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

Boozer + Harping now on the block?

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

  • Boozer + Harping now on the block?

    http://www.probasketballnews.com/exclusive_jazz.html

    NBA GM: Jazz put Harpring, Boozer on block



    By Sam Amico

    August 8, 2005



    An NBA general manager familiar with the situation told ProBasketballNews.com late Sunday that the Utah Jazz have made swingman Matt Harpring and forward Carlos Boozer available for a possible trade.



    The GM, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the Jazz could deal Harpring and Boozer in separate deals, or ship them together as a package.



    Atlanta, Boston, and Dallas are the three teams that have expressed the most interest, according to the source.



    "It's no secret that (Jazz owner) Larry Miller was unhappy with Boozer, and from all indications, Boozer is unhappy in Utah," said the GM. "As for Harpring, everybody associated with the Jazz likes him ... it's just the matter of having to give up something to get something in return."



    The GM was not specific about players who Utah might receive in a deal, "Although from what I hear, (Atlanta forward) Al Harrington's name is being mentioned," he said. "But with the current ownership mess in Atlanta, Utah may turn to somebody else."



    Boozer averaged team-highs of 17.8 points and 9.0 rebounds per game last season, his first in Utah after signing what turned into a controversial free-agent contract following two years in Cleveland.



    But injuries limited Boozer to just 51 games in 2004-05, prompting Miller to publicly criticize Boozer's effort -- and question the Jazz's decision to sign him.



    Harpring averaged 14.0 points in 78 games, his lowest output since arriving in Utah before the start of the '02-03 season. He also shot a career-low 21 percent on 3-pointers.



    The Jazz finished 26-56 and in last place in the Northwest Division last year, missing the playoffs. They have already made a couple of trades this summer, sending center Curtis Borchardt to Boston, Raul Lopez to Memphis, and Kirk Snyder to New Orleans, and bringing in Greg Ostertag from Sacramento.



    "It would be surprising, shocking even, if getting Ostertag was the only move they made before the start of training camp," the GM said. "In fact, this isn't something they're going about secretly. It's known league-wide that Miller wants to make some more moves and get back into the playoff chase.

    Boozer and Harpring are both names that have been mentioned to me, as far as guys they are wanting to trade."
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  • #2
    Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

    Boozer deserves this. I hope he goes to the Hawks.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

      The Hawks could use him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

        If we were going to trade Artest.... these two guys wouldn't be the worst thing to get in return...

        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

          Originally posted by SoupIsGood
          If we were going to trade Artest.... these two guys wouldn't be the worst thing to get in return...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood
            If we were going to trade Artest.... these two guys wouldn't be the worst thing to get in return...

            what chu talkin bout Willis ?


            Why Not Us ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

              Originally posted by SoupIsGood
              If we were going to trade Artest.... these two guys wouldn't be the worst thing to get in return...

              :shakehead

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                If we were going to trade Artest.... these two guys wouldn't be the worst thing to get in return...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                  Boston strikes me as most interesting in this debate. Could they be thinking of dealing Pierce for both players? That would be an interesting chain of events, cause I would doubt Pierce would want to play in Utah.
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                    boozer is locked up long term for alot of dollars....with the celtics thinking that jefferson is their PF of the future it wouldnt make a lot of sense for them to bring boozer in...

                    a team that needs a power forward would seem to be the best fit....harpring only has one year left on his deal....

                    besides....i gotta believe ainge could get more than that for pierce, no matter what my personal feelings are for pierce...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                      I would be really happy if the Pacers got Harpring but Utah would probably want alot more for Harpring than what would make sense for both teams.

                      Harpring or Stephen Jackson could start and either one would make a really good sixth man. I think that Harpring is more of a mid-range shooter than 3 point shooter, but hey he shot 41% from 3 point land in 02-03. I think Harpring is a pretty decent defender from the few games I have saw of him and I know he is a good rebounder, atleast for his position.

                      http://www.nba.com/playerfile/matt_harpring/index.html

                      Harping has stayed fairly healthy too. His first 3 years he only played in 110 games but since then, in the past 4 years, he has played in 268 games, with only one injury pleaged season.

                      Boozer wouldn't be a bad addition himself though. He averaged 17 points and 9 boards shooting 51% from the floor but he only played in 51 games and his contract cocerns me but a 4/5 combination of Boozer and O'Neal is intriguing. O'Neal is basically our center most of the time anyway, am I wrong? I defentily think that having Boozer here would be a nice addition. The 3 questions are, who would we give up for him? Is he healed from any injuries he suffered last season? Is he worth the money?

