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

Huston/Indy

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

  • Huston/Indy

    We salary dump and get 2 young guys

    They get some vets that can help now and be around next year when Yao gets back....Thoughts




    Indiana Trade Breakdown
    Change in Team Outlook: -16.1 ppg, -14.2 rpg, and -5.0 apg.

    Incoming Players
    Tracy McGrady
    6-8 SG / SF from Mount Zion Christian Academy (HS)
    3.2 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 1.0 apg in 7.6 minutes
    Joey Dorsey
    6-9 PF from Memphis
    No games yet played in 2009-2010
    Chase Budinger
    6-7 SF from Arizona
    8.2 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 1.2 apg in 18.5 minutes
    Outgoing Players
    Troy Murphy
    6-11 PF from Notre Dame
    14.2 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 2.1 apg in 31.6 minutes
    T.J. Ford
    5-11 PG from Texas
    10.2 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.8 apg in 25.4 minutes
    Jeff Foster
    6-11 C from Southwest Texas State
    3.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 1.3 apg in 15.8 minutes



    Houston Trade Breakdown
    Change in Team Outlook: +16.1 ppg, +14.2 rpg, and +5.0 apg.

    Incoming Players
    Troy Murphy
    6-11 PF from Notre Dame
    14.2 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 2.1 apg in 31.6 minutes
    T.J. Ford
    5-11 PG from Texas
    10.2 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.8 apg in 25.4 minutes
    Jeff Foster
    6-11 C from Southwest Texas State
    3.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 1.3 apg in 15.8 minutes
    Outgoing Players
    Tracy McGrady
    6-8 SG / SF from Mount Zion Christian Academy (HS)
    3.2 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 1.0 apg in 7.6 minutes
    Joey Dorsey
    6-9 PF from Memphis
    No games yet played in 2009-2010
    Chase Budinger
    6-7 SF from Arizona
    8.2 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 1.2 apg in 18.5 minutes

  • #2
    Re: Huston/Indy

    we would probably buy out T-Mac

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Huston/Indy

      I think this would be a solid deal for both us and Houston. Provided that there aren't any more competitive offers out there, this is something Houston should look at. The risk would be minimal since Ford, Murphy, and Foster's contracts expire only a year later than T-Mac's.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Huston/Indy

        I believe the Pacers would do it in a heartbeat, but I don't see Houston taking on an extra 26 mil in 2010-2011 to do it. Not to mention they don't need a 8.5 mil B/U PG in Ford with Brooks and Lowry handling the position.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Huston/Indy

          Not only do they not need a backup like TJ but I dont see them getting rid of Budinger in the deal. Production per $ value hes hard to beat as a 2nd round pick. The only deals I see Houston doing are ones that bring in players that will give them a better shot at contending, without giving up much more than T-Mac. This pretty much narrows it down to teams that are willing to let go of a player who is pretty good, but has a longer contract than they want to pay/and or are going in a different direction.......I think a 3 team deal could work with Houston/Indy/GoldenS though. They have made it public that they want to move Maggette and are willing to part with young talent to do so.....How about something like this:

          Houston Gets:
          1. Murphy
          2. Maggette
          3. Luther Head (1 year Deal)
          4. Devean George (1 year Deal)
          5. Indys 1st 2nd Round Pick 2010

          Indiana Gets:
          1. Stephen Curry/ or Anthony Randolph
          2. Speedy Claxton (1 year deal)
          3. Brian Cook (1 year deal)
          4. Jermaine Taylor

          Goldenstate Gets:
          1. T-Mac
          2. Houston 1st Round Pick 2010
          3. Indiana's last 2nd round pick

          This gives us our PG of the future in Curry and 3 scrubs with expiring contracts, while also moving Murphy's big deal off the books. We lose our two 2nd rounders in next years draft, but we really dont need 3 picks in the draft anyway. We arent able to get TJ off the books yet but hopefully we can find a taker for him closer to the deadline, or in the offseason.

          For Houston they are making some pretty hefty financial commitments to Troy and Corey, but this really shores up there lack of quality bigs as well as adding another top flight scorer/rebounder to the wing. They give up their first round pick, but by getting our 2nd rounder (which looks to be in the early-mid 30s they arent giving up much their.

          Golden State def gets the short end of the stick talent wise. What makes this possible is there willingness to get out from under Maggette's 4 year deal. McGrady's expiring gives them HUGE flexibility in the upcomming free agency crazed off-season. On top of that T-Mac could very well exceed all expectations and if hes even 3/4 of the player he was he gives them a low risk high reward type of player. I would prefer for us to pick up Curry out of this deal, and while its a stretch to do so......there is really no way he fits in to the long term plans there with Monta Ellis. With the way Ellis has been tearing it up this season it would be hard for them to stick with Curry over Monta......They are both to small to coexist as starters. The HUGE amount of cap space this gives them this summer to add to Monta/Randolph/Biedrins nucleus (plus they should have an early-early mid 1st rounder to add to Houston's late mid 1st rounder I think makes this deal worth while for them.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Huston/Indy

            That would be a good trade. Anything to give the Pacers more cap space.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Huston/Indy

              Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
              we would probably buy out T-Mac
              you couldn't be more wrong

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Huston/Indy

                Originally posted by IUfan4life View Post
                you couldn't be more wrong
                Why would you say that. I think the guy would be pissed to get moved here in the first place and I don't see the team wanting that kind of cancer in the locker room.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Huston/Indy

                  Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                  Why would you say that. I think the guy would be pissed to get moved here in the first place and I don't see the team wanting that kind of cancer in the locker room.
                  He hasn't played in like a year, I would think he would be happy just to play. I've never heard anything about him about being a bad teammate. I would also think he'd be happy to play in our offensive system

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Huston/Indy

                    Originally posted by IUfan4life View Post
                    He hasn't played in like a year, I would think he would be happy just to play. I've never heard anything about him about being a bad teammate. I would also think he'd be happy to play in our offensive system

                    If he just wanted to play why is he not playing for the rockets? I don't know much about the guy but I would think he wants to go to a playoff contender. Didn't he pretty much force a trade away from the magic? Even with Dwight Howard asked him to stay. His main reason was he wanted to compete for a tittle. Now he is forcing his way out of Houstan. I'm mean the guy just got Jamaal Tinsleyed. Sent home with pay

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Huston/Indy

                      Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                      If he just wanted to play why is he not playing for the rockets? I don't know much about the guy but I would think he wants to go to a playoff contender. Didn't he pretty much force a trade away from the magic? Even with Dwight Howard asked him to stay. His main reason was he wanted to compete for a tittle. Now he is forcing his way out of Houstan. I'm mean the guy just got Jamaal Tinsleyed. Sent home with pay
                      you are way off here. he was gone way before dwight, and he asked for more playing time and was denied and told to go home.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Huston/Indy

                        Originally posted by IUfan4life View Post
                        you are way off here. he was gone way before dwight, and he asked for more playing time and was denied and told to go home.
                        He was traded the same year Dwight was drafted. Win they drafted Dwight, he reached out too Tracy and asked him to stay. Tracy wanted out because he said that Orlando couldn't win and wasn't trying to build a winning team around him.

                        I'm a ESPN Radion Junkie. For many years now, I don't get to see alot of games but listen to espn radio alot.

                        If you believe all that happened was Tracy asked for more playing time so they sent him home....Well I just don't know what to say about that....


                        As for the trade I would say we could sub. Dunleavy for TJ and replace there other 2 guys for Brian Cook. We still get major cap relief..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Huston/Indy

                          houston has already said landry and budinger arent going anywhere

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X