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

Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

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

  • Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

    Indiana trades Jeff Foster and Rawle Marshall to Toronto
    Toronto trades Mo Peterson and a conditional second round pick in 07 to Indiana.

    Why for Toronto: Raptors need a rebounder....they were near the bottom in almost every rebounding category last season. The acquisitions theyve made this off season make Peterson expendable, who is he is a free agent they apparently might not resign next summer. Marshall gives them a young swing man for cheap money, and if he doesnt make their team they keep the pick they give Indiana on a conditional basis.

    Why for Indiana: We save money for this season, and thin our roster a bit. Peterson is a perfect cheap compliment as a shooter and team guy to what we have in place now. Getting back potentially to near the top of the second round is a nice bonus for us in next years deep draft.....only if Marshalll works out for Toronto of course.

    Losing Foster stings a bit but we plan on playing smaller this year anyway. If we wanted, we could sign a free agent big man to a small vet minimum type contract as insurance if we so chose.




    Trade 2: Indiana trades Josh Powell and cash to Charlotte
    Charlotte trades us a conditional 2nd rounder in 07 draft.


    Why for Charlotte: They are under the minimum total salary for the NBA, so taking on a player doesnt hurt them at all money wise. Powell provides them some minimal insurance in case Ely leaves them. The pick is contingent on Powell making their roster.

    Why for Indiana: Powell isnt likely to make our team anyway, and this gets us something for him. Charlotte's second round pick in next years deep draft is likely to be in the 30's, not far from where our own first round pick wouldve been that we gave away recently to Atlanta.

  • #2
    Re: Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

    I like your first trade, but not your second. In a few years Powell may have a role on this team. Although, the same could be said for Marshall. I forget which was supposed to have the most likely chance at being a rotation player someday.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I like your first trade, but not your second. In a few years Powell may have a role on this team. Although, the same could be said for Marshall. I forget which was supposed to have the most likely chance at being a rotation player someday.

      Well, if you get to the end of Sept, right before camp, and you think Powell won't make your team, you'd be wise to trade him someplace before his contract becomes guaranteed on Oct 1. Charlotte seems like a logical place for him, just due to the fact that they are under the cap, and might like a young player at relatively little risk.


      If by some miracle both trades worked out for us, we'd potentially have 2 picks in next years draft at about positions 30-40 or so.....we could dtill get good players there, or we could trade up into the 20's if there was a player we coveted from somebody.

      JMO

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

        The first trade wouldn't be smart.

        You do that trade and make no other moves and here is the roster:

        SG: Daniels/Jackson/White
        SF: Granger/Peterson/Williams
        PF: Harrington/Baston/Powell
        C: O'Neal/Harrison/Edwards

        Trade doesn't affect the point guard position so I didn't bother to list it.

        But anyways that leaves us with 4 players who are going to command starter minuates in Granger, Jackson, Daniels, and Peterson. 3, we can handle. 4 we can not. Now i'd love to have our 3 main players at the 2-3 be Peterson, Granger, and Daniels as the 6th man but we HAVE to trade Jackson before we can go after Peterson. And we would have to get a big for Jackson because we couldn't trade him for another swingman.

        Could we send Jackson to the Bucks? Maybe for Skinner and ? but I sort of doubt the Bucks have interest in Jackson since they just acquired Ruben Patterson.

        Then take a look at our 4-5 positions, look at our backups. They SUCK. Sure Harrison could play well, Baston too, but I don't want to roll the dice on them. I don't have that much faith in those guys. And signing Antoino Davis or Melvin Ely isn't going to give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside about our backups at that position.

        But before we could make that trade with Toronto I think we have to have Jackson shipped off for a big man.

        Also, why do the Bobcats do the trade? If they, or any team, really wants Powell they probably can wait until we cut him. I think that sure we would take a second round pick for him but he ain't a player that you can't afford to just cut and get nothing in return. So teams aren't going to offer us anything if they want him, IMO, because they can just wait for us to cut him and sign him then.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

          Originally posted by rommie View Post
          The first trade wouldn't be smart.

          You do that trade and make no other moves and here is the roster:

          SG: Daniels/Jackson/White
          SF: Granger/Peterson/Williams
          PF: Harrington/Baston/Powell
          C: O'Neal/Harrison/Edwards

          Trade doesn't affect the point guard position so I didn't bother to list it.

          But anyways that leaves us with 4 players who are going to command starter minuates in Granger, Jackson, Daniels, and Peterson. 3, we can handle. 4 we can not. Now i'd love to have our 3 main players at the 2-3 be Peterson, Granger, and Daniels as the 6th man but we HAVE to trade Jackson before we can go after Peterson. And we would have to get a big for Jackson because we couldn't trade him for another swingman.

          Could we send Jackson to the Bucks? Maybe for Skinner and ? but I sort of doubt the Bucks have interest in Jackson since they just acquired Ruben Patterson.

          Then take a look at our 4-5 positions, look at our backups. They SUCK. Sure Harrison could play well, Baston too, but I don't want to roll the dice on them. I don't have that much faith in those guys. And signing Antoino Davis or Melvin Ely isn't going to give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside about our backups at that position.

          But before we could make that trade with Toronto I think we have to have Jackson shipped off for a big man.