                      If the Jazz really want to deal him maybe we can get him for little, assuming he is injury free. I think he MIGHT be worth the money since we are going to be in LT territory for awhile anyways.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                        ndiana Trade Breakdown
                        Outgoing
                        Fred Jones
                        6-2 SG from Oregon
                        10.6 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 2.5 apg in 29.4 minutes
                        Anthony Johnson
                        6-3 PG from Charleston (SC)
                        8.4 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.8 apg in 27.7 minutes
                        Scot Pollard
                        6-11 C from Kansas
                        3.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 17.6 minutes
                        Eddie Gill
                        6-0 PG from Weber State
                        3.7 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 1.1 apg in 14.0 minutes
                        Incoming
                        Carlos Boozer
                        6-9 PF from Duke
                        17.8 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 2.8 apg in 34.8 minutes
                        Raul Lopez
                        6-0 PG from RealMadrid (Spain)
                        5.2 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 4.0 apg in 16.7 minutes
                        Josh Howard
                        6-7 SF from Wake Forrest
                        12.6 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.4 apg in 32.2 minutes
                        Change in team outlook: +9.0 ppg, +5.1 rpg, and -0.6 apg.

                        Utah Trade Breakdown
                        Outgoing
                        Carlos Boozer
                        6-9 PF from Duke
                        17.8 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 2.8 apg in 34.8 minutes
                        Matt Harpring
                        6-7 SF from Georgia Tech
                        14.0 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 1.8 apg in 33.1 minutes
                        Gordan Giricek
                        6-5 SG from Croatia
                        8.8 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 20.5 minutes
                        Raul Lopez
                        6-0 PG from RealMadrid (Spain)
                        5.2 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 4.0 apg in 16.7 minutes
                        Incoming
                        Anthony Johnson
                        6-3 PG from Charleston (SC)
                        8.4 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.8 apg in 27.7 minutes
                        Michael Finley
                        6-7 SG from Wisconsin
                        15.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.6 apg in 36.8 minutes
                        Change in team outlook: -21.7 ppg, -11.9 rpg, and -2.9 apg.

                        Dallas Trade Breakdown
                        Outgoing
                        Michael Finley
                        6-7 SG from Wisconsin
                        15.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.6 apg in 36.8 minutes
                        Josh Howard
                        6-7 SF from Wake Forrest
                        12.6 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.4 apg in 32.2 minutes
                        Incoming
                        Fred Jones
                        6-2 SG from Oregon
                        10.6 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 2.5 apg in 29.4 minutes
                        Scot Pollard
                        6-11 C from Kansas
                        3.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 17.6 minutes
                        Eddie Gill
                        6-0 PG from Weber State
                        3.7 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 1.1 apg in 14.0 minutes
                        Matt Harpring
                        6-7 SF from Georgia Tech
                        14.0 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 1.8 apg in 33.1 minutes
                        Gordan Giricek
                        6-5 SG from Croatia
                        8.8 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 20.5 minutes
                        Change in team outlook: +12.7 ppg, +6.8 rpg, and +3.5 apg.


                        Successful Scenario
                        Due to Indiana, Utah, and Dallas being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Indiana, Utah, and Dallas had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                          Indiana Gets:
                          - Carlos Boozer
                          - Raul Lopez
                          - Josh Howard

                          Utah Gets:
                          - Anthony Johnson
                          - Michael Finley

                          Dallas Gets:
                          - Fred Jones
                          - Scot Pollard
                          - Eddie Gill
                          - Matt Harpring
                          - Gordan Giriec
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          This trade would NEVER happen.

                          While I do love getting Boozer and Howard for Indiana.

                          While I do think that it is a interesting idea for Utah getting 2 backcourt veterans. Don't know that they would do it without getting a big guy though.

                          It is terriable for Dallas and makes no sense. They will not deal Josh Howard unless they get like Ron Artest or AK47 or someone like that. Also, they already have a ton of swingmen and do not need to add 3 more by dealing just 2 of them away, one of which can be wavied and save ALOT on LT money. Also those 2 for 5 trades don't happen to often on a stacked team.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                            um...yall do realize utah actually wants to get better with this trade and not become the worst team in the league, right???

                            one should always ask themselves a very simple question....why would a team do this....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Boozer + Harping now on the block?

                              Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                              If we were going to trade Artest.... these two guys wouldn't be the worst thing to get in return...

                              Harpring okay, Benedict Boozer Looser, I wouldn't take for anyone!!!

                              Anyone that would cheat a blind man is no good! If the Pacers traded for him I wouldn't watch or pay attention anymore! I'm dead serious!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X