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

Star} Team-by-team free agent analysis

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

  • Star} Team-by-team free agent analysis

    Interestingly Al Harrington wants traded from Atlanta.


    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0403/507030433

    Team-by-team free agent analysis

    Atlanta
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Tony Delk (ETO), Tom Gugliotta, Tyronn Lue, Michael Stewart, Kevin Willis

    Comment: Hawks are roughly $25 million under the salary cap and will offer a max deal to Ray Allen. They'll pursue a point guard such as Earl Watson or Damon Jones or big men such as Sam Dalembert, Stromile Swift, Udonis Haslem and Jerome James. Al Harrington wants a trade and will get his wish either this summer or in February now that Marvin Williams was drafted.


    Boston
    Restricted: Justin Reed
    Unrestricted: Gary Payton, Antoine Walker

    Comment: Most league insiders believe the Celtics are willing to trade Paul Pierce. They probably won't keep Walker, either, but they want to add a veteran to balance the youth movement of their past three drafts.


    Charlotte
    Restricted: Keith Bogans, Matt Carroll, Jason Kapono, Gerald Wallace
    Unrestricted: Cory Alexander, Malik Allen, Brevin Knight, Kareem Rush, Tamar Slay, Theron Smith

    Comment: Bobcats have about $20 million to spend and should be a player for some second-tier free agents. They need a shooting guard and small forward.


    Chicago
    Restricted: Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Chris Duhon, Jannero Pargo
    Unrestricted: Lawrence Funderburke, Adrian Griffin, Othella Harrington, Jared Reiner, Frank Williams

    Comment: Bulls are expected to match any reasonable offer for Curry or Chandler. They also have about $15 million to spend to supplement their depth.


    Cleveland
    Restricted: DeSagana Diop
    Unrestricted: Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Jeff McInnis, Robert Traylor, Dajuan Wagner, Scott Williams

    Comment: Cavs have cleared about $28 million in cap room. Their primary target is Michael Redd, but they also seem determined to re-sign Ilgauskas, and could make a serious run at his fellow Lithuanian, Sarunas Jasikevicius.


    Dallas
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Tariq Abdul-Wahad (ETO), Darrell Armstrong, Alan Henderson, Keith Van Horn (ETO)

    Comment: Mavs could let Michael Finley go to reduce luxury tax penalty, but are seeking a mobile center, a shooter and a backup point guard.


    Denver
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Greg Buckner, DerMarr Johnson, Wesley Person, Mark Pope, Bryon Russell

    Comment: Nuggets have option on Voshon Lenard's contract and probably will keep him. They also want to keep Buckner but will shop for another shooting guard. They have enough money to offer a backup such as Antonio Daniels, Ronald Murray, Marko Jaric or Raja Bell.


    Detroit
    Restricted: Ronald Dupree, Horace Jenkins
    Unrestricted: Elden Campbell, Darvin Ham

    Comment: Pistons' primary move could be to add Allan Houston, who is expected to be waived by the Knicks. If not, they'll seek backup shooting guard or small forward.


    Golden State
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Rodney White, Calbert Cheaney

    Comment: Warriors have surprisingly few needs for a perennial lottery team, which is a good thing for a team over the salary cap.


    Houston
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Jon Barry, Ryan Bowen, Torraye Braggs, Dikembe Mutombo, Scott Padgett

    Comment: Rockets will try to use midlevel exception on a power forward such as Stromile Swift, Donyell Marshall or Chris Andersen. Also could add a guard such as Antonio Daniels.


    Pacers
    Restricted: John Edwards, James Jones
    Unrestricted: Austin Croshere (ETO), Dale Davis


    Comment: Pacers have interest in re-signing Jones and Davis but are hoping to land a veteran waived by a team looking to reduce luxury tax penalty or European guard Sarunas Jasikevicius. Damon Stoudamire also a possibility.


    L.A. Clippers
    Restricted: Marko Jaric
    Unrestricted: Rick Brunson, Kerry Kittles, Mikki Moore, Zeljko Rebraca, Bobby Simmons

    Comment: Clippers want to retain Simmons and Jaric, but both could receive generous offers from other teams. They're about $16 million under the cap, so they have options. They'll take a shot at Ray Allen but probably will whiff.


    L.A. Lakers
    Restricted: Luke Walton
    Unrestricted: Tierre Brown, Devean George (PO), Brian Grant (ETO)

    Comment: Lakers are expected to waive Grant to save on luxury tax but won't be in position to pursue big-ticket free agents. They will decide whether to exercise their option on Vlade Divac later this summer. They could make good use of their exceptions, however, as L.A. is an attractive place for many players.


    Memphis
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Ryan Humphrey, Stromile Swift, Earl Watson, Bonzi Wells

    Comment: Grizzlies have a team option on Wells but would keep him only to try to get something for him in a trade. Swift has no plans to re-sign, and the team is looking to trim payroll.


    Miami
    Restricted: Udonis Haslem
    Unrestricted: Shandon Anderson, Keyon Dooling, Damon Jones, Eddie Jones (ETO), Christian Laettner, Shaquille O'Neal (ETO), Steve Smith, Wang ZhiZhi

    Comment: Heat are making O'Neal their first priority, but they also want to keep Haslem. He could get a major offer, making it difficult to keep him. They could let starting point guard Damon Jones go and pursue the likes of Antonio Daniels, Earl Watson, Damon Stoudamire, Gary Payton or Jeff McInnis. Robert Horry also has expressed interest in the Heat.


