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

2006 off-season evaluation part 5

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

  • #16
    Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
    I think Saras is going to be a very good PG in the NBA. I think it's a big mistake to write him off based on one season of being asked to play two different positions on an inconsistant team. How many rookies do you normally want traded after their first year? I'm actually pretty amazed that some of you are ready to write him off already. ..

    Whereas we tended to have longstanding patience with Bender because of his athletic ability, so many are ready to dismiss Saras, despite his obvious bball IQ, which I'll take over athletic ability any day...

    Dirk Nowitski looked very lost in his first few seasons. Drazen Petrovic was pretty shakey his first few years, and he got the kind of inconsistant minutes that Saras has gotten. ..

    I just think letting Saras go in a trade that doesn't net us something big would be a self destructive. Saras is a rare commodity: a PG who "gets it." I think he's a guy who just needs steady minutes and a defined role, other than, "hey, stand around the three point line and let us work.."

    We need to keep him. ..
    I think Saras is the only one we need to keep. He's got a shorter contract than AJ and I think has more upside.

    Very good points here .... how often do we lament the fact that some guys possess jaw dropping God given talent but underachieve due to bad work ethic or just being a head case. Saras on the other hand may lack some quickness, but I think you have to give him a pass considering the history of the transition it takes from the International Game to the NBA.

    Saras makes the least of all three of the PG's, and is only 2 years older than Tinsley.
    Keeping Saras would be one of the smaller gambles for this team in recent history.
    You never should trade your least experienced and least expensive player to better that position.

    Why Not Us ?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

      I agree that its too early to write off Saras.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

        Originally posted by Frank Slade
        Saras makes the least of all three of the PG's, and is only 2 years older than Tinsley.
        Keeping Saras would be one of the smaller gambles for this team in recent history.
        You never should trade your least experienced and least expensive player to better that position.
        Thank you very much. You just gave an extremely good reason why we should keep AJ. Next season the salaries are:

        Tinsley $5,850,000
        Saras $4,000,000
        AJ $2,640,000

        AJ is the least expensive not Saras. So, according to you, if you should never trade your least experienced and least expensive player, would it not sound reasonable that you should never trade your best performing and least expensive player?

        After all, isn't that what you really try to do in business? Get the best performance for the least amount of dollars.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

          Originally posted by beast23
          Thank you very much. You just gave an extremely good reason why we should keep AJ. Next season the salaries are:

          Tinsley $5,850,000
          Saras $4,000,000
          AJ $2,640,000

          AJ is the least expensive not Saras. So, according to you, if you should never trade your least experienced and least expensive player, would it not sound reasonable that you should never trade your best performing and least expensive player?

          After all, isn't that what you really try to do in business? Get the best performance for the least amount of dollars.
          Oh Yes your right , Although AJ's salary will be $2,894,737 actually this upcoming year but that is academic.

          And I for one did not indicate that you would have to trade AJ.. My indication of keeping Saras does not mean you must trade the other two, If you are able to better your team, and the position, without trading AJ great. AJ is a proven commodity, and steady professional veteran.

          I have no problem with him at least fighting for the Starting Job or major minutes going into next season. But..as some have pointed out, he may be a victim of being the most trade-able of the three as far as proven experience.

          My point is Saras was a rookie and how many teams during the offseason will be looking to trade their Rookies they drafted last year

          Why Not Us ?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

            I agree that AJ's value will never be higher - he's, what, 32? He's hit his peak as far as ability. Buy low, sell high, as they say. He's really the biggest trade asset we have not named Granger. With his small salary, I think we can use him to get rid of one of our problem players (Jackson seems the most likely) or bad contracts (pretty much everybody else). If no one bites, though, you definately keep him - don't trade unless you get a good deal.

            As for Saras, I figure he deserves one more season to straighten himself out. I can't imagine he's as bad a shooter as he seems. I don't think you'll be able to get a whole lot for him at this point anyway - probably a raw kid with potential. I don't think you could get a rotation player for him. So let him see if he can improve.

            Tinsley, eh, whatever. Trade him for a second-round pick if you have to. Hell, we did that with JJ, who I'd much rather have at this point.

            IndyToad
            The best ever created

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

              Originally posted by Frank Slade
              Oh Yes your right , Although AJ's salary will be $2,894,737 actually this upcoming year but that is academic.
              Not that it matters, but where are you getting your salary for AJ?