          Also, why do the Bobcats do the trade? If they, or any team, really wants Powell they probably can wait until we cut him. I think that sure we would take a second round pick for him but he ain't a player that you can't afford to just cut and get nothing in return. So teams aren't going to offer us anything if they want him, IMO, because they can just wait for us to cut him and sign him then.

          Some good points Rommie.

          In my own mind, and maybe Ill end up being wrong, I envision Daniels playing some of his minutes at the point. Im not a Sarunas fan, and have my doubts whether he will hold up over the long haul. So among the four players you mention, If this trade was made, and Jackson stays, Id see the minutes broken down like this approximately:

          Daniels: 30 minutes a game total.....20 minutes at PG, 10 at SG

          That leaves 86 minutes per night left among 2 spots (SG and SF) with 3 players to divide them (Granger, Peterson, Jackson) I think that can work. That total would increase a bit when you consider possible injuries, or if Daniels has to to play the point full time as a starter if/when Tinsley goes down.

          The reality of how Im thinking about how it would work obviously is tilted by the fact that Im not sure about James White yet, and how much he can contribute. This trade initially assumes that as a rookie he will play sparingly....but if he is ready for more then that might make the moves I was recommending mute. Also, as Im assuming Daniels in my view can get 20 minutes per game at the PG, that tells you that I have little faith in Sarunas. If Im proven to be wrong about that then also this move might not look as smart.

          Im also worried about Jeff's health issues, in particular his back, and am of the mind to trade him now while he still is at a near peak value. He has alot of wear and tear on his body, and in my judgment could be a guy who could break down in the future, leaving us without a "solid" backup anyway. I'm comfortable with replacing him with a cheaper big body if necessary.

          Even if we did this trade, only to find that White CAN play, and that we didnt really need Peterson, he has an expiring contract. Thats a big help for next summer, as we will be able to use that money to get a long term upgrade for Foster at that time.

          In terms of the Charlotte trade, I agree that they could wait until he is potentially released.....but then Powell would have 28 other options to choose from, in addition to overseas offers. There is no information Im aware of that leads me to believe he'd pick Charlotte over any other team if given the choice. If he works out its a low risk move for the Bobcats, if he doesn't, then no harm done as they can release him and retain thier pick.

          JMO

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
            Some good points Rommie.

            In my own mind, and maybe Ill end up being wrong, I envision Daniels playing some of his minutes at the point. Im not a Sarunas fan, and have my doubts whether he will hold up over the long haul. So among the four players you mention, If this trade was made, and Jackson stays, Id see the minutes broken down like this approximately:

            Daniels: 30 minutes a game total.....20 minutes at PG, 10 at SG

            That leaves 86 minutes per night left among 2 spots (SG and SF) with 3 players to divide them (Granger, Peterson, Jackson) I think that can work. That total would increase a bit when you consider possible injuries, or if Daniels has to to play the point full time as a starter if/when Tinsley goes down.

            The reality of how Im thinking about how it would work obviously is tilted by the fact that Im not sure about James White yet, and how much he can contribute. This trade initially assumes that as a rookie he will play sparingly....but if he is ready for more then that might make the moves I was recommending mute. Also, as Im assuming Daniels in my view can get 20 minutes per game at the PG, that tells you that I have little faith in Sarunas. If Im proven to be wrong about that then also this move might not look as smart.

            Im also worried about Jeff's health issues, in particular his back, and am of the mind to trade him now while he still is at a near peak value. He has alot of wear and tear on his body, and in my judgment could be a guy who could break down in the future, leaving us without a "solid" backup anyway. I'm comfortable with replacing him with a cheaper big body if necessary.

            Even if we did this trade, only to find that White CAN play, and that we didnt really need Peterson, he has an expiring contract. Thats a big help for next summer, as we will be able to use that money to get a long term upgrade for Foster at that time.

            In terms of the Charlotte trade, I agree that they could wait until he is potentially released.....but then Powell would have 28 other options to choose from, in addition to overseas offers. There is no information Im aware of that leads me to believe he'd pick Charlotte over any other team if given the choice. If he works out its a low risk move for the Bobcats, if he doesn't, then no harm done as they can release him and retain thier pick.

            JMO
            Ahh see I don't see Daniels playing to much point unless we have injuries. Atleast not in the beginning because i'm thinking that Saras will get a chance to play the point. And to be honest I really don't think the point is one of Daniel's strengths, he has the skills but I don't know that he is really at his best when he is running the show but I guess I haven't seen enough of him to know for sure.

            I don't mind trading Foster, especially for MoPete. In fact I was thinking that MoPete would be a great fit in here with Al right before I opened up this thread. I just think that we need to get another proven big man in here to be a backup to make Jeff expandable.

            That's a good point about the Charolette trade. I'v never thought of it like that before.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indiana/Toronto and Indiana/Charlotte

              Yes, it just really depends on whether you like the offensive advantages of playing Sarunas, or the defensive advantages of playing Daniels at the point....its a tough call either way. Being a defensive guy, and a guy who believes that the most important defensive position on the whole floor is point guard, I lean to Daniels.....but I understand how others would disagree.

              If we keep Sarunas, I hope he plays well and proves me wrong. As it is, I wouldnt be devastated if my trade expanded and included him going to Toronto as well in a bigger deal, but I doubt that happens.

              Comment

              Working...
              X