    Milwaukee
    Restricted: Dan Gadzuric, Zaza Pachulia
    Unrestricted: Marcus Fizer, Anthony Goldwire, Toni Kukoc, Michael Redd (PO), Daniel Santiago, Erick Strickland

    Comment: Bucks want to keep seeing Redd, and they have the cap space ($12 million) to offer a max deal to their shooting guard. They appear willing to let everyone else walk.


    Minnesota
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Anthony Carter, Eddie Griffin, Ervin Johnson, Mark Madsen, Latrell Sprewell, John Thomas

    Comment: Timberwolves want to re-sign Griffin and Madsen but probably will let Sprewell go unless they get him at a bargain rate. They'll have a difficult time making major improvements with their exceptions.


    New Jersey
    Restricted: Billy Thomas
    Unrestricted: Travis Best, Rodney Buford, Cliff Robinson, Brian Scalabrine, Jabari Smith, Ron Mercer

    Comment: Nets have midlevel and trade exceptions (both $4.9 million) to use on frontcourt player. They're targeting Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Stromile Swift and Donyell Marshall, among others.


    New Orleans
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Chris Andersen, Dan Dickau, Casey Jacobsen, Bostjan Nachbar, Lee Nailon

    Comment: Hornets are about $20 million under the salary cap and will pursue a starting small forward. They plan to retain Dickau. They also have an option on Speedy Claxton's contract but are undecided whether to keep him. Center Jamaal Magloire could be used in a trade.


    New York
    Restricted: None
    Unrestricted: Jermaine Jackson, Bruno Sundov

    Comment: Knicks are expected to dump Allan Houston's contract to save on luxury tax. Otherwise, they'll use their exceptions to add midlevel players or try to swing a trade. Isiah Thomas wants to emulate Phoenix's small-ball style and will act accordingly.


    Orlando
    Restricted: Andre Barrett, Brandon Hunter, Mark Jones
    Unrestricted: Grant Hill (ETO), Andre DeClerq

    Comment: Magic have only exceptions to try to lure a power forward. Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Udonis Haslem are high on their list.


    Philadelphia
    Restricted: Sam Dalembert, Willie Green, Kyle Korver
    Unrestricted: Matt Barnes, Michael Bradley (PO), Josh Davis, Jamal Mashburn (ETO), Rodney Rogers

    Comment: First order of business is to keep Dalembert, Green and Korver. Dalembert, in particular, could prove expensive, as there's a bustling marketplace for him. Point guard Jeff McInnis is a possible acquisition with an exception.


    Phoenix
    Restricted: Joe Johnson
    Unrestricted: Steven Hunter (PO), Walter McCarty, Bo Outlaw, Paul Shirley, Jake Voskuhl (PO)

    Comment: Focus is on re-signing Johnson and passing out Amare Stoudemire's extension. Johnson will prove costly. They'll also pursue Michael Finley if Dallas waives him, and re-sign Hunter if they can get him for the $1.6 million exception.


    Portland
    Restricted: Richie Frahm
    Unrestricted: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Damon Stoudamire

    Comment: Abdur-Rahim and Stoudamire are good as gone, although they could be signed for the purposes of a trade. Blazers will pursue a backup power forward and a shooting guard with their exceptions. Oh, yeah, they need a coach, too.


    Sacramento
    Restricted: Erik Daniels, Maurice Evans, Darius Songaila
    Unrestricted: Eddie House, Cuttino Mobley

    Comment: Kings say they want to keep Mobley but won't get carried away with an offer. They'll also try to re-sign Evans and Songaila. Otherwise, they're in a holding pattern.


    San Antonio
    Restricted: Devin Brown, Linton Johnson
    Unrestricted: Robert Horry, Sean Marks, Tony Massenburg, Glenn Robinson, Mike Wilks

    Comment: Horry opted out of his minimum contract but wants to remain a Spur. He also would consider Miami if the offer isn't right in San Antonio. Spurs likely will use midlevel exception on Argentine forward Luis Scola.


    Seattle
    Restricted: Ron Murray, Vladimir Radmanovic, Damien Wilkins
    Unrestricted: Ray Allen, Mateen Cleaves, Antonio Daniels, Reggie Evans, Danny Fortson (ETO), Jerome James, Vitaly Potapenko

    Comment: Sonics are in flux. Coach Nate McMillan is exploring his options, although he has a four-year, $18 million offer on the table. Allen, the best free agent of the class, will see if he can attract a max offer and force the Sonics into a sign-and-trade.


    Toronto
    Restricted: Matt Bonner, Pape Sow
    Unrestricted: Omar Cook, Donyell Marshall, Milt Palacio, Jalen Rose (ETO), Aaron Williams (ETO)

    Comment: Marshall won't re-sign and will have offers to choose from. Palacio probably is gone, too. Raptors could look to trade forwards Aaron Williams and Eric Williams.


    Utah
    Restricted: Keith McLeod
    Unrestricted: Raja Bell, Howard Eisley, Ben Handlogten, Randy Livingston

    Comment: Jazz don't have money to burn like they did the past two summers, so they'll focus on exception contracts. They hope to keep Bell, but he reportedly has agreed to terms with Phoenix.


    Washington
    Restricted: Steve Blake, Kwame Brown
    Unrestricted: Damone Brown, Juan Dixon, Larry Hughes, Anthony Peeler, Laron Profit, Michael Ruffin

    Comment: Wizards will face tough call on Kwame Brown if he gets a major offer, as former No. 1 pick remains an enigma. Top priority is re-signing Hughes, who is among the top free agents. Atlanta
Working...
X