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

The Official Iverson Trade Speculation/Rumor Thread (Updates Here)

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

  • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

    I've pretty much been ranting and raving on here for about a week about how there is no possible way we get Iverson....And just when they let me out, they PUULLLLLLL me back in.

    Looks like the market for Iverson isn't quite as strong as I would think. I really have a hard time believing Boston and Chicago aren't making any effort here, but if they're really not, and if none of these other teams are gonna give up draft picks either....who knows? Maybe we got a shot.

    As for specifics...I'm guessing Harrington would have to be involved, just for our own future payroll concerns. Otherwise, (and assuming BK isn't dumb enough to take Jax), we'd start next year with JO ($19.7), AI ($20.1), Al ($8.4) and Jax ($6.6) accounting for $54.8 million in payroll. That would mean we're already above this year's cap number with just four players. Considering the luxury tax threshold this year was at $63 million (I believe), and the Simons seeming unwillingness to go over that number, we'd need to find 9 other bodies for around $10-$15 million next year to avoid the tax.

    JO, Al, and Jax are the hook until 2010 as well, which wouldn't help matters in terms of flexibility. And assuming the reason Danny isn't going anywhere is because he's a foundation in our long-term plan, the Simons will need to throw an extension at him next summer. We could end up getting a bargain if he doesn't truly "break out" this year, but we're still probably looking at 5 years/$40 million or so.

    Add that to the others and....well it's a lot of money.

    That said, my ideal trade that makes some sense for both teams would be:

    Tinsley/Al/Marquis/Shawne for Iverson/Korver

    Philly would be taking on about $1 million in salary, and I doubt they want all those long-term deals...But Al is probably underpaid, and possibly so is Quis. Tins is reasonably paid if he's healthy.

    Korver would be a HUUUUGE fan favorite in Indy. I doubt they add him to this though....probably would have to be Hunter instead though.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

      Originally posted by ABADays View Post
      Do you? Quit being an a55!
      Can always count on ABA.
      It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

      Comment


      • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

        Remember when they said the deal would be done by Tuesday?

        This is just Ron all over again. It's not like there weren't rumors about Ron "about to be traded to..." every day for the entire time up to the trade. Every day there are 3-4 new rumors from "reliable sources" that seem to contradict each other.

        Unless they are waiting on the 15th for some reason (Quis/Harrington) I have my doubts about "Indy is a front runner and about to get AI". Sounds like leverage BS to me, possibly coming out from AI's agent.

        Bickerstaff has come out saying that the Bobcats made NO OFFER for AI to refuse to accept. Maybe he is spinning it, but he seemed pretty strongly opinioned on the issue and confident with the direction they are developing that team.

        And yet that trade was considered even more than rumor the way it was reported. If that was BS just think what some of these rumors must be. I think sources are turning phone calls into "serious talks".

        Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
        OK, I just saw the Bucher thing on Sportscenter. He needs to check his facts.

        He says Daniels signed over the summer. HE DID NOT SIGN. He was traded straight up for Austin Croshere. Daniels was not a free agent.

        He's clearly confusing Daniels with Harrington. And this is a "professional" sports reporter...
        And for Able's response too...

        From Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ...
        See Item #80
        For sign-and-trade transactions, the initial trade which completes the transaction is obviously allowed, even though it occurs right after the player is signed. What's not clear is whether the player's new team can subsequently trade him prior to three months or December 15. While a literal reading of the CBA might suggest that such players cannot be subsequently traded, the league actually considers this situation to be undefined, and won't resolve the matter until a team actually tries to make such a trade.
        So both Quis and Harrington are in that gray area.

        Comment


        • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Remember when they said the deal would be done by Tuesday?

          This is just Ron all over again. It's not like there weren't rumors about Ron "about to be traded to..." every day for the entire time up to the trade. Every day there are 3-4 new rumors from "reliable sources" that seem to contradict each other.

          Unless they are waiting on Harrington I have my doubts about "Indy is a front runner and about to get AI". Sounds like leverage BS to me, possibly coming out from AI's agent.

