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

"Should I stay or should I go?"

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    "Should I stay or should I go?"

    Before I start, let me just note that ANY player is tradable for the right deal. I'm basing my analysis off of the potential to fit into this current team.

    Jeff Foster - I love Jeff's hustle, but he is not the type of center that we need to play alongside JO. I'd love to have a banger, preferably a veteran presence. I seem to recall someone like that in a Pacers uni last season... Jeff's inability to hit wide open 15 footers just sealed the deal in my mind.

    Verdict: Go

    David Harrison - I'm afraid Hulk's game is going to deteriorate under Carlisle. Rick can't keep yanking him after one foul and expecting him to improve. David also needs to keep his attitude with the refs in check. Bringning him up on a team of players who like to ***** to the refs all the time probably hasn't helped his disposition any. But David has a lot of tools, and if he ever learns to use them correctly, watch out.

    Verdict: Stay

    Scot Pollard - I like Scot, but he's always going to have back problems. However, for the right money, he's a great glue guy and we could do far worse on the bench in emergency situations.

    Verdict: Stay

    Jermaine O'Neal - JO may not be a Top 10 player in this league (yet), but his attitude has been good and he shows the effort on the floor most of the time. He has shown the ability to really shine when showcased with a legitimate center.

    Verdict: Stay

    Austin Croshere - Cro is a good guy, and I wouldn't mind keeping him at a sane price, but he doesn't really fit into the mold of this team if we keep Peja. And I'll pull my hair out if we keep giving him minutes over Danny. But don't underestimate the spark he presents off the bench when he decides to be aggresive and not just chuck threes. He's also a rare veteran presence on a young team.

    Verdict: Give or Take

    Peja Stojakovic - I like Peja, but I lost a lot of faith in him due to his inability/unwillingness to play in the playoffs. Either he had a negative attidue about playing, was afraid of choking in the playoffs again, or now has knee problems to go with his back problems. His presence at the 3 also hinders Danny's development.

    Verdict: Go

    Danny Granger - What can you say? An impact player as a rookie, and already our best defender which has shown the ability to be clutch. He has a great attitude to boot.

    Verdict: Stay

    Stephen Jackson - Erratic shooter who has lapses of effort, plays outside of the offense, and constanly barks at referees and teammates. Need I say more?

    Verdict: Go

    Fred Jones - I like Freddie. I think some of us underestimate the spark he brings off the bench, and how well he is capable of shooting the ball when his hand isn't injured. His defense is a liability, obvously, and I could live with never seeing him make another pass while committed in the air. But for the right price, we could do a lot worse as a back-up SG.

    Verdict: Give or Take

    Jamaal Tinsley - When healthy, Tins is the best point guard on this team. But he's never healthy, and his attitude and decision-making come into question often. His shooting at times is just as bad as Foster's. I expect Tins will be back on the roster, because his trade value is virtually nil, but I'm ready to take a stab at acquiring a new starting point.

    Verdict: Go

    Anthony Johnson - AJ deserves major props for the progress he's made. His offense has come a long way, and his teammates seem to be more comfortable with him running the show. However, he does have a tendency to regress when his starting spot is in question, he's slow as molasses at times, and he's not a great distributor. He can also dominate the ball at times when he shouldn't. Still, we could do much worse in a back-up, and AJ can play 2 positions if needed (though I still feel he's better suited as a 2).

    Verdict: Stay

    Sarunas Jasikevicius - People tend to forget that Runi was effectively a rookie this season. His season was extended by more than 30 games, and that's a ton for a rookie. He played well to start the season and then hit the wall. Hopefully, his defense isn't really as bad as we saw over the last couple of months. I'm willing to give him more time.

    Verdict: Stay

    Eddie Gill - Wherever the Lord Eddie goeth, thou shalt follow in His sneaker-steps.

    Seriously, though, I would like to have Eddie back, but it's not necessary as the fourth point guard.

    Verdict: Give or Take

    So, I would like to see a roster sorta like this next season:

    C - ???/Harrison/Pollard
    PF - JO/Cro?
    SF - Danny/???
    SG - ???/Freddie?/AJ
    PG - ???/AJ/Runi/Gill?

    We need a new starting C, starting SG, and starting PG. We'll also need a quality back-up SF and possibly PF/SG depending on what we do with Cro (trade his contract?) and Freddie (let him walk?).
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

    You lost me when you said Jeff should go and David should stay

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

      I think depth is a good thing - Peja should stay - and he probably hurt his value with his injury - he should stay and you can have Granger play some 2.

      Last time we felt like we had a logjam at a position we traded Al for Jax. Doh!

      I think Austin is an extremely valuable asset for a team looking to get under the cap and dump someone we could use at the trade deadline.

      Other than that - I agree with you.
      Heywoode says... work hard man.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        You lost me when you said Jeff should go and David should stay
        David is a true center. Jeff is not. We need a true center, and one who has some offensive capabilities, to compliment JO.

        It's as simple as that.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

          Originally posted by Doug in OH
          I think depth is a good thing - Peja should stay - and he probably hurt his value with his injury - he should stay and you can have Granger play some 2.

          Last time we felt like we had a logjam at a position we traded Al for Jax. Doh!

          I think Austin is an extremely valuable asset for a team looking to get under the cap and dump someone we could use at the trade deadline.

