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

why would the hawks deal josh smith

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

  • why would the hawks deal josh smith

    im posting this cause im tired of reading worthless trade rumors for garbage players. landry is okay but folks on here think the nba is a video game and we should make deals every week.

    i believe in being patient and waiting for the right player/deal to come along. which hopefully Bird continues to do.

    how do we not know a deal is already in place, but the teams will not finalize until the all-star break, for example the hawks may deal smith, but want the pacers record to be as bad as possible b/c a first could be involved. just saying.

    anyways, since so many are gung ho for doing a deal, the only PF that realistcally might become available and i would be actually thrilled to see us acquire is smith. these other garbage players are not going to make any bit of difference for us.

    so my question is, why would the hawks consider dealing smith. my guess is smith and horford play the same position, and also financial reasons, but im not quite fully understanding a move for financial reasons since it appears the hawks are in good shape after bibby's contract expires.

    so i guess this post is asking.. IS THERE ANYWAY ON GODS GREEN EARTH WE CAN ACQUIRE JOSH SMITH?

    am hoping some of you know more about this than i do, regarding financial reasons why the hawks would do this and so on...

    blatche or landry are just aerage players to me,, if were gonna discuss players who can make a difference and might be available, smith is the man i wanna see wearing blue and gold.. but is it even possible.

    ie. i think iggy is no longer available as was originally reported a couple months ago. additionally, im cool with waiting on PG24 anyways to gain experience, but we need a PF and if Smith seems like the one most likely available and would be a game changer.

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    IS THERE ANYWAY ON GODS GREEN EARTH WE CAN ACQUIRE JOSH SMITH?
    No

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

      He's not an option.
      We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

        now that they have Horford locked up on a nice deal I dont see them trading Jsmith. I just dont think they will resign Jamal Crawford and maybe trade him to the MAVS at the all-star break.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

          Only if we trade away Foster and TJ will the Hawks do that

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

            that takes care of my question. I still feel smith/horford at the PF creates a jam at the position.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
              that takes care of my question. I still feel smith/horford at the PF creates a jam at the position.
              they are so verstile. They both can play 2 postions. The only reason they were gonna trade him was so they could give Horford a max deal. They didnt need to he signed 5 yr 60mil now they can afford both.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                they are so verstile. They both can play 2 postions. The only reason they were gonna trade him was so they could give Horford a max deal. They didnt need to he signed 5 yr 60mil now they can afford both.
                If the CBA doesn't change much, they'll have to seriously go into the luxury tax to keep them both, and field a decent roster. They have 63 million dollars tied up in 8 players next year. That's 7 more players still remaining to be signed. Even the year after that they have 58 million tied up in 7 players.

                Pretty hard to go that far into luxury tax range for a team that has attendance to rival our own, and that's sad because they're much better.

                Arena: Philips Arena ▪ Attendance: 240,968 (22nd of 30)
                Arena: Conseco Fieldhouse ▪ Attendance: 237,128 (25th of 30)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                  There are multiple variables, IMO.

                  Variables concerning the Pacers:

                  In a trade senario, [1] the Pacers would owe the Hawks' forward a $6 million dollar "trade kicker" in addition to a contract exceeding $50 million dollars. [2] The Pacers would have to give the Hawks talent in return. After all, the Hawks believe they can compete for a championship. They will not trade Smith in order to dump his salary. Expiring contracts are the only value of Ford and Dunleavy. Who would the Pacers trade for Smith? [3] CBA?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                    Originally posted by huber14 View Post
                    Only if we trade away Foster and TJ will the Hawks do that
                    Fixed

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                      Did I mention $6 million dollar trade kicker?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                        $$$$$$$

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                          If the CBA doesn't change much, they'll have to seriously go into the luxury tax to keep them both, and field a decent roster. They have 63 million dollars tied up in 8 players next year. That's 7 more players still remaining to be signed. Even the year after that they have 58 million tied up in 7 players.

                          Pretty hard to go that far into luxury tax range for a team that has attendance to rival our own, and that's sad because they're much better.

                          Arena: Philips Arena ▪ Attendance: 240,968 (22nd of 30)
                          Arena: Conseco Fieldhouse ▪ Attendance: 237,128 (25th of 30)
                          Including Horford's new salary for 2011/2012, according to Hoopsworld, the Hawks have 64.192M tied up in salary for 8 players. Among the players that are free agents is Jamal Crawford, currently making 10.8M in the last year of his contract, and 6 other players (none of whom currently makes over 2.5M).

                          Let's assume for a moment that those 6 players are re-signed at the same salaries or that their replacements make no more than the 6 did this season. That would take another 6.78M total, bringing the total commited salary up to nearly 71M... and they haven't re-signed Jamal Crawford yet. If they re-sign Crawford at his present salary, then they are up to 81.8M.

                          It's pretty obvious that something has to give for the Hawks. Both Crawford and Smith have played very important roles for their team. But they will have Johnson and Horford making 18M and 12M next season, with Smith in line to make 12.2M. If they re-signed Crawford, then they would have about 43M tied up in 4 players.

                          The Hawks can get a lot more in return for Smith than they can for Crawford. I suspect they would be looking for less salary in return, comprised of young, partially proven players on rookie contracts and a combination of draft choices.

                          The Pacers would probably like to have Crawford too, but with the players we have, there isn't enough difference in Crawford's talent level and the potential of our players to warrant shelling out 10M for Crawford. Besides, Rush also plays much better defense than Crawford.

                          So, Smith would be our choice and I'd bet the Pacers are just waiting to see which player the Hawks might be willing to give up - Smith or Crawford. If it is Smith, the Pacers would probably try to get involved.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                            It would cost $6 million plus his contract. I don't think it will happen. Simon won't be interested.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: why would the hawks deal josh smith

                              I think Smith becomes available only if Atlanta acquires an athletic center (better than Zaza). One day-dream: the Nuggets decide to blow their team up after trading Melo, and agree to a three-team trade where they get young talent and/or a pick, Atlanta gets Nene, and we get Smith.


                              "I think if he is and we pass on Leaf we'd be some dumb mother ****ers."

                              - Larry Bird to Kevin Pritchard before their pick on Draft Day

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X