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

3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

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

  • #46
    Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    [Ian] should get the same type of contract the Pacers gave Solo, they are pretty similar.
    Dude, those two guys aren't similar NOW, and Solo's a much better basketball player today than he was with the Pacers.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      Here is a list of guys that I can come up with:

      Reggie Evans 1.3mil a year, pretty much an steal at that price.
      Andray B 800k **
      Brand, 2.1mil **
      Turiaf, 1.1mil
      Ryan Hollins 1.1mil.
      Jordan Hil 3.5mil
      Greg Stiemsma, 2.5mil.
      Jason Smith, 2.5mil
      Camby 4mil
      Rasheed Wallace 1.3mil
      Kurt Thomas 1.3mil
      Nick Collison 2.9mil
      Thabeet 800k
      Kwame 3mil
      JO 1.3mil

      Guys I moved because they don't fit:
      Kaman, 8mil for one year. REason: 4 mil != 8 mil
      Landry 4mil Reason: Not a center.
      Dalembert 6.7mil for one year. Reason: 4 mil != 6.7 mil
      Lou, 1mil. Reason: Not a center
      Lopez 5mil. Reason: 5 mil != 4 mil
      Hawes 6.5 for two years. Reason: 6.5 mil != 4 mil

      This are just some examples but I can keep going, the point is that there was not reason to overpay for Ian.
      I would prefer you keep going, I'm going to edit your post and move the guys that don't fit the criteria and asterisk the guys that fit because they got claimed off of waivers.

      I didn't move the guyswhose production didn't match up to Ian's, but if I did there would have been only a few guys left in your original list. And if you also require that they need to have the same defensive presence as Ian it goes down further. And let's not pretend that Indiana is a hot ticket for veteran guys that are on their last legs. They want to be on teams where they can use their veteran awareness to make up for their lack of mobility utiltizing space that only superstars can create. Not every player is available to every team.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
        I would still trade DJ for him.
        Was going to say this. DC would probably be cool with coming here and playing backup at this point.
        "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Here is a list of guys that I can come up with:

          Reggie Evans 1.3mil a year, pretty much an steal at that price.

          Andray B 800k

          Kaman, 8mil for one year.

          Brand, 2.1mil


          Landry 4mil

          Turiaf, 1.1mil

          Ryan Hollins 1.1mil.

          Jordan Hil 3.5mil


          Dalembert 6.7mil for one year.



          Greg Stiemsma, 2.5mil.

          Lou, 1mil.


          Lopez 5mil.

          Jason Smith, 2.5mil

          Camby 4mil

          Rasheed Wallace 1.3mil

          Kurt Thomas 1.3mil

          Nick Collison 2.9mil

          Thabeet 800k

          Hawes 6.5 for two years.

          Kwame 3mil

          JO 1.3mil

          This are just some examples but I can keep going, the point is that there was not reason to overpay for Ian.

          Note: I'm not looking at their production now but I believe that in the same position as Ian a lot of them can produce the same for less(for those that make less).
          Nice try Vnzla - Stiemsma, Lou, Hollins, Kwame, Kurt Thomas, Turiaf, Thabeet, and Camby are awful this year - far inferior players and the stats back that up. Wallace and Evans are ring chasing vets in NY/BKY and would never sign in Indy - PF's too. Landry is a PF (we could never play him as a C). Collison makes 2.9M, but remember, he got a huge balloon payment in year 1 to redo his deal, so the average per year of the deal is around $5M (proves my point). Hawes (proves my point). Jordan Hill (proves my point). Dalembert (proves my point). I agree with JO and Jason Smith. Brand and AB came off amnesty (no one on the other side negotiating their price). Nice try though.

          Taj - 6 & 5 - $8M
          Hawes - 7 & 5 - $6.5M
          Amir J - 7 & 5 - $6.5M
          Dalembert - 6 & 5 - $6M
          Collison - 6 & 4 - $5M (Average w/ balloon payment)
          Speights - 6 & 5 - $4.2M
          Mahinmi - 5 & 4 - $4M
          Hill - 6 & 5 - $3.5M
          Mozgov - 4 & 5 - $3.1M
          McRoberts - 4 & 4 - $3M

          When looking at blocks/min, Mahinmi is atop this list. Mahinmi is right where he should be salary wise.
          Last edited by purdue101; 12-07-2012, 12:04 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
            I would prefer you keep going, I'm going to edit your post and move the guys that don't fit the criteria and asterisk the guys that fit because they got claimed off of waivers.

