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

2017 Free Agent Targets

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

  • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    Front office should have no problem moving Monta and Al. Both are expiring's on good deals. Ellis is playing well as a sixth man. With a player option for next Summer (2018). Jefferson has a team option for his third year worth just $4 million.
    It's not just moving them, the only way we're players in free agency is to move them for cap space and I don't see that happening.

    If we extend Paul we basically have no money beyond the mle to sign a free agent.
    Last edited by Pacerized; 03-11-2017, 12:59 AM.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
      Front office should have no problem moving Monta and Al. Both are expiring's on good deals. Ellis is playing well as a sixth man. With a player option for next Summer (2018). Jefferson has a team option for his third year worth just $4 million.
      Front office will have a huge problem in moving Monta and Al for CAP SPACE. Neither will get better than veteran minimum contracts after Bird's follies run out. They are just as useless as the rest of this no-good team. I H A T E this collection of trash in "my team".

      Comment


      • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

        Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
        Front office will have a huge problem in moving Monta and Al for CAP SPACE. Neither will get better than veteran minimum contracts after Bird's follies run out. They are just as useless as the rest of this no-good team. I H A T E this collection of trash in "my team".
        It is going to cost at least our first this year to dump either Monta or Al for cap space.

        Comment


        • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

          Originally posted by Wage View Post
          It is going to cost at least our first this year to dump either Monta or Al for cap space.
          Monta is average double digits off the bench. Moving him won't be a problem. His issue is fit. Al's issue is fit as well. He can still score but needs an athletic shot blocking PF next to him.

          Comment


          • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

            Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
            Front office will have a huge problem in moving Monta and Al for CAP SPACE. Neither will get better than veteran minimum contracts after Bird's follies run out. They are just as useless as the rest of this no-good team. I H A T E this collection of trash in "my team".
            Say it again. I've never legitimately disliked so many players on one Pacer team in my entire life.

            Comment


            • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
              Monta is average double digits off the bench. Moving him won't be a problem. His issue is fit. Al's issue is fit as well. He can still score but needs an athletic shot blocking PF next to him.
              I wish "fit" was added to the PD profanity filter to never be seen again. Around here it really just means "this player is no good and I don't want to admit it."

              Comment


              • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                Monta is average double digits off the bench. Moving him won't be a problem. His issue is fit. Al's issue is fit as well. He can still score but needs an athletic shot blocking PF next to him.
                Not really sure how I feel about Jefferson. I think he is one of the most talented offensive players on the team and certainly the most talented in the post. His defense and lack of fitness is such a liability though to where he is almost unplayable at times.
                Lifelong pacers fan

                Comment


                • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                  Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
                  Not really sure how I feel about Jefferson. I think he is one of the most talented offensive players on the team and certainly the most talented in the post. His defense and lack of fitness is such a liability though to where he is almost unplayable at times.
                  The real problem with Al is his weight/conditioning. If he was in shape, he could be a contributing rotation guy. Maybe even really good. But he is so fat that he looks more like John 'Hot Plate' Williams than a real NBA player.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                    Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                    Front office will have a huge problem in moving Monta and Al for CAP SPACE. Neither will get better than veteran minimum contracts after Bird's follies run out. They are just as useless as the rest of this no-good team. I H A T E this collection of trash in "my team".
                    That's one of the main reasons why I'm not going to shed too much of a tear if Bird hangs up his GM sneakers in a few months.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                      Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                      Front office will have a huge problem in moving Monta and Al for CAP SPACE. Neither will get better than veteran minimum contracts after Bird's follies run out. They are just as useless as the rest of this no-good team. I H A T E this collection of trash in "my team".
                      I think it would take giving up an asset to move both of them and I don't trust Bird with the cap space anyway. Look at what Bird did with cap space last year. Look at what he did after moving Hibbert's contract and losing West. I don't want to give up a pick to free up cap space only to have Bird waste it on 2 more overpaid role players that don't fit the role we need on this team.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                        So with the signing of Lance and assuming GR3 is brought back I guess the Pacers will not be adding a sg this off season which means the tough call will be what will they do with Teague and what will the FO do about the front court?

                        If Teague isn't the starting sg for the Pacers would you rather sign Lowry in hopes he has a Chauncey Billups type resurgence or would you rather the Pacers draft a pg?

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          So with the signing of Lance and assuming GR3 is brought back I guess the Pacers will not be adding a sg this off season which means the tough call will be what will they do with Teague and what will the FO do about the front court?

                          If Teague isn't the starting sg for the Pacers would you rather sign Lowry in hopes he has a Chauncey Billups type resurgence or would you rather the Pacers draft a pg?
                          I like Teague, and I had hoped he, PG, and Turner would form a nice trio. Obviously, the results haven't been there, despite each having a decent year. General sentiment is that Teague is not happy here and PG doesn't get along with him all that well. Ultimately, Teague isn't an elite, world-beater at point guard, so I'm ok with letting him go.

                          If we have a shot at Lowry, I'd be hugely in favor of that. After the playoff battle last year and Lowry's 23/7/5 stat line this year, I think this would send Paul a serious message that we're trying to surround him with high-level players and compete. I don't know how realistic it is that we'll go after him, but yeah, I would.

                          I think the frontcourt and the ill-fitting veterans are a larger problem, though, and I'd be perfectly content keeping Teague and addressing those issues. I'd like to have some continuity from year-to-year, and Teague is certainly a talented player. One would think that going into a second season with PG, Teague, and Turner together would produce better chemistry and win/loss results.
                          It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            So with the signing of Lance and assuming GR3 is brought back I guess the Pacers will not be adding a sg this off season which means the tough call will be what will they do with Teague and what will the FO do about the front court?

                            If Teague isn't the starting sg for the Pacers would you rather sign Lowry in hopes he has a Chauncey Billups type resurgence or would you rather the Pacers draft a pg?
                            I think Teague is leaving and I don't know what the answer is. I am assuming that you mean Ty Lawson as opposed to Kyle Lowry since Lowry has had a pretty good season...plus we couldn't get him anyway. Lawson is not the answer.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                              I like teague and love it that he's such an Indy guy.
                              I wouldn't pay him close to the max though.
                              If you saw the Memphis game then you know what a max point looks like.
                              Clips look baked. If you want to throw around money like that, offer it to another Paul.

                              Otherwise I'd go big for a big, and find point where we can.
                              There should be a lot of them available soon with the plethora of young points so high in the draft.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2017 Free Agent Targets

                                Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                                I like Teague, and I had hoped he, PG, and Turner would form a nice trio. Obviously, the results haven't been there, despite each having a decent year. General sentiment is that Teague is not happy here and PG doesn't get along with him all that well. Ultimately, Teague isn't an elite, world-beater at point guard, so I'm ok with letting him go.

                                If we have a shot at Lowry, I'd be hugely in favor of that. After the playoff battle last year and Lowry's 23/7/5 stat line this year, I think this would send Paul a serious message that we're trying to surround him with high-level players and compete. I don't know how realistic it is that we'll go after him, but yeah, I would.

                                I think the frontcourt and the ill-fitting veterans are a larger problem, though, and I'd be perfectly content keeping Teague and addressing those issues. I'd like to have some continuity from year-to-year, and Teague is certainly a talented player. One would think that going into a second season with PG, Teague, and Turner together would produce better chemistry and win/loss results.
                                You want to the Pacers to play 4 vs 5 in the playoffs? Cause that's what Lowry is known for in the playoffs. He is a ghost.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X