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

Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    We paid Croshere market value. He had similar offers from Toronto and one other team (Chicago maybe?). That's not saying it wasn't too much, but it's not as if Donnie came up with that number on his own. That's what it was going to cost to keep the guy. Any more and he'd be a Raptor. Which I would have been fine with, but that's besides the point.

    Same with JO. I know you think he's overpaid, but if we didn't offer the max he would have been in San Antonio with Tim Duncan, because they had the max to offer and they offered it. Jermaine would be a champion now if he hadn't signed here... you think that doesn't play into his thinking when he looks at his current situation? I know you think San Antonio is a well-run franchise, so what do you do with the fact that they consider Jermaine a max-level player?
    I have no idea what Croshere was really offered, all we can know for sure is what Walsh paid him. Walsh had the ultimate power to walk away and he didn't do it. That is not Croshere's fault. Walsh also had the power to try for a S&T.

    Spurs....
    JO couldn't exist with Duncan being the man anymore than he can co-exist with anyone else here either. Unless Duncan was totally willing to hand JO the keys (like Reggie did), or Popovich said "STFU and play how we tell you" (and JO actually do it) then I'll always have my doubts about JO winning a championship with the Spurs...or anyone else... ...IMHO...

    The Spurs are lucky JO signed here.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

      I think JO would have conformed in SA. They'd already won 2 titles at that time (and had JUST won the 2nd championship). He wouldn't challenge Duncan for supremacy.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

        If JO signed with San Antonio, the Spurs would've absolutely dominated this decade. If JO had any selfishness in him when he signed the contract, the professional attitudes in San Antonio would've rubbed off on him and he'd fit in. Until that happened, Duncan --being totally unselfish-- probably would defer to him a bit. But JO is really not as selfish as you say he is. Definitely not enough to the point where he would ruin a championship team like San Antonio.

        Meanwhile, I think you would've probably criticized Walsh (surprise, surprise) for letting a promising young All-Star big man walk, ruining any sliver of hope that Reggie Miller had of winning a championship before he retired. That would've gone over really well. Yeah, the Pacers really should've let JO walk...

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I think JO would have conformed in SA. They'd already won 2 titles at that time (and had JUST won the 2nd championship). He wouldn't challenge Duncan for supremacy.
          Or he might've never truly considered signing there at all knowing he'd be second fiddle to Duncan. Hard to know...

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

            Saying that JO couldn't play with Duncan is silly. There is no way to know either way.

            There were problems with Artest and Rose, both of whom are famously selfish players. I don't see how though JO can that the blame for those two.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

              Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
              Meanwhile, I think you would've probably criticized Walsh (surprise, surprise) for letting a promising young All-Star big man walk, ruining any sliver of hope that Reggie Miller had of winning a championship before he retired. That would've gone over really well. Yeah, the Pacers really should've let JO walk...


              Bullseye.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                I have no idea what Croshere was really offered, all we can know for sure is what Walsh paid him. Walsh had the ultimate power to walk away and he didn't do it. That is not Croshere's fault. Walsh also had the power to try for a S&T.
                I'll say this, man. When you decide on a position you don't let anything get in your way.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                  Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                  The same age as Tinsley, who by the way never made it to an allstar level.
                  Thats all fine and dandy, but what have you done for me lately and PG is one of the few positions where you can always control your play. Bibby's shooting sucks this year and I am so sick and tired of this change of scenery thing. That is far from a sure thing for rejuvenating a player's career. Like I said tho if we got Bibby thats fine, but hes not gonna get us any farther than Tins would. Bibby was one of the better offensive PGs in his day. Players age at different rates. If you ask me Bibby is never going to return to an all star level. Hes a good PG. I think to act like he is a huge upgrade over Tins is fooling yourself.


                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                    Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                    Thats all fine and dandy, but what have you done for me lately and PG is one of the few positions where you can always control your play. Bibby's shooting sucks this year and I am so sick and tired of this change of scenery thing. That is far from a sure thing for rejuvenating a player's career. Like I said tho if we got Bibby thats fine, but hes not gonna get us any farther than Tins would. Bibby was one of the better offensive PGs in his day. Players age at different rates. If you ask me Bibby is never going to return to an all star level. Hes a good PG. I think to act like he is a huge upgrade over Tins is fooling yourself.
                    I agree. Bibby's not an upgrade where we need to upgrade, meaning our point guard defense. And he costs twice as much as Tins.

                    I really think you guys that want Bibby over Tins are to far into the wine, considering you want to give Foster up too!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                      Peja Stojakovic
                      FG%: Sac .403, Ind .461
                      FT%: Sac .933, Ind .903
                      3P%: Sac .397, Ind .404

                      Not a big increase in 3% and a slight dropoff in ft%, but a huge leap in fg%.


                      Troy Murphy
                      FG%: GSW .450, IND .465
                      FT%: GSW .712, IND .533
                      3P%: GSW .373, IND .565

                      Murphy's fg% increased a bit and his 3% sky rocketed. The free throws are most likely just a fluke.


                      Mike Dunleavy
                      FG%: GSW .449, IND .426
                      FT%: GSW .772, IND .800
                      3P%: GSW .346, IND .365

                      His field goal percentage dropped a bit, but he's taking 50% more 3's per game which would partically explain that. Speaking of 3's, his 3% has risen from average to good, as has his ft%.