          Bickerstaff has come out saying that the Bobcats made NO OFFER for AI to refuse to accept. Maybe he is spinning it, but he seemed pretty strongly opinioned on the issue and confident with the direction they are developing that team.

          And yet that trade was considered even more than rumor the way it was reported. If that was BS just think what some of these rumors must be. I think sources are turning phone calls into "serious talks".
          Yeah, I never understood how A.I. would've fit into what Charolette is doing down there. I really like what they've got with some very good, very young players. Iverson was about the last thing they needed there.

          As for the multitude of rumors that come up, yeah most of them are probably BS. But it's a lot of fun discussing them, picking and pulling, and playing GM for a day (or a month or two in many cases).
          It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

          Comment


          • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

            Nuggets have gone 12-4 since their 0-3 start, so they might be a little hesitant to make a bold move. JR Smith has filled their shooting guard void quite well.

            Comment


            • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Nuggets have gone 12-4 since their 0-3 start, so they might be a little hesitant to make a bold move. JR Smith has filled their shooting guard void quite well.
              I read a George Karl quote where he said that he was quite pleased with their roster. Why would they give that up? AI is great but if you're flowing like they are...why risk it?

              Comment


              • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                I think you guys are right on Denver. Its going to come down to Us, Boston, Minny and Golden State. The Clippers are also a possibility.

                Comment


                • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                  Originally posted by Isaac View Post
                  I think you guys are right on Denver. Its going to come down to Us, Boston, Minny and Golden State. The Clippers are also a possibility.
                  All the Clippers have to do is throw in Livingston...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                    I think we are most likely out of it at this point. It seems like all the rumors are circling around Golden State, Minny and Denver. We are probably still in it, but as quite a long shot. I'm guessing we refused to include Danny and they just weren't interested in any other package.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                      Originally posted by Isaac View Post
                      I think we are most likely out of it at this point. It seems like all the rumors are circling around Golden State, Minny and Denver. We are probably still in it, but as quite a long shot. I'm guessing we refused to include Danny and they just weren't interested in any other package.
                      The less I hear about us, the better. It's always the dark horse. We're obviously not going to lose interest so for now, I like all the attention on those teams, especially since I don't understand why Denver would make a trade, I don't think Minnesota can come up with the players, and GS is unwilling to part with its young guns.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                        Sounds like it's gonna be Golden State.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                          If this has been posted sorry, but a TON of info, whether its true or not, its from the ny daily news

                          http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/st...p-403581c.html


                          ---

                          Allen Iverson's departure from Philadelphia might be coming very soon, as Sixers GM Billy King told another Eastern Conference executive last night that he has "two deals on the table, ready to go."

                          One of the deals King was strongly considering is with Golden State, for point guard Baron Davis, center Andris Biedrins and a third unidentified player. In addition to Iverson, the Warriors would get backup center Steven Hunter. While a source close to one of the players involved called the deal "done," the Sixers remain quiet about where they will be sending Iverson.


                          "It makes sense for the Sixers to make the deal with Golden State," an Eastern Conference executive said last night. "It's the situation the Pacers were in last year with Ron Artest. It's better to get those guys out of your conference, unless you're getting a blockbuster in return."


                          Meanwhile, the Warriors' opponents last night, the Kings, took themselves out of contention for Iverson, according to co-owner Joe Maloof. The Pacers and Celtics were regarded as the teams in the East trying hardest to get Iverson. But a league official said that his conversations with the Pacers strongly indicated that they are just about out of the running, since they don't want to part with Danny Granger or any other players King wanted.


                          Since announcing last week that they are trading their disgruntled superstar, the Sixers have been holding out for a deal that will get them a combination of the following: players with expiring contracts, so they can avoid paying the luxury tax next season; a good young player; and draft picks. Earlier yesterday, they reportedly rejected the Clippers' offer of Corey Maggette and Cuttino Mobley, with Mobley's deal having three more years to run at nearly $30 million.


                          Earlier in trade talks, Golden State had been trying to move veterans with long-term deals, including Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy and Adonal Foyle. But the Sixers asked for Biedrins - a third-year player who turns 21 in April - Monta Ellis or Mickael Pietrus. If the deal with Golden State goes through, it will allow Iverson to play in Don Nelson's freewheeling offensive system. The Warriors feel that Iverson would give them a great chance to get into the playoffs for the first time since 1994.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                            I just took a closer look at the numbers in the "let me get this straight" thread.

