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

OKC

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

  • OKC

    I know there have been several OKC deals presented, so my apologies for being repetitive as I came up with a similar deal this summer.

    OKC gets:

    D. West 12,000 12,600
    L. Scola 4,500
    R. Stuckey 1,228
    D. Sloan 948

    First Year: 18,676
    Total Deal: 31,276

    IND gets:

    K. Perkins 9,154
    A. Morrow 3,200 3,344 3,488
    R. Jackson 2,325
    J. Lamb 2,202 3,034
    M. McGary 1,400 1,463 1,526 2,431

    First Year: 18,281
    Total Deal: 33,567

    I think we could see this deal without Morrow and Sloan if OKC is not as concerned about taking on the extra money, which they showed by taking on money in the Waiters deal. The final year of Waiters' rookie contract is also West's final year and it allows them to resign Waiters. They get some solid veteran help to round out their playoff rotation. They get sensible players who will contribute immediately by quickly adapting and filling out the rotation in exchange for young guys not yet ready to contribute.

    Notes:

    - R. Jackson won't get resigned by them and it's the best way for us to "sign" a significant piece this off-season.
    - Lamb and McGary don't get playing time for OKC and fit the change to our now younger roster.
    - Perkins gets replaced in the front court by West and Scola, which makes Adams and Collison have less importance to their rotation. West replaces the beef to pair with Ibaka and both Scola and West are WAY better offensively, especially as third to fifth options.
    - We would probably cut Whittington (or buy out Perkins). Perkins and Hibbert would either make each other better or kill each other, but both are primarily defenders.

    Depth Charts:

    OKC

    PG- Westbrook, Stuckey, Smith, Sloan
    SG- Waiters, Roberson
    SF- Durant, Perry
    PF- West, Scola, Jarrett
    C- Ibaka, Collison, Adams

    Playoff Rotation- Westbrook (40), Waiters (36), Stuckey (32), Durant (40), West (28), Scola (18), Ibaka (38), Collison/Adams (10), and Roberson if they go nine deep.

    IND

    PG- Jackson, Watson
    SG- G. Hill, Miles, Lamb, Morrow
    SF- George, S. Hill, Copeland
    PF- Mahinmi, Rudez, McGary
    C- Hibbert, Allen, Perkins/Whittington

    Main Rotation (when healthy)- Jackson, Watson, G. Hill, Miles, George, S. Hill, Mahinmi, Hibbert, Allen, and Perkins. Vogel likes a ten man regular season rotation and I am clearly not taking into account a playoff rotation for us.
    Last edited by pacergod2; 01-15-2015, 12:42 AM.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

  • #2
    Re: OKC

    My concern when it comes to trading for RJ has always been the impact to the 2015-2016 Salary Cap.

    Can you help me run the #s for how much Cap Space that the Pacers would have in 2015-2016 under your trade scenario?

    Also....as I have suggested in other trade scenarios....I really think that if the Pacers can somehow ( but more realistically magically ) trade West for a future 1st, that they can flip that 1st round pick + Watson for RJ. My guess is that the Thunder would bite if they get a 1st round pick for RJ.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: OKC

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      My concern when it comes to trading for RJ has always been the impact to the 2015-2016 Salary Cap.
      We'll get a little cap space out of the proposed deal, but not a lot. We're going to be slightly over the cap to start with (current salary cap projection for 15-16 is about $63m, and we have about $64m in existing commitments). West goes out, but Morrow, Lamb, and McGary come back, so this gets us $3-4m in cap space, which is practically useless since its less than the MLE.

      But cap space doesn't actually matter in a RJ scenario, because we would have Bird rights if we trade for him.

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Also....as I have suggested in other trade scenarios....I really think that if the Pacers can somehow ( but more realistically magically ) trade West for a future 1st, that they can flip that 1st round pick + Watson for RJ. My guess is that the Thunder would bite if they get a 1st round pick for RJ.
      OKC just traded their own future first for some help now. I'm guessing pacergod has the right idea, that vets appeal to OKC more than future picks. But maybe they would rather have young cheaper vets like Waiters rather than our older, expensive players, I dunno.

      My concern with RJ has always been whether we should pay his asking price. He's going to get at least $10m I think, and its very probable that it would be more than that. He's good but not break-the-bank good.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: OKC

        Few issues with this one :

        1) I think OKC is still exploring for a trade to get them under salary tax instead of taking extra money. They could f ex trade RJ+McGary for draft picks to a team with either cap room or trade exceptions.
        2) West's contract would be a HUGE hindrance for them as far as next season goes... Thunder would be way above salary cap with just 9 players in roster. Even if one believes that this trade would make them slightly better for this spring, it would also basically sacrifice next season.
        3) While a minor cog, Morrow has an important role in Thunder's play. None of our players offer any 3-point threat to replace him.

