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:
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

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

What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

    Earlier this season I made a "Realistic Discussion about Jermaine O'Neal" thread where I couldn't figure out what should happen with Jermaine. Not, without a doubt is the best time to make a move and here's why:

    We have the Lakers to thank for maximizing Jermaine's value. By getting Pau Gasol, they added a piece that would help them compete with the Spurs. Seeing what the Lakers did, the Suns must have seen their roster and their failures to reach the finals, and realized they too need to do what it takes to match up with the Spurs. They went an got Shaq. Utah is already in good position with Boozer, and the Blazers have Aldridge with Oden coming back next season. Even the Warriors made a half-assed attempt at getting bigger by signing C-Webb.

    So, what's the remaining team that's almost been there but doesn't quite have what it takes? The Dallas Mavericks. Even though they're tied for first in the West with the Phoenix Suns, they know more than anybody else that the best record means nothing. They know come playoff time, they're going to need someone inside besides Dirk (who isn't much of an inside player) that can get baskets when the rest of the offense is shut down. Dallas has Erick Dampier and DeSagana Diop that rebound and block shots, but on the offensive end you hardly get anything from them.

    I thought of a deal today that makes a heck of a lot of sense for both Dallas and Indiana. Here's the deal, read my reasoning after before you go crazy:

    First question I asked myself, if I was Dallas would I really want to trade Josh Howard? My answer was in most circumstances, no. But to get some you have to give some. While in this deal I'd take a slight downgrade at the SF position (very slight), I'd get a huge upgrade at the center position with O'Neal. Dallas gives up Josh Howard, who can Shoot, Create, Defend, and is capable of being a go to guy. They get Danny Granger who can shoot, is getting better at getting to the basket, and can defend and block shots. All they really lose is the creativity and the capability of a go to guy. Something they already have in Jason Terry and Dirk Nowitzki. Dallas also gets rid of Dampiers 4 remaining years on his deal in exchange for O'Neal's 2 years. Worst case if it doesn't work in 2 years, they lose Jermaine, and can afford to pay Danny (who's contract is also up in 2 years).

    What I do have to mention though is that I'd offer them Shawne before Danny. I think they'd be better off with Shawne than Danny too. Because in their style they need to get up and down the court. Danny isn't the best in making a decision with the ball when running the court. Shawne is much better at that. It all depends on what Dallas would rather have. Travis Diener is involved because they're not going to take Jamaal Tinsley, no, they're not. But he's showing that he can be a legitimate backup and has had some good games. He's also good at keeping the ball moving, something Dallas likes to do. Of course with Harris leaving, Jason Terry would go back to his natural position at point guard. That brings either Eddie Jones or Jerry Stackhouse out as the starting 2-guard.

    Question number two if I'm Indiana would I want to trade Danny Granger? For Josh Howard? Yes! Here's why:

    From the Jim O'Brien show [taken from Unclebucks thread about O'Brien discussing Pacers roster needs]:
    1) they need defensive toughness. he said his greatest disappointment about this team is the lack of defensive toughness to play defense for 48 minutes. It isn't that the players don't try, but they lack a certain toughness that is needed on the defensive end.

    2) that one offensive player - perimeter player that you can just give the ball to late in games, when the defense is set, when they have scouted you - that one player who can create a shot when things break down, when the shot clock is winding down. Pacers don't have that. OB mentioned Kobe and Paul Pierce type of player.

    Josh Howard isn't Kobe or Pierce, but we're not going to get Kobe or Pierce. Josh Howard can be a go to guy and he can create. He's a tough defensive hustler. Devin Harris is probably the fastest point guard in the NBA, and he's pretty decent defensively. He too can create, and he gets to the rim very quickly and is improving his shooting percentages. Erick Dampier while having a bad contract, his contract isn't 19 million. Getting him makes it easier to afford to lose Jeff Foster or David Harrison (or both).

    Jim O'Brien is obviously here trying to win. As much as we want to rebuild, we're probably not going to see that happen the way we're talking about doing it. This is a deal that at least gives both teams something they can use (provided Jermaine can come back before the deadline).

    As I said, the idea of us getting Josh Howard sounds crazy at first, but on the Dallas end, if you can put Danny Granger in his spot and Jermaine O'Neal up front with Dirk, would you say no to that deal at this point when you see what your Western Conference competition has done? I doubt it.

  • #2
    Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

    Deal, deal deal. Larry would do this so fast, Cuban's head would spin. I doubt they'd take it, but my god this would be a great trade for us.

    Devin Harris/Mike Dunleavy/Josh Howard is a very versitale wing combo.


    • #3
      Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

      I'd do it. Dallas wouldn't.


      • #4
        Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

        I think giving up Devin Harris would be the only thing that would make Dallas hesitate. But if we hold firm, I think we could get him in the deal. There's not a better available big man out there for Dallas, and if they're serious about competing with San Antonio, Phoenix, and the Lakers, they'd better get him.

        I forgot to mention that Jermaine also wins in this deal because he gets to go to a contender.
        Last edited by Evan_The_Dude; 02-09-2008, 01:02 AM.


