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

Draft discussion

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

  • Draft discussion

    15 days till the NBA draft, what do you expect us to do? What do you want us to do?

    Here are the options as I see them now:

    Trade up

    There's been a good deal of talk about us looking to trade up to a top-5 pick, for whatever reason. Al's name has been thrown in these rumours a lot, but is there really anybody in this draft we want bad enough to make a deal for?

    Trade down

    We could dump the pick for future considerations and focus on the FA game, or more likely, include our pick in a deal to get a SG or C who can contribute right away.

    Take a 2-guard

    There are some interesting prospects at this position that should be available at #29:

    Kevin Martin
    6'7" 195 lbs
    Western Carolina
    Notes: good scorer, good three point shot, smart all-around player
    Projected: Early second round

    Romain Sato
    6'5" 195 lbs
    Xavier
    Notes: good shooter, athletic, good defender
    Projected: Early to mid- second round

    Take a Center

    Promising big men are a favourite of teams with late first round picks.

    Peter John Ramos
    7'4" 260 lbs
    Puerto Rico
    Notes: athletic and mobile, decent passer, decent post game
    Projected: Late first round

    Ha Seung-Jin
    7'3" 305 lbs
    Korea
    Notes: mobile, good stamina, good touch
    Projected: Early second round

    Take the best player available

    This is most often the best option for a competitive team with a late-round pick. There are a few players who may drop down to #29 that may be too good for the Pacers to pass up. Here are a few players whose stock has dropped a bit lately, and may have an outside chance of still being on the board when we're up.

    Sebastian Telfair
    5'11" 170 lbs
    High School
    Notes: great ball handler, flashy, quick
    Projected: Mid- to late- first round

    Luke Jackson
    6'7" 215 lbs
    Oregon
    Notes: good shooter, good passer
    Projected: Mid- first round

    JR Smith
    6'5" 210 lbs
    High School
    Notes: good shooter, athletic
    Projected: Mid- to late- first round


    .... what do you guys think?
    Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

  • #2
    Re: Draft discussion

    Pass the Rolaids please.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Draft discussion

      I bet we draft a center and trade for a SG.
      Here, everyone have a : on me

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Draft discussion

        Pass the Rolaids please.
        Can I have half, please?

        With pick #29 we are not going to get anyone who will play in more than a handful of games. And playing even 30 minutes for the season will just be so Rick can get a clue about the player in game situations.

        For that, we will start the the player out at $700K or so. The player will be on the IL for pretty much his three years anyway.

        If we are involved in the draft at all, I only want one player. Okufur (sp?). He's probably the only player in the entire draft that fills a need for us while also being capable of playing a vital role for us next season. If we can't make a conditional deal to get us in the top 2-3 to have a shot at getting him, then the heck with the draft.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Draft discussion

          My honest opinion? We trade up. Why? We get one of our needs backed-up with a quality player. THis is important because DW/LB will try to fill our needs first with what we have and in doing so will want a plan B in place just in case. Secondly, it reduces the cap. Luxury tax or no saving money isn't a bad idea. The diff between a rookie contract and say Al's salary could just about pay for a MLE vet for the position we don't draft.

          <edit> Let's not forget that in all of this we still have a Trade exemption from last smmers trade with SA. If DW/LB come up with something they REALLY fill strongly about (ok slim but they could) they could toss that in as an inducement to take back more than we give up.
          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Draft discussion

            In addition to your response to Snickers thread, don't forget:

            Who knows DW?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Draft discussion

              I don't follow the semi-pro game at all, but I think Sato is the guy I like. Didn't we discuss him a few weeks ago?
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Draft discussion

                I don't follow the semi-pro game at all, but I think Sato is the guy I like. Didn't we discuss him a few weeks ago?
                Don't know about a few weeks ago, but I mentioned him here:
                http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4082

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Draft discussion

                  a lot of the guys on the list might not be available at our pick, like luke jackson, peter ramos, bassy telfair, and kevin martin (yes, that guy has shot up the draft boards).

                  on trading up... one theory that makes sense to me is that if we were to trade for t-mac, then orlando will likely be rebuilding, and so a high pick might be better for them than someone like harrington. so essentially, trading up is just to improve our trade bait.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Draft discussion

                    I don't follow the semi-pro game at all, but I think Sato is the guy I like. Didn't we discuss him a few weeks ago?
                    Don't know about a few weeks ago, but I mentioned him here:
                    http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4082
                    Here's the one I was thinking of ...

                    http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1645
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Draft discussion

                      on trading up... one theory that makes sense to me is that if we were to trade for t-mac, then orlando will likely be rebuilding, and so a high pick might be better for them than someone like harrington. so essentially, trading up is just to improve our trade bait.
                      The idea of this makes me uneasy. Say we trade away Al for a higher draft pick to try to entice someone into a trade for a better, player, but then no one does a deal with us. At that point we've traded away a solid contributor and a known commodity for a player we probably didn't want in the first place. I know the potential for a nice reward is there, but I tend to hope for the best and plan for the worst, and the downside of this strategy makes me uncomfortable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Draft discussion

                        We wouldn't do that unless we had a deal in place. Some teams might thinking that of course they could arrainge a deal, but not the P's. We're way too cautious for that.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Draft discussion

                          So how about something like this, with tweaks to make it all work financially/CBA-wise?

                          Indiana trades:

                          Harrington
                          Pollard
                          #29 pick

                          Chicago trades:

                          #3 pick

                          Orlando trades:

                          McGrady

                          Indiana gets:
                          McGrady

                          Chicago gets:
                          Harrington

                          Orlando gets:
                          #3 pick
                          Pollard
                          #29 pick

                          Why?
                          Indiana: Al and Pollard for T-Mac. Duh.
                          Chicago: #3 pick for Al
                          Orlando: If they decide for whatever reason it's time for T-Mac to leave, then it's him for the #3 pick to go with the #1 pick (either two good picks or a huge bargaining chip), and the #29 pick for good measure. And Pollard gives them more size.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Draft discussion

                            If Orlando loses a lot of leverage with Tmac [having to make a S&T to avoid losing him for nothing], that trade could work. #1 and #3 [Okafor and Livingston?] would be two pretty nice players to build around. But as it stands now, it's not going down.

                            As geezer says, the only way we trade for a high pick is if we've got a deal on the table, unless we've got our eye on somebody up there for some reason.

                            I think the Al/Pollard for #3/Pippen rumour may have some weight in this. [would Pip's contract be cap space, or would it not come off the books until after the season? And he is retiring, right?] I could see us using the pick we get in a three-way deal [or a later deal that we orchestrated already] to get a 2-guard. Remember, Larry said he wants to find a replacement for Reggie, not just a fill-in for a couple years. Then we could use the cap space to pick up Blount or another decent big man.

                            Anyway, I could see a deal something like the one Hicks came up with happening. Maybe not with Tmac, at least not yet, but with that general setup.
                            Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Draft discussion

                              Remember, Larry said he wants to find a replacement for Reggie, not just a fill-in for a couple years.
                              I read everything and I don't remember Larry saying this! Do you have a link?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X