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

Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

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

  • #16
    Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
    I bet you would have done it after PG's 0 point game.
    Not all people want to trade a player after one or two bad games.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Not all people want to trade a player after one or two bad games.
      No need for the backhanded comment.
      There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        Thunder supposedly wanted a young player AND an established player in return for Harden, not to mention multiple picks. Paul George would have been just the start of the Pacers' offer.

        One hypothetical trade discussed among fans (which didn't fit the above format) was PG + Hibbert for Harden + Perkins. Made some sense for both teams, but also had major downsides for both.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
          I bet you would have done it after PG's 0 point game.
          I guess you have never read any of my comments about George.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

            Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
            No need for the backhanded comment.
            I wasn't trying to make a backhanded comment. I was just trying to point out that Eleazar in particular is patient with team and the players. He isn't trying to run them out of town. He is giving him some chances. That's all there is tonight.

            If it came out more aggressive than I wanted then there's also a good reason about it. I'm kinda sick of the way some people seem to think that everyone thinks just like them.

            No, vnzla, I wouldn't hold on Amar'e's jock, if he was a Pacer.

            No, boombaby, Eleazar wouldn't want to trade PG after his 0 point game.

            Just speak for yourselves, people. Don't project your own feelings on other posters.
            Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
            Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

            Panopticon

            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              Harden is nice, but I wouldn't trade Paul George for him. I definitely wouldn't trade Paul and something else.

              On behalf of Paul I deeply apologize that he didn't come out of Frezno St as a 25 ppg guy day 1. Of course Harden went #3 and hasn't been that yet either, but...for whatever reason players become the sexy guy to get and people lose their minds (see Lin, Hibbert, endless history in the NBA).

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Harden is nice, but I wouldn't trade Paul George for him. I definitely wouldn't trade Paul and something else.

                On behalf of Paul I deeply apologize that he didn't come out of Frezno St as a 25 ppg guy day 1. Of course Harden went #3 and hasn't been that yet either, but...for whatever reason players become the sexy guy to get and people lose their minds (see Lin, Hibbert, endless history in the NBA).
                As much as it pains me to say it, Harden is clearly the better player right now. Paul has the better upside. You said yesterday, that this team is in "win now" mode, and I agree with that. Wouldn't it have made sense to get the better player right now?

                It's possible that the FO knew about the severity of Granger's injury, and shifted from "win now" to "let's hold it together, and make a run next year," which would have changed that dynamic entirely. Of course that's going to require plunking down the cash for David West after this year, which I think we both hope is this case no matter what.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                  OKC would have wanted Roy Hibbert and Paul George for James Harden and Kendrick Perkins. I can't imagine it any other way. They're weakest spot on that team is center and Roy would solidify that team against the likes of the Lakers and Clippers with the defensive presence. They would want Paul for the same reason of Harden, to have a wing player on a rookie scale contract, Plus they would then have a defensive wing (unlike Harden) to put pressure on the Kobe's of the league. OKC already has scoring and Paul and Roy would have gave them the defense they need. Also, the money would have worked. I am sure the Pacers wouldn't have done this cause Perkins is a half pint to Hibbert and Harden isn't worth Roy and Paul plus having Perkins contract around with his lack of production. Pacers might be desperate to upgrade the wing position but they wasn't going to blow up the team to do it.
                  Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    I don't think I would trade Paul for Harden even after a 0 point game. I would trade anyone else on the roster for Harden so that he and Paul could play together. They would probably turn into one of the better wing combos in the league and who knows how good they could be together in their primes.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post
                      I don't think I would trade Paul for Harden even after a 0 point game. I would trade anyone else on the roster for Harden so that he and Paul could play together. They would probably turn into one of the better wing combos in the league and who knows how good they could be together in their primes.
                      I agree and I think PG is an overall better player. James and Paul would compliment each other very well if on the same team. I know Hardens stats look a little better (last I checked anyways), but he is ball dominant right now in Houston, so he should fill the stats a bit more then Paul. I would love to see the both of them as Pacers.
                      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        Harden would have been an incredible pick up for the Pacers
                        Smothered Chicken!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          When you compare Paul and Harden at age 22, Paul this year vs Harden last year, you have Harden shooting a better 2P% and drawing more fouls (coming off the bench with Durant/W'brook as teammates) but rebounding less, blocking less and getting about the same steals.

                          Harden was moved to the primary guy when he went to Houston and his FG% dropped from the 49% level to 43%, and that 43% is in line with his 1st and 2nd seasons which makes the 49 the anomoly so far. Add to this a noticeable drop in 3P% with it falling to 34.5%. So while he's finally gotten to a 25 ppg season with Houston (so far), it's come at a usage cost. This is not to say Harden is not a good #1 option, it's just that if you trade Paul for Harden you have to expect a SITUATION IMPACT to Harden's numbers just like you see happening with his move to Houston.

