led Knicks or Celtics. If you have a chance to pick up one of the best defensive point guards in the NBA, you do it. It's a bonus that he can positively impact the offense, let alone run it better than almost anyone in the league.

                          6. The Pacers aren't going to have that many opportunities to pick up a player like Rondo again. You make that move if you can. This is, imo, the biggest no-brainer trade rumor I've seen in the Pacers favor in years.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I like this I idea but I think they want Hibbert and probably DC for Rondo leaving the Pacers with

                            Rondo,PG,Danny Hans and Nene/Gasol?
                            I think you have to give up one of the two (Hibbert or George). I wouldn't give up both. If it has to be Hibbert, I don't like the deal as much, but I still might be ok with it.

                            Center, much like PG, is a premium position. Having an advantage there is a big deal. I LOVE Paul George, but its so much easier to find SG/SFs who are good. If we kept Granger, George is the more expendable piece for us.

                            There would be no guarantee of getting Nene, and he would cost a lot, more than he is worth I think. Though I would go hard at him if we had to give up Hibbert.
                            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                            - ilive4sports

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                              So who we sign to replace Paul George then? I'm curious...
                              Jrich, Crawford, Mayo,Prince, Battier, Butler(former all star), Affalo, Redd, just to name few.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers in talk with the Celtics about a Rondo deal

                                Chris Brussard says that Paul would not sign an extension with Boston so that would put a kabosh on all this

                                http://twitter.com/#!/chris_broussard

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X