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

Anybody else against bringing Al back?

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

  • Anybody else against bringing Al back?

    He's going to have a pretty big contract (I'm hearing 6 years for almost 60 mil - seems like we almost always end up trading these), we all know about what happened right before we traded him (talented small forward of the future, JO doesn't want to play center, etc.), we'd have to seem he Sarunas wrestle for #3, etc, etc.

    Seriously, tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't want to make this bone-headed move. Tell me somebody out there wants a pure shooter at 2 that will give us a legit second scoring option behind JO. The first scoring option cannot be Jack in any game all season, it just doesn't work, and we can't rely on 2 post players (JO and Al to get us anywhere, especially if we want to try the whole running game thing).

    More thoughts please.

    One more thing (via edit): Al blew out his knee when he was w/ us before, is he going to be okay for the next 6 years?
    The NBA ... it's fannnnnnnnn-tastic! I LOVE this game!

  • #2
    Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

    I'm not against it. If we do get him for nothing, I guess you have to do that. Worst case you can always trade him again.

    But I don't see what he brings to the table we don't already have. Leadership is nice and all, but it doesn't change the fact he doesn't fill a role that JO or Danny couldn't already fill.

    I'd rather we'd have spent this season addressing the 1 and the 5, as opposed to getting a lot of forwards.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

      6 years for 57 mil is a fair contract for Al.

      At the very worst, Al flops and he's a tradeable asset next year. I'm fine with it.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

        If the trade for Al involves the TE and not players to match salaries, as expected, then his deal will have a starting salary of $7.6M, likely at 6years/$57M. I'd say that's not bad at all for a starting PF who can produce like Al can, plus be a good chemistry guy. And those 6 years will be during his prime years of 26-31. That's a deal you can't pass up.

        If it means JO becomes redundant, expendable, overpriced, or all three, then you move him for pieces that fill another need. Conversely, if it doesn't work out here with Al, his contract makes him easy to trade. A win-win.
        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

          Initially I was against such a move to get Harrington until I realized that if the huge JONeal experiment doesn't yield a 2nd round playoff exit next season with a Tinsley/SJax/Marquis/Granger/JONeal/Harrington lineup......that Harrington would simply replace JONeal as the future starting athletic PF and JONeal will be traded for players to rebuild around a core of Granger/Harrington/White/Marquis/Shawne/Harrison.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

            I don't think you'll gain much.

            Right now you're looking at a starting lineup of:

            PG - Tinsley
            SG - Jackson
            SF - Granger
            PF - JO
            C - Foster

            Backups will include Daniels, Saras, Williams, Harrison & maybe Pollard.

            In the above lineup, every player but Foster is playing at his best position.

            By adding Harrington, either Granger goes to the bench or JO plays C. So then you've taken your best player and put him at a position he's less suited for. Plus with Al and JO both do most of their scoring from 15 feet and neither is really a slasher. They're not completely redundant but they are somewhat. Plus you take your best rebounder off the floor for substantial minutes.

            Al will help you, especially when JO misses his 20 games next season, but I don't think he helps you as much as most folks here seem to think he will.

            edit: After reading the previous responses, maybe I DO think he'll help you about as much as most posters think he will.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

              Originally posted by pacers31tc
              He's going to have a pretty big contract (I'm hearing 6 years for almost 60 mil - seems like we almost always end up trading these), we all know about what happened last time he left (talented small forward of the future, JO doesn't want to play center, etc.), we'd have to seem he Sarunas wrestle for #3, etc, etc.

              Seriously, tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't want to make this bone-headed move. Tell me somebody out there wants a pure shooter at 2 that will give us a legit second scoring option behind JO. The first scoring option cannot be Jack in any game all season, it just doesn't work, and we can't rely on 2 post players (JO and Al to get us anywhere, especially if we want to try the whole running game thing).

              More thoughts please.
              I don't agree with you at all. We all got this model for building a basketball team during Reggie's tenure that your primary or secondary scoring option should be a 3-point shooter. I personally would like our offense to be about getting high percentage shots. I am really happy with Marquis because he gets to the basket and gets layups, something we have not had in our backcourt since I have followed this team. We were all screaming about Maggette, but now everyone wants a good shooter.

              The two finals teams both lacked "pure shooters." In fact, the past two champions (Miami and San Antonio) did not have great three point shooting in their starting lineups. What they did have were players that could score in the post and players that could break down a defense off of the dribble and get to the line. Now, I do think that a shooter as a bench role player ala Steve Kerr would be a good addition, but I think that relying on the outside shot as a primary offensive weapon is suspect.
              Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
              http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

                Originally posted by FrenchConnection
                I don't agree with you at all. We all got this model for building a basketball team during Reggie's tenure that your primary or secondary scoring option should be a 3-point shooter. I personally would like our offense to be about getting high percentage shots. I am really happy with Marquis because he gets to the basket and gets layups, something we have not had in our backcourt since I have followed this team. We were all screaming about Maggette, but now everyone wants a good shooter.

                The two finals teams both lacked "pure shooters." In fact, the past two champions (Miami and San Antonio) did not have great three point shooting in their starting lineups. What they did have were players that could score in the post and players that could break down a defense off of the dribble and get to the line. Now, I do think that a shooter as a bench role player ala Steve Kerr would be a good addition, but I think that relying on the outside shot as a primary offensive weapon is suspect.
                There you go. Perfect response. Reggie being here for so long caused us to forget that you can build a team without a guy that can nail threes all day long being the #1 or #2 option.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

                  I don't know that I'm against it. I see why it makes sense to get him. But I would much rather pursue a top level shooting guard (I've wanted Michael Redd for years now). There are a number of different people I would rather see us pursue, but I like Al and think that they can make it work.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

                    I think we are going to see what this lineup can do, we are getting AL for nothing so we need to do it. The best part is we can trade JO now. So I am all for bringing AL here.
                    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

                      I'm not necessarily talking about a 3-point shooter, I'm talking about a star at 2: a scorer, a guy who could carry the team and be the 1st scoring option any given night. Jack is not that guy, and the Al trade isn't a win-win b/c we already have a starting PF worth 20+ mil a year, if we don't win with him it could become a major loss situation.
                      The NBA ... it's fannnnnnnnn-tastic! I LOVE this game!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

                        I agree with DisplacedKnick completely....that is a solid post.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Anybody else against bringing Al back?

                          We are addressing the 5 by adding another starting 4 and forcing the other one, who can play 5, to do so. He has a center's body. He has the tools to do it. The only issue is his body, which is legit, but I think the nagging injuries will go down with less weight to carry, and the truth is the two injuries that sidelined him for the long haul had nothing to do with him playing center. The shoulder injury was a fluke, and the groin injury was as well, as I recall.

                          If you can get a starting quality player without giving up anything or little, you DO IT. Especially when you have the luxury of knowing the character of the player you're acquiring as well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Anybody else against bringing Al back?

                            Considering what's available, we'd be stupid not to bring Al back for basically free. It's a reasonable contract during his prime and makes JO more expendable. What's not to like?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Anybody else against bring Al back?

                              Well Al obviously is a talented player and i have no doubt he will do JUST FINE next year as a pacer. And if you would ask me, trade DANNY GRANGER!!!!!!! Now trust me i love danny and know he will be a great pro, but if we have harrington for the next 6 years and o'neal for awhile as well then there is not a huge need for him. I'd say one more great year from him backing up and getting 30 minutes a game will prime him for a trade for a good young SHOOTING guard. we have the williams who could take over for granger the year after next. With Al and jermaine down low i would concentrate on a player who could hit the trey to really help complete this team(point guard and center would be nice too). Makes sense to me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X