            I didn't move the guyswhose production didn't match up to Ian's, but if I did there would have been only a few guys left in your original list. And if you also require that they need to have the same defensive presence as Ian it goes down further. And let's not pretend that Indiana is a hot ticket for veteran guys that are on their last legs. They want to be on teams where they can use their veteran awareness to make up for their lack of mobility utiltizing space that only superstars can create. Not every player is available to every team.
            And what stopped the Pacers for claiming those guys other than themself? Brand, Scola and Andray would have been way better than Ian, yes two of them are not "true centers" but who cares? by the way I almost forgot about Kmart, he is a free agent and wants to sign for the minimum with anybody.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              And what stopped the Pacers for claiming those guys other than themself? Brand, Scola and Andray would have been way better than Ian, yes two of them are not "true centers" but who cares? by the way I almost forgot about Kmart, he is a free agent and wants to sign for the minimum with anybody.
              I disagree, next to Hansbrough, we need a defensive/rebounding center - these guys are PF's. I liked Scola and Brand though if we moved Hansbrough. Stay away from AB.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                And what stopped the Pacers for claiming those guys other than themself? Brand, Scola and Andray would have been way better than Ian, yes two of them are not "true centers" but who cares? by the way I almost forgot about Kmart, he is a free agent and wants to sign for the minimum with anybody.
                That's why I didn't discount them. I wanted them to go after Brand in particular. But if we would get an obvious PF, it would be to replace Tyler. I think the Pacers clearly wanted a guy who would be able to protect the rim. It makes sense, because typically when somebody gets beat, if the center doesn't rotate over it's a wide open layin. Our PFs have been better this year, but they're no defensive stalwarts.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                  Man I want to see DC be successful. Such a nice guy.
                  There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                    Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
                    I disagree, next to Hansbrough, we need a defensive/rebounding center - these guys are PF's. I liked Scola and Brand though if we moved Hansbrough. Stay away from AB.
                    Defense and rebounding is Kmart and Brand speciality, Ian is decent in D and is not that good of a rebounder for such a big guy, I'm also a Tyler fan but I can care less whatever is best next to Tyler he is not that important.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Defense and rebounding is Kmart and Brand speciality, Ian is decent in D and is not that good of a rebounder for such a big guy, I'm also a Tyler fan but I can care less whatever is best next to Tyler he is not that important.
                      I kind of expect Tyler to play for us on his qualifying offer next year and then the next year we will let him go and replace him with Plumlee, giving us a large and athletic 2nd unit front line.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        I kind of expect Tyler to play for us on his qualifying offer next year and then the next year we will let him go and replace him with Plumlee, giving us a large and athletic 2nd unit front line.
                        Yeah I'm not sure about that, I think he is gone.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Yeah I'm not sure about that, I think he is gone.
                          You think somebody's gonna offer him something as a RFA? Or do you think we drop his rights purely for monetary purposes? That would give us a little cap flexibility for next year, but not if we intend to resign West or Granger I don't think. I'm curious.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            Big deal. I would trade them both, together, plus a second round draft choice, for Jarrett Jack.
                            Hell yeah. Jarrett Jack was George Hill before we got George Hill. I'd welcome him back with open arms (even if he isn't a "true PG" either).

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I rather get Calderon, a second round pick plus DJ for him can probably do it.
                            Unfortunately the money doesn't work. Calderon makes $10.5m, DJ makes $3.5m. Otherwise, yeah it would be Barbosa trade part 2.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                              You think somebody's gonna offer him something as a RFA? Or do you think we drop his rights purely for monetary purposes? That would give us a little cap flexibility for next year, but not if we intend to resign West or Granger I don't think. I'm curious.
                              I think we drop his rights to use the money elsewhere. Like with DC, we don't HAVE to get rid of his salary for cap reasons, but I think we will choose to in order to keep the overall budget down. I don't really agree with it, but that seems to be the financial parameters we're working under.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: 3-pointer: Darren Collison disappoints again. ESPN Dallas

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                You think somebody's gonna offer him something as a RFA? Or do you think we drop his rights purely for monetary purposes? That would give us a little cap flexibility for next year, but not if we intend to resign West or Granger I don't think. I'm curious.
                                I think they are going to try to trade him first and if that doesn't work they would let him go, him making 4mil is not good business.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X