          Other than that - I agree with you.
          True, but I would much rather sign and trade Peja for a new starting SG and get a new SF to back up Danny. Playing Danny out of position to try to make it work doesn't sit well with me. Danny is already good enough to start, and never will if we lock Peja into a long-term deal.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

            A sign and trade is easier said than done

            Maybe we can sign and trade him for Maggette
            Heywoode says... work hard man.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

              i pretty much agree with everything except for peja, tinsley, and AJ.

              if peja leaves then we traded artest for nothing when we could have had a guy like maggette, who is young, gives you 20 a night, and is on at a great bargain price for the next 4-5 years. ppl keep talking about a sign and trade w/ peja, but we won't get crap back simply b/c he is not restricted. you only see teams getting a lot back via sign and trade when they have the leverage to match the offer (think joe johnson). when the player is unrestricted, like peja is, the other team is usually willing to offer up only a role player as a salary dump (think brad miller for pollard).

              as for tinsley.....you're right. he's one of the best PG's when healthy and his contract is fairly cheap for a player with his capabilities. i think his injuries result from lack of conditioning and training in the offseason. if we can get a decent trade on the table for him, then i would consider it. but i wouldn't give him up for nothing. part of me is hoping bird and carlisle really come down hard on him and he comes back strong next year.

              AJ is never going to have a trade value as high as it is now. if bird really is intent on a tinsley/sarunas pg rotation, then we might want to cash in on AJ's value after that awesome NJ series.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                Keep Hulk and let Foster go?????
                STARBURY

                08 and Beyond

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                  Hulk makes less money, hulk is younger, hulk has more upside, hulk is a true center, I don't necessarily want Foster to go, but I prefer to keep Hulk rather than him.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                    I completely agree with my good friend and Eddie Gill fanatic, Shade.

                    As to why to let Jeff go and not Hulk..It's really simple actually. This team needs a real center. An offensive threat who can put up 10-15 points consistently and has even a SHRED of offensive game. At this point, Dikembe Mutumbo and Theo Ratliff have more offensive moves than Jeff and that is flat out disgustingly pathetic. The fact of the matter is, when Jeff isn't grabbing 15 boards a game or guarding a smaller center in the league, he's pretty much useless. He provides no shot blocking presence in the paint and a reason why we have some of the worst interior defense in the league to slashing guards. (I realize our wingmen should stop them, but they need to meet a force in the paint besides JO) I would LOVE to keep Jeff as the backup PF and a guy we use when we go small, but he is great trade bait at the moment and his health is only deteriorating.

                    Hulk is still young and has alot to learn. I don't know if he'll ever pan out under Rick Carlisle but he will be a good center under a coach who isn't afraid to play their rookies and let them learn through mistakes. In my opinion, we need to give Granger and Harrison ALOT more time in the rotation next year to develop them. It's obvious we wont win a championship unless they develop a ton and we get a premier 2 guard.

                    Overall, Excellent analysis of the team Shade. I agree with every point you made with the exception of Eddie Gill being Stay or Go. Stop trying to please the haters, you know he needs to stay. 12th man award for sportsmanship - Only guy on our team who won an award all season!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                      There are several things that I don't agree with.

                      Foster. This team needs talent, that is true. But we've been down that road before, when we had decent talent and more depth than any team in the league. So, IMO, it would be dumb to get rid of Foster, who is a good presence on the floor and in the locker room... and who is equally productive whether he starts or comes off the bench. We need good attitudes and capable bigs; Jeff can play either 1 or 4 off the bench AS A BACKUP.

                      Freddie. "His defense is a liability, obvously"? What the heck? Freddie is one of the best perimeter defenders we have. Now, if you want to say that Saras and Tinsley play matador defense, I'll go along with that. But whether we need Freddie next season depends totally on whether we deal Tinsley and Jackson and whether we get a player capable of playing perimeter defensive back in . If we don't get a decent defensive player, then we will need Freddie. If we trade Tinsley and Jax for other assets, like a center, and fill the 2 slot from either Peja or Bender, then we need Freddie as a backup at 2.

                      Tinsley. I'd trade him and Jackson for a moldy dog biscuit, but I'm kind of hoping that the two of them combined will either bring back a good PG or a serviceable center. If that's not enough, then sacrifice Croshere's contract early in the year rather than waiting for the trade deadline.

                      Bender and Pollard. I really believe that both players represent cap relief for the Pacers. Either Pollard will be re-signed for very little money, or we will let him go. If the Pacers trade Croshere, I think we will not trade Bender's contract, simply because it will be covered by insurance anyway and it will provide cap relief at season's end to help cover whatever we need to play Peja to retain him.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                        we really do need to ship out AJ while his trade value is high. AJ really won me over this year, but it's best to move him while he has such high value. We could use an AJ/Foster combo to land us a big guy to compliment Jermaine.

                        Draft a PG, keep the roster as is...trade Tins/AJ/Foster for a solid center (with draft pick possibly) put an extremely short leash on Jack and DH.
                        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                          You have to get rid of either Jeff or Scot. I like them both but they have trouble staying heatlhy. Maybe we really don't need someone better, we do need a player more durable to start at center.

                          Also, I would say that Anthony Johnson is give or take. He was great vs New Jersey but we need quickness in the backcourt. He doesn't give us that. And plus his value should be very good, we might be better off getting something good while his value is high. Of course it wouldn't hurt to keep him if we drafted say Kyle Lowery, the Nova point guard.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                            Shade's ideas are all good, but I think the first question has to be Carlisle. Is he going to be the coach next year? And is he going to coach the same way? If yes to both of these questions, then Harrison and Sarunas might as well go. Either of them is better or worse, depending on the system they are in -- and Carlisle's system makes them worse.

                            I hope Carlisle goes. But my second wish is that -- if he must stay -- he gets 12 players that he can work with.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: "Should I stay or should I go?"

                              I think Pollard would sign for the Vets minimum once his contract is up.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X