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

Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

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

  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    I'm not even sure it's an argument. The Lakers ARE worse off with this deal. their frontcourt is pitiful and their depth is nonexistent. Their only big man would be an immature kid with bad knees that routinely misses months to injury.


    Plus Kobe hasn't had a backcourt mate who needed the ball since Nick Van Exel. Maybe it would have worked since Kobe is old and wants to extend his career, but it still would have been a massive adjustment for him. And even if the two of them worked fine, the team would have still been worse off for the reasons you state. The only way that explains Kupchack doing this is that he had a Howard deal up his sleeve.

    5 years ago, Kobe getting a backcourt mate who scores/controls the ball as much as CP3 would not have worked.

    Comment


    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

      For the record, I really want to see Paul and Kobe play together. That would be fun. I just don't want to see Howard gift-wrapped to them (which is what a Bynum trade would be).

      if Paul wants to play with Kobe that badly, so be it. Let them work for their title with Bynum and world Peace as their 3rd and 4th best players.
      Last edited by Kstat; 12-09-2011, 07:07 AM.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

        Does one of these not seem out of place? I don't see a problem with the owner of a team rejecting a trade.

        Derrick Favors 20 years old, #3 pick
        Devin Harris 28 years old
        #3 Pick
        Top 7 protected 1st from Golden State (#11 in the last draft)

        Wilson Chandler 24 years old
        Raymond Felton 27 years old
        Danilo Gallinari 23 years old
        2014 Knicks 1st
        2 2nd round picks

        Lamar Odom 32 years old
        Luis Scola 31 years old
        Kevin Martin 28 years, 311 days old
        Goran Dragic 25 years old
        2012 Knicks 1st (#17 in the last draft)
        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

        Comment


        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

          Yeah, the Hornets get good players, but expensive ones with some tread on the tires.

          I applaud them for trying to stay competitive, but it isn't a very good deal for a franchise in need of a rebuild and a new owner.
          Last edited by Kstat; 12-09-2011, 07:12 AM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

            Here's the problem though. If you the NOH owners don't want to add salary/vets, then tell your GM that before he makes deals!

            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...ets_nba_120811

            Hornets general manager Dell Demps is “disconsolate” over the heavy-handed move from the commissioner’s office, a source told Y! Sports. Demps considered resigning his job on Thursday, league sources said, and had to be talked out of it. The Hornets had scored a terrific deal for Paul, a trade that was lauded by some of Demps’ peers throughout the league. Officials involved in the trade talks said the league office was consulted throughout the negotiations, and there was never an indication Demps didn’t have the power to make a deal. In fact, several teams negotiating with New Orleans to get Paul asked the league office, and were told Demps had full authority to execute a trade.

            The NBA has owned the Hornets since purchasing them from George Shinn in 2010 and has been searching for a new owner for the franchise.

            Stern listened to enraged owners on Thursday who insisted this trade went against the entire reason the owners pushed for the lockout, that nothing had changed, and yet it was Stern who made the extraordinary decision to cancel the deal. Demps tried to talk him out of it, league officials said, but Stern was absolute in his desire to kill the trade.
            What if the Lakers had recruited the Pacers or another cap space team as the third team, you don't think Stern would have issued a veto? The only purpose was to stop the Lakers from getting Paul, which sets a dangerous precedent. Which of NOH's 29 owners were really thinking of how to improve NOH at that point?

            Comment


            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

              The point was to stop the team they own from taking on more salary for worse players.
              "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

              Comment


              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                Originally posted by cgg View Post
                Does one of these not seem out of place? I don't see a problem with the owner of a team rejecting a trade.

                Derrick Favors 20 years old, #3 pick
                Devin Harris 28 years old
                #3 Pick
                Top 7 protected 1st from Golden State (#11 in the last draft)

                Wilson Chandler 24 years old
                Raymond Felton 27 years old
                Danilo Gallinari 23 years old
                2014 Knicks 1st
                2 2nd round picks

                Lamar Odom 32 years old
                Luis Scola 31 years old
                Kevin Martin 28 years, 311 days old
                Goran Dragic 25 years old
                2012 Knicks 1st (#17 in the last draft)
                Utah's intake with the Deron Williams' deal makes the other two look like hot garbage by comparison.

                Comment


                • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  Utah's intake with the Deron Williams' deal makes the other two look like hot garbage by comparison.
                  That's what happens when you trade your players before it becomes a media circus... But the players the Nuggets received are young, cheap, and can produce.
                  "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                  Comment


                  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                    So the obvious solution would be to enjoin players and anyone associated with them, from speaking to anyone about the player's team preferences, ever. Of course that would properly belong in the CBA but that door has been closed.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                      Or suspend them for conduct detrimental to the team. I'm not exactly sure what that includes, but I imagine not showing up for camp would be.
                      "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                      Comment


                      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                        If I was interested in buying an NBA team ( Hornets ) watching them deal the All Star for 3 players owed 83.3 million in guaranteed money; plus a point guard I'd have to resign and a mediocre draft pick. Would not excite me to purchase them.

                        At least with Cetic/ Pacer rumored offer you'd get at least 2 and most likely 3 - 1st rounders plus Green or Davis, Bradley,Moore, Rush, Collison and Hansbrough 6 young players with very affordable contracts.

                        The Lakers were rumored to have a 2nd trade ready after this one to acquire a pf with the 8+ million exemption they'd have gotten from the trade.

                        I think the union will find a way to force the Paul to Lakers deal with a tweak or 2 in the end.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                          I don't think Mr. Stern likes to be forced into things. Maybe if they get a 6 team trade where the Hornets actually get something that is suitable for their situation.
                          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                          Comment


                          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            The same people complaining about what Stern did also complain that all Stern wants is a Lakers/Celtics Finals.

                            Well, which is it?

                            You really think Stern doesn't want the Lakers to be a superteam?

                            I wish the writers would use common sense. It's moments like these where you can see how much power agents have over their mouthpieces like Wojo.
                            Stern doesn't want the PR hit for the Lakers becoming another "super-team." He thought he was making a good PR move by vetoing. He was dead wrong.

                            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                            Its ironic that people are throwing the exact same vitriol at Stern for doing the exact opposite of his supposed MO. I thought Stern was all about super teams and rigging everything to favor the big markets?
                            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                            Than what the hell is the point of the trade? To have cap space two years from now? If they can flip these guys for younger prospects than why don't they do it? Bring another team in.

                            That team would have had no chance of competing. Why prolong the inevitable?
                            Vetoing this trade does not hurt the Lakers. Would the Lakers have been a better team with Chris Paul than Odom/Gasol? Maybe, but I doubt it. They'd have been different, but I don't think they'd have necessarily been better.

                            Vetoing this trade absolutely butt ****ed the Hornets. They are screwed. The package they were getting back was not bad at all. It was actually pretty good. You want to talk about prolonging the inevitable? How about forcing a league-run franchise to lose his marquee player in the summer with no hope of receiving compensation for it. New Orleans, meet Cleveland. Cleveland, New Orleans.

                            Good luck trying to sell that team now. Who's going to want to buy an unbelievably bad team, in an unbelievably bad market, with no assets that you can move to rebuild?

                            Terrible decision by Stern to give into pressure from a few butt-hurt owners. Just awful.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                              Cleveland will be good sooner than a Hornets team that makes that trade.
                              "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                              Comment


                              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                                There are valid points from all sides of this argument, as well as plenty of blame to go around. This is obviously one of them stories that is going to be rehashed and recycled for x amount of weeks leading to eventual bleeding of my brain.
                                "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X