              Hoopshype has it as I quoted. Is there a better source that is more accurate? If there is, I'd like to update a chart that I keep.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                Originally posted by indytoad
                I agree that AJ's value will never be higher - he's, what, 32? He's hit his peak as far as ability. Buy low, sell high, as they say. He's really the biggest trade asset we have not named Granger. With his small salary, I think we can use him to get rid of one of our problem players (Jackson seems the most likely) or bad contracts (pretty much everybody else). If no one bites, though, you definately keep him - don't trade unless you get a good deal.

                As for Saras, I figure he deserves one more season to straighten himself out. I can't imagine he's as bad a shooter as he seems. I don't think you'll be able to get a whole lot for him at this point anyway - probably a raw kid with potential. I don't think you could get a rotation player for him. So let him see if he can improve.

                Tinsley, eh, whatever. Trade him for a second-round pick if you have to. Hell, we did that with JJ, who I'd much rather have at this point.

                IndyToad
                The best ever created
                Wow! We actually agree! How is that for a nice though bizarre twist?



                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                  Originally posted by indytoad
                  I agree that AJ's value will never be higher - he's, what, 32? He's hit his peak as far as ability. Buy low, sell high, as they say. He's really the biggest trade asset we have not named Granger. With his small salary, I think we can use him to get rid of one of our problem players (Jackson seems the most likely) or bad contracts (pretty much everybody else). If no one bites, though, you definately keep him - don't trade unless you get a good deal.
                  Buy low, sell high. That's a great little one liner when it applies to the stock market. It works great when you have several equally talented assets, but that's not the case with the Pacers.

                  I don't really agree with getting rid of AJ at all. He's the best performer at PG and he costs us less than anyone else. With a team that is trying to get its salary down closer to the cap, that seems to be a match made in heaven.

                  But even if we were to trade AJ, one thing is certain to me. You don't trade your best performer at PG unless you are getting back an equal or better performer in the trade or another trade. Because if you do, our ship is bound to sink because it would be stuck with nonperformers at its helm.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                    I say trade AJ.
                    STARBURY

                    08 and Beyond

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                      Wouldn't bother me to see any of them gone. Jamaal needs to go obviously. Better get rid of him before it's too late. Sarunas sucks, but I doubt Bird would admit how terribly wrong he was in getting him after just one season by trading him.

                      I like AJ, but the dudes in his thirties and his value is as high as it's ever going to be. I'd be all for trading him if we could get something good.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                        Since everybody is talking about the high trade value of AJ. How high could it be? Could it be the wishfull thinking? Imagine yourself a buy-side manager and have following thoughts: "The guy was playing great for last 4 months as a starter. Will I start him on my team? Hell, no. Well, he is not as good as second PG and is already 32 years. ****. What should I pay for him?"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                          Originally posted by Flax
                          Since everybody is talking about the high trade value of AJ. How high could it be? Could it be the wishfull thinking? Imagine yourself a buy-side manager and have following thoughts: "The guy was playing great for last 4 months as a starter. Will I start him on my team? Hell, no. Well, he is not as good as second PG and is already 32 years. ****. What should I pay for him?"
                          Thing is, he's got high value because he's a precious commodity: A stable, veteran PG.

                          You've got teams like Houston, Celtics, Utah, Grizzlies, Kings...who either have no strong candidates for starting PG, or not strong fallback to split minutes at backup/starter. THAT's what makes him a strong commodity, in my book.

                          I don't think it's wishful thinking at all. Teams are hard up for PGs and in a package deal, AJ could be a real deal-maker.
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                            it's a good thing no one in the Pacers management cares about what you guys think.
                            edit: I hope :/

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                              I'd like to move AJ and Tinsley and keep Saras in a backup role.

                              My reasons have already been given by other people.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 2006 off-season evaluation part 5

                                Originally posted by Flax
                                Since everybody is talking about the high trade value of AJ. How high could it be? Could it be the wishfull thinking? Imagine yourself a buy-side manager and have following thoughts: "The guy was playing great for last 4 months as a starter. Will I start him on my team? Hell, no. Well, he is not as good as second PG and is already 32 years. ****. What should I pay for him?"
                                Bingo...I can't imagine a GM in his right mind (maybe Isiah) that would give up much of anything for AJ in a one for one deal. Definetely not a 1st Round pick or the equivalent of a starter or even a 6th man type guy.

                                The value here I see is that we can use AJ (and his very low contract) as a throw in with Jax or Tinsley to bring back some quality, young talent.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X