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

Chris Paul to Clippers

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

  • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

    ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
    One source close to process tells ESPN that NBA does not see talks w/Clippers as over. NBA still "hopeful" CP3 fate will be "resolved soon"
    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

    Comment


    • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

      There is no way the NBA is walking away from this deal, and there is no way the Clippers would take it off the table.

      The NBA will not keep Chris Paul in NOLA. They can't let him leave for nothing, but the Clippers are just fine without CP3, so they have little leverage there.

      Just make the damn thing happen so we can all move on.

      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: Chris Paul to Clippers

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

        If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.
        Possibly b/c we are all Pacer fans here...
        Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

        Comment


        • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

          If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.
          This isn't complicated.

          Any owner has final say on vetoing any trade.

          When a team is in limbo/financial ruin and the league takes over the operations of a team, appointing the collective of 29 other owners as the "acting owners" with all of the financial obligations that such a position entails, then the league has final say on vetoing any trade, whether based upon the overriding financial issues or even by polling that group of acting owners (which didn't even happen here).

          Laker fans think the world revolves around them and the league is out to get them. What a load of crap.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            This isn't complicated.

            Any owner has final say on vetoing any trade.

            When a team is in limbo/financial ruin and the league takes over the operations of a team, appointing the collective of 29 other owners as the "acting owners" with all of the financial obligations that such a position entails, then the league has final say on vetoing any trade, whether based upon the overriding financial issues or even by polling that group of acting owners (which didn't even happen here).

            Laker fans think the world revolves around them and the league is out to get them. What a load of crap.
            When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.

            The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.

            The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul. And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.

            Dumb really, Kobe was pretty much the only super star that had Stern's back, at least public ally. But yea, go ahead and screw his team over.

            Comment


            • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

              No, the team's owner is the league office, named David Stern. The other 29 owners do not make decisions concerning new orleans, though technically they do employ the guy that does.

              The NBA owners DID NOT VETO THE TRADE. David Stern, acting as de facto owner of the Hornets, did.

              As far as it looking "really bad" if they don't get a superstar for Paul, they didn't get one from the Lakers, either. They got good players, but old and expensive, which makes it harder to sell them quickly.

              The LAC offer with just the minny pick is much more value long term for NOLA than anything the Lakers offered. It's clearly a better offer.
              Last edited by Kstat; 12-12-2011, 05:13 PM.

              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: Chris Paul to Clippers

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.
                maybe that's why the owners were never polled. Stern decided on their behalf.

                The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.
                Link? That sounds like spin, not truth. He was hired as acting GM. That does not make him acting owner as well.

                The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul.
                purple and gold tinfoil hats

                And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.
                more purple and gold tinfoil hats



                The league vetoed a trade that would commit the future owner of the Hornets to be obligated to pay $19M more salary, and only for only short-term gain.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                  ...not to mention stern had already vetoed the trade by the time dan gilbert and mark cuban started sending him hate mail....

                  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: Chris Paul to Clippers

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post



                    The league vetoed a trade that would commit the future owner of the Hornets to be obligated to pay $19M more salary, and only for only short-term gain.
                    This.

                    The Hornets need a trade they can sell a prospective owner on. They don't need more money added to the payroll, and no stars on the horizon.

                    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: Chris Paul to Clippers

                      Apologies if it's been posted

                      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...21211&expire=1
                      While there’s been no official transition of power, general manager Dell Demps has been completely pushed to the side in deal-making decisions for the Hornets, multiple league sources told Y! Sports

                      “He’s basically a spectator now,” one official said.

                      Stern has two of his top executives – Joel Litvin and Stu Jackson – making calls and conducting negotiations with teams interested in Paul. Demps is still making calls, but rival front offices and agents involved in possible deals with New Orleans say he’s no longer authorized to decide on any transaction.

                      Teams interested in Paul have to send formal “bids” to the league office, sources said.
                      STU JACKSON! My biggest problem is that they originally told Demps he'd have full autonomy. That original deal sucked for them long term, but it was legal and he set it up. What a colossal clusterf...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        Apologies if it's been posted

                        http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...21211&expire=1

                        STU JACKSON!
                        Should have done this from the beginning. Allowing Demps to stay in place was always a mistake. No incentives for him to consider the Hornets long-term interests.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                          Yeah, I have no problem with them telling Demps to step down for this, but they needed to have done this weeks ago.

                          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: Chris Paul to Clippers

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            That doesn't correlate to the proposed hypothetical.

                            If the garbage deal that many on here proposed which would have sent Rondo to the Pacers was agreed to then rescinded by a ridiculous commissioner veto, people would be throwing tantrums. But since it's the Lakers, well, screw 'em.
                            If your hypothetical situation had actually taken place, I would be upset that the OWNERS of the Hornets declined the trade, but I would not be throwing a tantrum nor proposing wild conspiracy theories. The owners of a franchise have every right to exert control over anything that franchise does.

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            When the team's owner is the 29 other owners, there's a conflict of interest.
                            Correct.

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            The owners vetoed it because they don't want the Lakers to get Paul. And now they have to continue to vetoing deals, because unless the Hornets get a superstar +, it'll be a worse deal for the Lakers, and it'll look really bad.
                            Incorrect. The owners declined the trade because in their opinion it made the team harder to sell. Just because one neurotic and clearly delusional owner seemed to be objecting to the trade purely out of spite does not mean that the rest of the league shared his thought process. The owners will trade Paul when they are in a situation where it makes sense for them financially.

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            The GM was told anything he does will get passed by the league, and that essentially, he has free reign.
                            That is hearsay. The media likes to sensationalize headlines, so any quote that is indirectly reported should be taken with a grain of salt.

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            No, the team's owner is the league office, named David Stern. The other 29 owners do not make decisions concerning new orleans, though technically they do employ the guy that does.

                            The NBA owners DID NOT VETO THE TRADE. David Stern, acting as de facto owner of the Hornets, did.
                            Technically correct. While David Stern is the only person in position to decline the trade, he did so only because that is what his employers wished. Had he not declined the trade he would most likely be looking for a new job right now. If you want someone to blame for this whole situation, blame George Shinn and Gary Chouest (the previous owners of the Hornets) for putting the league into this conflict of interest.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                              According to Ken Berger's sources, while the NBA/Hornets still hope to move Chris Paul to the Clippers and re-engage the deal, the Clippers have moved on and are saying "it's over".

                              This is more in line with the original story that broke this morning, but the NBA was apparently just trying to keep hope alive. The Hornets/NBA were asking for just too many pieces in return for Paul, and it appears the Clippers are done negotiating.

                              Dec 12 - 5:41 PM
                              Source: Ken Berger on Twitter

                              http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nba/1115/chris-paul
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

                                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                                Should have done this from the beginning. Allowing Demps to stay in place was always a mistake. No incentives for him to consider the Hornets long-term interests.
                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Yeah, I have no problem with them telling Demps to step down for this, but they needed to have done this weeks ago.
                                Demps is a professional GM who learned his trade in the Spurs' front office. Now he is set aside by 2 executives from the NBA office. From their bios, it looks like Litvin has never been a GM. Stu Jackson apparently has, but it must have been some time ago. Yet Stern saw fit to let these 2 executives make basketball decisions rather than his professional GM.

                                It would have made far more sense for them to give parameters for an acceptable trade to Demps, and let him negotiate a deal. We know Demps is good at this - the original LA-Hou-NOH deal was pretty good value, all things considered. It's just that the overall direction was wrong.

                                It's just very amateurish handling. This mess was never going away easily, but the clumsy handling by the league ensures that it's going to linger on for a while.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X