                            Do you realize that AI's numbers look identical to what Jack and Tinsley do combined? He shoots as much as both of them added together. He has less assists per minute than Tins, more TO's per minute than Tins, obviously a worse A/TO ratio, and even more technicals than Jackson this year as well as the previous 2.

                            He also shoots the 3 nearly as much as Jack has in recent years and at a rate about 5% lower than Jackson (other than Jack's slow start this season of course).

                            I just need someone to explain how he helps the Pacers if people think that what Jack and Tinsley do is the problem?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                              I seriously question anyone that thinks that the Pacers have pieces that the Sixers would want.

                              I suspect that TPTB know that they need to make some type of roster shakeup....but I don't think ( and you can correct me if I am wrong ) that they are the type to make a significant shakeup in the roster on the level of adding a player like Iverson. Outside of the Artest trade ( which was forced on them....and not by choice ), the biggest move that they have made in recent years was the Harrington and SJax trades. Although these moves are considered significant...I considered these as moves for players that would complement JONeal.

                              Adding Iverson would significantly change how the offense is run as Iverson would be the likely #1 scoring option ( especially if he is initiating the offense ) with more FGA going to Iverson then JONeal and plays that run through him. Adding Iverson is something that I would consider major and therefore something I don't think is in TPTB nature.

                              Here's my conspiracy plot....I suspect that all this talk about Indy being involved is a smokescreen cooked up by DW and BK to get the asking price for AI up to the point where the Pacers will be brought in as a "3rd Party team" where we will have the opportunity to ship off a player that we don't want in exchange for a player ( not Iverson though ) that could help us out.

                              Given our roster and inability to move players.....we would fit the role of the "3rd team" rather then a likely suitor for Iverson.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                If this has been posted sorry, but a TON of info, whether its true or not, its from the ny daily news

                                http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/st...p-403581c.html


                                ---

                                Allen Iverson's departure from Philadelphia might be coming very soon, as Sixers GM Billy King told another Eastern Conference executive last night that he has "two deals on the table, ready to go."

                                One of the deals King was strongly considering is with Golden State, for point guard Baron Davis, center Andris Biedrins and a third unidentified player. In addition to Iverson, the Warriors would get backup center Steven Hunter. While a source close to one of the players involved called the deal "done," the Sixers remain quiet about where they will be sending Iverson.


                                "It makes sense for the Sixers to make the deal with Golden State," an Eastern Conference executive said last night. "It's the situation the Pacers were in last year with Ron Artest. It's better to get those guys out of your conference, unless you're getting a blockbuster in return."


                                Meanwhile, the Warriors' opponents last night, the Kings, took themselves out of contention for Iverson, according to co-owner Joe Maloof. The Pacers and Celtics were regarded as the teams in the East trying hardest to get Iverson. But a league official said that his conversations with the Pacers strongly indicated that they are just about out of the running, since they don't want to part with Danny Granger or any other players King wanted.


                                Since announcing last week that they are trading their disgruntled superstar, the Sixers have been holding out for a deal that will get them a combination of the following: players with expiring contracts, so they can avoid paying the luxury tax next season; a good young player; and draft picks. Earlier yesterday, they reportedly rejected the Clippers' offer of Corey Maggette and Cuttino Mobley, with Mobley's deal having three more years to run at nearly $30 million.


                                Earlier in trade talks, Golden State had been trying to move veterans with long-term deals, including Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy and Adonal Foyle. But the Sixers asked for Biedrins - a third-year player who turns 21 in April - Monta Ellis or Mickael Pietrus. If the deal with Golden State goes through, it will allow Iverson to play in Don Nelson's freewheeling offensive system. The Warriors feel that Iverson would give them a great chance to get into the playoffs for the first time since 1994.
                                I am virtually shocked that the Warriors are giving up Biedrins. Didn't think they'd give in. Oh well. There you go.

                                I have no problem losing out on AI if these are the circumstances.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X