        • #5
          Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

          Why do we want Dampier? We are already stuck with Troy for 26 years, why add to that misery?
          And haven't you all seen that Devin Harris has reached his peak - the guy isn't getting much better, and he's really not that good.


          • #6
            Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

            Why would Dallas make that trade?
            R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes


            • #7
              Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

              Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
              Why would Dallas make that trade?
              I stated plenty of reasons. Main one being while they lose a little (literally just a little) at the 3 position by trading Howard for Granger, they gain double that by getting O'Neal at the center position. They do the trade because their main competition has gone big in hopes of competing with San Antonio. They're the only ones who have done nothing since winning 67 games last season and losing to the Warriors in the first round. Jermaine is the best big man that's available (provided that he can play again this year). They can try him for 2 years and if it doesn't work they just let him walk or use his expiring contract in a trade. Devin Harris is a question, but to make it even talent wise I think Dallas would have to include him. If I'm Dallas I can honestly say that I'd do this deal. If you look at it from their prospective, they lose a little, but they gain a ton. Jermaine didn't work well being the man, but in Dallas Dirk is the man. That might work in his favor.

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33
              Why do we want Dampier? We are already stuck with Troy for 26 years, why add to that misery?
              And haven't you all seen that Devin Harris has reached his peak - the guy isn't getting much better, and he's really not that good.
              We don't really want Dampier, but I look at it like this. Dampier has 4 years and 10mill left on his deal. Jermaine has 2 years and 19 mill left on his. Sure Dampiers 4 years is longer, but technically after 3 we can use his expiring deal in a trade, or just buy him out from the get go. As I said, getting Dampier makes losing Foster less painful if it happens (not saying Dampier is anywhere near as good, but hopefully you get my point).

              As far as Devin Harris goes, what are you talking about? He's gotten better every season. He's not an All-Star, but he's a huge upgrade over what we have now. Plus, what point guard do we have that shoots above 38% from the field, let alone the 48% Devin Harris shoots from the field (which might I add a lot of that comes from drives to the basket, something we could use)?


              • #8
                Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                If JO was completely healthy and scoring 20+ppg, that deal might be possible. As it stands, it is not happening. Howard>Granger, Harris>>>>Diener, Dampier>JO-on-one-leg
                Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia


                • #9
                  Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  If JO was completely healthy and scoring 20+ppg, that deal might be possible. As it stands, it is not happening. Howard>Granger, Harris>>>>Diener, Dampier>JO-on-one-leg
                  It all depends on Jermaine's health status and how Dallas values Jermaine. If Jermaine can play, he would be huge for them.


                  • #10
                    Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                    Hmmm. Don't see how Dallas doesn't laugh in our face on this. As much as I like the sound of it from our perspective.

                    Let's see. Broken down JO and they're left with no PG. The Jet isn't a true PG and the big thing now is how much he likes the 6th man role. Who's playing now in Harris's absence. Juan Jose Barea, no? I don't think they'd want he or Diener manning the helm for a WCF run.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata


                    • #11
                      Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                      I think if you downgrade it to essentially JO and DG for Howard and Damp plus whatever filler to even out salaries, you'd probably get them to do it.

                      Some will say we're getting hosed, but if you truly believe it's not going to happen here with JO no matter what and it's just time to get what you can, Howard might be worth it.

                      While Howard does have some D and O creative abilites, you still have to take into account the redundancy factor amongst our swingmen. It's replacing DG with a better version of DG.

                      Is Howard a legit 2? If so mabye you can think about it. This allows Dun to go to the 3. So what Damp and Foster split the 5 minutes and who is the PF? Murph, Shawn, Ike?

                      Who else do we move? Where does the O come from? Can Dallas throw on some draft picks? That would make it easier to swallow.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata


                      • #12
                        Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                        Dallas might give up Josh and Damp for Diener, Danny and JO, but they definitely wouldn't throw Harris in on top of it all. I don't see a scenario where they would pull the trigger on that deal.


                        • #13
                          Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                          Propose this to Dallas and you'll hear a dialtone rather quickly.


                          • #14
                            Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                            Knicks idea here but since is the "realistic" trade thread I hope I'm putting it where it belongs.

                            Option 1: JO/Tins/Ike to NY for Marbury/Rose/Balkman/Lee

                            Option 2: Same deal take off Lee.

                            Would Isaiah have the leeway to add that much salary given what's already going on there?

                            Taking both the young energy guys might be too much to ask, but we are ridding them of Starbury. But that's why option two's included. Rose contract shorter than Tins and he offers some veteran leadership/toughness.

                            Balkman's young and can specialize in boards and D. If Tins is out of the question maybe we throw in Quis in his stead.

                            Is any of that somewhat realistic?
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata


                            • #15
                              Re: What makes sense and why [Jermaine trade thread]

                              If Jason Kidd is only getting Harris instead of Howard, I doubt that the Mavs would give up BOTH for JO and DG. Plus that would leave the Mavs backcourt stripped, they've learned that they can't put a big load on Jason Terry.
                              Half of the time we're gone, but we don't know where.