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

Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

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

  • Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

    http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/04/08/...hank-you-nets/

    It’s official: Celtics have No. 1 spot in draft lottery. Thank you Nets.

    The Boston Celtics, a 50-win team who will finish in the top two spots in the East, will have the best odds of the top pick in the NBA Draft this June.

    With unexpected Suns win over the Thunder on Friday night, it became assured that the Brooklyn Nets will have the worst record in the NBA. Thanks to the Kevin Garnett/Paul Pierce trade three years ago — when Nets ownership told GM Billy King to put together a team that could contend immediately, at any cost — the Celtics have the right to swap picks with the Nets this season.

    That means the Celtics will have a 25 percent chance of landing the top pick in the coming draft, and a 64.2 percent chance of a top three pick (and they can’t be outside the top four). So yes, one of the deepest rosters in the league is about to get even deeper.

    Things get interesting if the Celtics land one of the top two picks, which are expected to be point guards Markelle Fultz and Lonzo Ball. The Celtics have All-Star Isaiah Thomas on the roster, he’s a fan favorite on a very affordable contract ($6.5 million this season) who will be a free agent in 2018. How much are the Celtics willing to pay Thomas in a year if they have already drafted the point guard of the future? Should the Celtics use their cap space to extend Thomas’ contract this summer, at ideally less than max money, then use him as trade bait if Fultz/Ball show they are ready to take over the team? Thomas will be 29 next summer as a free agent, how many years do the Celtics want to extend him at that age (the history of undersized point guards is that when their skills start to fall of the drop is fast and steep)?

    By the way, the Celtics also have the Nets pick next year. Just another piece of trade bait.

  • #2
    Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

    let's see if we can trade Al Jefferson to the Nets for a couple firsts...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

      Billy King is the worst GM in the NBA

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

        Is that the worst trade in league history?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Is that the worst trade in league history?
          Hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to the picks. The question is...what was they doing with the roster before this year's draft where the team wasn't even competitive?


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

            I love it how the consensus is that we'd have to offer Teague the max, but a guy like IT would just magically not fetch a max contract. Is there some magical discount that is only in Celtics contracts?
            Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

              A bit unfair to Billy King here. He was given a mandate to try to make a contending team, and he did what he could to fulfill that. Blame ownership, IMO.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                The thing about those picks that never made sense was that Ainge wisely asked for them out in the future. Even if that trade had worked out, it was like a 2 year window with no real escape hatch. The Nets were going to have a hard time not being a lotto team regardless during these years. That was why it was stupid by Billy King.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  The thing about those picks that never made sense was that Ainge wisely asked for them out in the future. Even if that trade had worked out, it was like a 2 year window with no real escape hatch. The Nets were going to have a hard time not being a lotto team regardless during these years. That was why it was stupid by Billy King.
                  I went back and looked at the trade. The trade happened in the summer of 2013. We're talking 4 full seasons ago which is the reason why I think the trade is 100% hindsight (like the Hill/Kawhi trade), and the picks being Top 3 for this and next year's draft is pure luck. Also, it's pure luck (or good foresight) that the team is really good at the same time that the picks are potential Top 3. The Spurs had the same type of luck when David Robinson got hurted, and they drafted Tim Duncan with the # 1 pick after the season was over.
                  Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 04-10-2017, 01:13 PM.


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    I went back and looked at the trade. The trade happened in the summer of 2013. We're talking 4 full seasons ago which is the reason why I think the trade is 100% hindsight (like the Hill/Kawhi trade), and the picks being Top 3 for this and next year's draft is pure luck. Also, it's pure luck (or good foresight) that the team is really good at the same time that the picks are potential Top 3. The Spurs had the same type of luck when David Robinson got butter, and they drafted Tim Duncan with the # 1 pick after the season was over.
                    in their NBA history the Spurs have like literally one season of not having a HOFer on their roster

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                      Anybody could have seen that with the salary cap implications that came with that the trade the Nets made, their team was destined for the biggest collapse no more than two years after that point. I just cannot believe they made all of those picks unprotected.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                        Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                        Anybody could have seen that with the salary cap implications that came with that the trade the Nets made, their team was destined for the biggest collapse no more than two years after that point. I just cannot believe they made all of those picks unprotected.
                        I'm not sure what the salary cap has do to with their situation, but I would agree that their mistake was not protecting the picks. However, looking at their roster going into the 2013-2014 season, I guess it would depend on what their expectations were....

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BRK/2014.html

                        I'm really not sure how they fell so hard. It is what it is. It would be no different if Bird acquired Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, and Melo (money aside), and gave up the 2022 1st round pick. Historically, Indiana has never been a bad enough team to be in play for a Top 3 pick, so would Bird be a fool if he overlooks not protecting the picks given the talent acquired? Given what happened to the Nets, I can see teams protecting 1st rounds picks no matter what going forward though.


                        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          I'm not sure what the salary cap has do to with their situation, but I would agree that their mistake was not protecting the picks. However, looking at their roster going into the 2013-2014 season, I guess it would depend on what their expectations were....

                          http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BRK/2014.html

                          I'm really not sure how they fell so hard. It is what it is. It would be no different if Bird acquired Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, and Melo (money aside), and gave up the 2022 1st round pick. Historically, Indiana has never been a bad enough team to be in play for a Top 3 pick, so would Bird be a fool if he overlooks not protecting the picks given the talent acquired? Given what happened to the Nets, I can see teams protecting 1st rounds picks no matter what going forward though.
                          For me it comes down to it being one thing to spend a lot of money on players who are in the prime of their careers. It's another thing to pay that kind of money to aging players who have 1-2 good years left. Once those players hit the inevitable age wall and you're still on the books for their contract, it's the ultimate death sentence for a franchise. Nearly 70 million went to the combination of Deron Williams, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Jason Terry one season. Having that type of constructed roster with no future draft picks and very little to no young talent veing developed is a collapse waiting to happen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Its official: Celtics have Number #1 spot in draft lottery thanks to the Nets

                            Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                            For me it comes down to it being one thing to spend a lot of money on players who are in the prime of their careers. It's another thing to pay that kind of money to aging players who have 1-2 good years left. Once those players hit the inevitable age wall and you're still on the books for their contract, it's the ultimate death sentence for a franchise. Nearly 70 million went to the combination of Deron Williams, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Jason Terry one season. Having that type of constructed roster with no future draft picks and very little to no young talent veing developed is a collapse waiting to happen.
                            The Nets were going for broke that year.....similar to what any team does when it comes to adding Lebron to your Team. A Garnett/Pierce/DWill combo seems like a sure fire formula.....but ( as you suggest ), instead of having 1 to 2 years of good run in them ( which could be enough to make it into the NBA finals ) wasn't in the cards.

                            Ainge had no problem asking for the moon and sky when it came to compensation for giving up on a super star package of Garnett/Pierce.

                            As most have said....it was just a luck of the draw and multiple factors that didn't work out in favor of the Nets.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X