        Also, buying out Perk to complete this transaction is not an option (as was earlier taught to me in this forum). To complete a trade, you need to have enough roster spots and waiving/buying out can only happen afterwards. So, yes would require waiving Whittington (which was your alternative too).

        For us this would be a good trade (and more than I believe West will net), but there are some hiccups too...

        To have simultaneous long-term deals for C.J. Miles AND Anthony Morrow makes no sense. They are specialists of same ilk - can not be played together and neither is really a starter. Useful for max. 30-35 minutes COMBINED per game. This is not a major problem as one could surely be moved again, but nevertheless one should avoid situations of a "forced trade".


        But anyway, I simply reject this idea, 'cause I don't see a single benefit for OKC. They get worse now, they get screwed concerning next season and they drift further away from getting under luxury tax limit.

        Now, Since86 made a pretty nice analysis of the opportunities available for trading Hibbert and that made me think that MAYBE OKC could be a place for Big Roy. Ibaka is a great rim protector, but not very good post defender. OTOH, he is very agile big man so paired with Hibbert they could send Ibaka out to perimeter to disrupt shooters AND still have Hibs waiting on the rim. Might require elements of zone, but be a terrifying defence!

        So, I came up with this trade :

        Roy Hibbert, Donald Sloan and Shayne Whittington (total salary 15,48 mil, 15,51 mil for 2015-16) for Kendrick Perkins, Reggie Jackson and Jeremy Lamb (total salary 14,06 mil, 3,03 mil for 2015-16)

        Oklahoma could then send Dion Waiters to Lakers (for Nash exception) and beat the luxury tax while having a line-up of :

        Westbrook (Ish Smith, Sloan)
        Roberson/Morrow offense/defense tandem
        Durant (Perry Jones)
        Ibaka (Collison)
        Hibbert (Adams)

        And they could even stay under luxury tax next season with this same nucleus. Maybe it would not work, but it is an intriguing roster for sure...


        For us, it would most likely mean new identity and new style. Would make no sense without also trading West for expirings (+ possible draft pick). With West also gone, we would have 20+ mil for free agency. That opens a lot of avenues.

        Would I do this as OKC : Yes, if it works it can result a title. If it doesn't work, you recycle things in summer 2016.

        Would I do this as Indiana : No, I don't rate RJ & I hate Jeremy Lamb. Free agency is a risk and especially a team with high ambitions (like us) may end up paying too much for mediocrity. I am open for trading Hibbert in right circumstances, but this ain't good enough... Still, that could entice OKC. Original idea would not IMO.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: OKC

          Boy that's a lot of players coming back. I doubt OKC makes a move that big now. I do think we have the pieces to get RJ though, but in a smaller deal.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: OKC

            Thank you guys for the constructive criticism. Pet, the trade you offered up makes some sense, but I just don't think we should trade the big fella. Also, you had mentioned that OKC was going to be hurting next year with the LT. Then you offer a deal up that would be worse for them financially next year. One of the big concerns I had in the deal you nailed though, about Morrow being their best outside shooting sub and and the exchange of so many players. But I thought that through in that two of the players in the deal don't even really get minutes. West and Scola would probably come in and understand the playbook as well as Perkins in a week or two. As for Jackson and Morrow, you'd have to get Stuckey and Sloan up to speed as secondary ball handlers, which might not be an immediate impact. The sooner they did a deal like this, the quicker they'd make their push towards the playoffs.
            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: OKC

              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
              Thank you guys for the constructive criticism. Pet, the trade you offered up makes some sense, but I just don't think we should trade the big fella. Also, you had mentioned that OKC was going to be hurting next year with the LT. Then you offer a deal up that would be worse for them financially next year. One of the big concerns I had in the deal you nailed though, about Morrow being their best outside shooting sub and and the exchange of so many players. But I thought that through in that two of the players in the deal don't even really get minutes. West and Scola would probably come in and understand the playbook as well as Perkins in a week or two. As for Jackson and Morrow, you'd have to get Stuckey and Sloan up to speed as secondary ball handlers, which might not be an immediate impact. The sooner they did a deal like this, the quicker they'd make their push towards the playoffs.
              I mentioned that to do "my trade", they would then need to ship Waiters away without returning salary. Something which might be worth of it for Hibbert, but not anymore for "old West".

              I also said that I wouldn't do it myself (as Indiana GM). I still value Hibbert.

              Comment

              Working...
              X