                          So you won't be getting "off the bench with Durant and W'Brook as primary threats" Harden. I love BAMF and Hill, but they aren't the threats that those 2 are. So when I see Paul starting to have his offense really click, matched with already decent early career numbers, I think that we have a similar level of talent guy here already and swapping him + another item of value for Harden is just a bad deal.


                          Harden's p36 Points/eFG%
                          15.6 / 48.4
                          16.4 / 51.8
                          19.3 / 58.2
                          23.1 / 49.1

                          Paul's p36 Points/eFG%
                          13.5 / 50.5
                          14.7 / 51.0
                          16.5 / 49.8



                          And by the way, since the 0 points game Paul has put up these numbers
                          24.4 ppg
                          51% FG
                          53.5% 3P
                          59.6% eFG
                          7.6 Reb
                          3.8 Ast

                          Based on how he played last night, using his cross step to drive to the rim with confidence, I'd say that Paul has had a "click" moment and is starting to figure out who he is in the NBA. That would match the type of improvement we saw Harden take last year, but in a 6th man role that was more favorable to quality shots.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            As much as it pains me to say it, Harden is clearly the better player right now. Paul has the better upside. You said yesterday, that this team is in "win now" mode, and I agree with that. Wouldn't it have made sense to get the better player right now?

                            It's possible that the FO knew about the severity of Granger's injury, and shifted from "win now" to "let's hold it together, and make a run next year," which would have changed that dynamic entirely. Of course that's going to require plunking down the cash for David West after this year, which I think we both hope is this case no matter what.
                            Sort of, but as my last post details, I don't see these guys as different enough to pay a price for a trade. Harden has been a more confident scorer in general, but Paul's height and hops give him a big rebound and defense advantage. Harden's sharp, but he and Paul are about the same age so both are really the same guy in the "win now" mode, which is the younger guy just getting his feet wet at the start of the team's run. He's the guy that becomes the "build with him" guy, a bit like Rose was in 98.

                            Harden is not Nash, he's not the proven win-now leader, he's been the proven win-now bench star.

                            Trading Paul for Harden would seem like paper shuffling to me, slight tweeks that improve offensive firepower a bit with a trade-off of slight defense and rebounds. The Pacers don't need that, not with Granger here. What they need is Granger himself. Then Paul/Harden isn't in the primary scoring role.

                            In fact if Roy would figure things out and with West and Hill already here, the Paul/Harden role teeters on 5th option status, and prior to this fall that's where things appeared to be. Even now I think we've seen West and Hill assert themselves as the go-to guys with Paul backfilling and finding his way. It's only in the last 5 games that we've finally started to see Paul becoming a true dribble-attack scorer with effectiveness.


                            Harden for Granger, sure. That's adjusting positions to get Paul to SF, getting younger and getting healthy. But no one would do that deal, so you'd have to pay and you'd probably have to pay "West" kinda value. So you start getting pushed back into "maybe we should just wait for Danny to return" because it's kinda expensive to buy your way out of a 3 month injury (unless it's surprisingly much worse).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                              Harden would have been an incredible pick up for the Pacers

                              Sure he woud have been. But not for Paul George. Seth has it right in his numbers evaluation. PG on Oklahoma would have made it unfair to the rest of league defensively. Yikes.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Sort of, but as my last post details, I don't see these guys as different enough to pay a price for a trade. Harden has been a more confident scorer in general, but Paul's height and hops give him a big rebound and defense advantage. Harden's sharp, but he and Paul are about the same age so both are really the same guy in the "win now" mode, which is the younger guy just getting his feet wet at the start of the team's run. He's the guy that becomes the "build with him" guy, a bit like Rose was in 98.

                                Harden is not Nash, he's not the proven win-now leader, he's been the proven win-now bench star.

                                Trading Paul for Harden would seem like paper shuffling to me, slight tweeks that improve offensive firepower a bit with a trade-off of slight defense and rebounds. The Pacers don't need that, not with Granger here. What they need is Granger himself. Then Paul/Harden isn't in the primary scoring role.

                                In fact if Roy would figure things out and with West and Hill already here, the Paul/Harden role teeters on 5th option status, and prior to this fall that's where things appeared to be. Even now I think we've seen West and Hill assert themselves as the go-to guys with Paul backfilling and finding his way. It's only in the last 5 games that we've finally started to see Paul becoming a true dribble-attack scorer with effectiveness.


                                Harden for Granger, sure. That's adjusting positions to get Paul to SF, getting younger and getting healthy. But no one would do that deal, so you'd have to pay and you'd probably have to pay "West" kinda value. So you start getting pushed back into "maybe we should just wait for Danny to return" because it's kinda expensive to buy your way out of a 3 month injury (unless it's surprisingly much worse).
                                Agree with all of that. While I'm probably guilty of simply stirring the pot more than anything, I still think that right now, Harden is a better individual player. George is a better fit for our team, and has a chance to be one of the top 10 players in the NBA. I don't think Harden has that kind of upside. He's a top 10 scorer already, but he'll likely never be a top 10 player.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X