                      Stephen Jackson
                      FG%: IND .419, GSW .443
                      FT%: IND .822, GSW.818
                      3P%: IND .297, GSW .365

                      Big improvements everywhere. If he could've shot like this for us instead of being a goofball getting into trouble al lthe time, he would've been worth keeping.

                      Al Harrington
                      FG%: IND .458, GSW .435
                      3P%: IND .458, GSW .429
                      FT%: IND .713, GSW .661

                      Down across the board.


                      So out of those 5 players, 3 had significant increases, 1 significant decrease, and 1 broke even. It could just be a coincidence, or it could be that a change of scenery helps most players in a slump. I see no reason why Bibby wouldn't be a 44/39/85 shooter with us. Thats about his average outside of the first half of this season.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                        Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post

                        Stephen Jackson
                        FG%: IND .419, GSW .443
                        FT%: IND .297, GSW .365
                        3P%: IND .822, GSW.818
                        I tell you what this tells me...

                        He should just step back and shoot his FT's from behind the arc!
















                        Either that or you transposed the lines
                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post


                          Bullseye.
                          I agree. And I'd bet that Reggie would have spoken up about it if they had let him go too. The team OWED it to Reggie to pair him with a near MVP caliber big for a final run at the title, and it damn near worked too. That team could have beaten the Lakers just like DET did. They had the BEST winning PCT vs West teams out of all 30 teams that season.

                          But then Detroit stepped up and snatched it away from them.


                          Fans eventually warmed up to Croshere and his contract when they realized his professionalism was far above many of the malcontents and overpaid, over-hyped, underperforming players that have graced the Pacer stage of late.

                          Somewhere along the time people started figuring out what many knew all along: Character matters.
                          When did that happen? I missed it. It sure as hell didn't happen 2 years ago when he shot 26% from 3 (due to injury). I went to games many nights and sat near the court for most of those. The things said about his game to him from the stands wasn't "hey, nice professionalism".

                          When they got blasted by Boston in the playoffs a couple of years ago one guy stayed long after the crowd packed it in explicitly to go on a loud tirade about AC (and some others) not bothering to show up any time Croshere got near him on the court.

                          It was very difficult for me to read the deep appreciation behind that, but I guess I'm just not a subtle empathy guy.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers looking to deal in Vegas

                            I disagree that Walsh is known for overpaying. He didn't pay for Peja. He obviously didn't even have the option to do so with Al. He went cheap (and is blasted all the time for it) with Brad Miller even. Mark Jackson...DW went cheap. Dale traded for JO...partly due to going cheap with DD.

                            And how many FAs from OTHER teams has DW spent big money on in the last 20 years? I beleive the answer is none. When Byron Scott is at the top of the list of FA signings, you kept it cheap.

                            Long contracts
                            Back in 2000 when AC looked to be hitting stride, which turned out just to be a Robert Horry matchup thing, he got locked in because DW believed this was where AC was headed. If that had been correct it would have been THE RIGHT AMOUNT to pay him.

                            When he locked in Tins he didn't have injury problems and gave the Pacers no reason to expect any future problems. He got moderate money and was locked in long term so he wouldn't slam the cap in a few years as he progressed (again, assumed to be his path) and hit a resign point. JO was a max player, period. When you are a 6 time AS, a 20/10 guy who leads the NBA in shot blocks, you get paid. That's not even worth debating.

                            Bender was coming off a HUGE breakout year in which he played 70+ games and looked pretty good for a guy that would have still been in college normally. When you take a HS kid in the top 10 and see him starting to develop, you lock him in so you don't lose all that time to some other team (ahem, Portland/JO).

                            What burned DW is that he made an attempt to lock in a roster for the long term that could win big. The 61 win season proved this was a correct view (that they could win big). But by getting locked in he was also counting on all of those players to continue to be that good or better. He bet on that and came up short.

                            If he had played it cheap and safe, or gone short term on all of them, then we would have been PO'd if they all panned out well instead. He'd look bad then too.

                            So he was optimistic about the talent he had. He learned the hard way about that. But is it any better to be pessimisstic and to give up on guys that really are about to bloom?

                            If you were the Kings wouldn't you want K-Mart locked in for 36m for the next 6 years? Wouldn't you expect the Magic to try and lock in Howard for the long term too?

                            But what happens if they start getting hurt when they previously hadn't (Bender and Tins fit that description)? What happens when Howard gets tired of ORL in 2 years and tells the local beat writer he wants out and hates the coaching style?

                            Is long term good or bad? It depends on the players more than anything. That's a tough read for everyone involved, from fans to scouts to coaches. It's the same as predicting the future for draft prospects.

                            Spending more money
                            My only issue is that the team has needed to get away from some cap issues and just when they seemed to be doing that, they make a trade that puts them back in a tough spot. Okay, so they knew that Al/Jack wasn't working and needed to bite the bullet on money to fix it. I get that.

                            But following that up with more financial damage makes zero sense. Even more so if fans aren't going to show up for anything short of a title run. I mean how can DW have faith in the fans when he brings in good character types like Dun and Trophy (and his very nice letter to the editor thanking the Indy fans for his welcome) and they still don't show up simply because the team is "only" a few games above .500?

                            I'm not optimistic myself on this team going far, but I'll still go watch them because it's not that bad a brand of basketball, and at times they are very entertaining. Plus, you never know.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X