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

Trading J.O.

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

  • #46
    Re: Trading J.O.

    Originally posted by CableKC
    Well....that's the question.....do TPTB want to completely rebuild from scratch around Granger/Shawne/Ike?

    or

    Do they want to do the same old same old......as in simply getting to the Playoffs?

    I agree with you....getting Ray Allen isn't the best route to take if we are completely rebuilding....but it could possibly get us back to the Playoffs.

    I don't think that we are going to be able to get a future starting PG, SG and Center and a huge expiring Contract that we can truly build around for JONeal.
    They want to get to the playoffs but they want the fans to be able to believe the team has a chance.... IMHO...

    No marketing campaign yet devised can convince people this team has a chance of anything right now.


    -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


    • #47
      Re: Trading J.O.

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      They want to get to the playoffs but they want the fans to be able to believe the team has a chance.... IMHO...

      No marketing campaign yet devised can convince people this team has a chance of anything right now.

      -Bball
      If ( as always ) the mantra is to "simply make the Playoffs".....wouldn't getting a player like Ray Allen and a "squeaky clean" player like Ridnour ( while getting rid of a fan-favorite like Tinsley ) be a good start to winning the fans back?

      I get the feeling that we are where the Blazers were a couple of years ago.....we're gonna go for the "squeaky clean" player just to try to win back the trust of the players.

      BTW....if we could get on track to rebuliding like the Bulls did...after they jettisoned Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.....then I would be all for rebuilding from scratch.....but unless TPTB are able to pull out some trade like the Sixers did where they get back a solid starting PG like Dre, an Expiring Contract and 2 1st round draft picks.....I don't know if rebuilding from scratch is attainable.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Trading J.O.

        I still think it's unlikely that J.O. is traded. He makes too much money to opt out after next year so I don't see a sense of urgency on mgmts. part to trade him. I think it's more likely they try to compliment the team by upgrading our back court. Big men are always valued even Murphy with his contract, Foster, Harrison, and Ike are all very tradable.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Trading J.O.

          Originally posted by CableKC
          Well....that's the question.....do TPTB want to completely rebuild from scratch around Granger/Shawne/Ike?
          This is a little off topic but I have a question for everyone...when you try to build around someone, aren't they usually starters? I mean don't Granger and Shawne play the same position? Or can either of them play at another spot? I'm not questioning their talent, but would you all be ok with Shawne as just a backup for Granger?
          I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Trading J.O.

            Lets say we end up in the 11 to 14 range as far as our draft pick goes, losing it to the Hawks.

            How about O'Neal to Atlanta for a player & their 2 first rounders?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Trading J.O.

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Oh, there is no chance in hell JO opts out.

              He still might get traded though.
              I agree with that

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Trading J.O.

                Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                Since I have talked about Seattle a bit in this thread I think that any both of these trades you are basically saying JO=Ray Allen which is BS. Shawne is also worth more than Watson easily.
                I completely agree with you. On a talent level, JO is "better" than Ray Allen, and Shawne certainly should develop into a better player than Earl Watson could ever dream of being.

                That being said, JO played in 95 games over the two seasons prior to this on. Ray Allen played in 156. JO makes about $5,000,000 more per year than Allen. That's a mid-level player, which a team like Seattle could use. Also, the Pacers have far more frontcourt talent than they do backcourt talent.

                The only way the Pacers are going to get equal talent in a trade for JO is if they get draft picks and draft a guy that turns out to be a stud. The draft's always a crapshoot anyway.

                To close, and I think many would agree, look at these two lineups.

                Watson/Tinsley
                Allen/Daniels/Dunleavy
                Granger/Daniels/Dunleavy
                Diogu/Murphy/Baston
                Foster/Murphy/Harrison

                vs.

                Tinsley/Armstrong/Greene/McLeod
                Dunleavy/Daniels/Marshall
                Granger/Daniels/Williams
                JO/Diogu/Baston
                Murphy/Foster/Harrison

                Which would you rather have?

                One more thing, and I'll go on record with this, as long as Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are in the front office, the Pacers will never undertake a Chicago/Boston style rebuilding process.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Trading J.O.

                  Would JO demand a trade? He doesn't strike me as demanding a trade. Kind of like KG with the wolves right now nothing is happening but no trade demand.
                  "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Trading J.O.

                    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                    I completely agree with you. On a talent level, JO is "better" than Ray Allen, and Shawne certainly should develop into a better player than Earl Watson could ever dream of being.

                    That being said, JO played in 95 games over the two seasons prior to this on. Ray Allen played in 156. JO makes about $5,000,000 more per year than Allen. That's a mid-level player, which a team like Seattle could use. Also, the Pacers have far more frontcourt talent than they do backcourt talent.

                    The only way the Pacers are going to get equal talent in a trade for JO is if they get draft picks and draft a guy that turns out to be a stud. The draft's always a crapshoot anyway.

                    To close, and I think many would agree, look at these two lineups.

                    Watson/Tinsley
                    Allen/Daniels/Dunleavy
                    Granger/Daniels/Dunleavy
                    Diogu/Murphy/Baston
                    Foster/Murphy/Harrison

                    vs.

                    Tinsley/Armstrong/Greene/McLeod
                    Dunleavy/Daniels/Marshall
                    Granger/Daniels/Williams
                    JO/Diogu/Baston
                    Murphy/Foster/Harrison

                    Which would you rather have?

                    One more thing, and I'll go on record with this, as long as Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are in the front office, the Pacers will never undertake a Chicago/Boston style rebuilding process.
                    Honestly I would rather have the one we have. I know its like choosing between a kick to the balls and a punch to the face but I'll take the punch to the face. I think Earl Watson is such an overrated player by some on this board and the thought of JO and Shawne for Ray and Watson makes me ill.


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Trading J.O.

                      Im not 100% convinced Indiana is going to trade JO this offseason. I think TPTB will see what is out there in terms of big names.Guys like Ray Allen,Bibby, J.Kidd,Vince Carter,Rashard Lewis, Pierce. These are all guys who could become available.If the pacers have a shot with a star I think there more likely to trade for them because I don't believe Bird and Walsh really want to have a major rebuilding project.

                      If Oneal is traded I wouldn't mind one second trading him to the bulls if we could somehow get Hinrich.He's my ideal pg.But I think a more likely scenario would be a trade with the Celtics.
                      They have some nice young talent at pg in West/Rondo, they have a Greene at SG and Jefferson at pf.I'm sure any of the above players would intrigue Indiana if we are truly looking to rebuild.

                      For Boston getting Oneal would make alot of sense especially if they decide to keep Pierce plus the draft pick which could be Oden if he comes out. Boston at least on paper becomes pretty scary.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Trading J.O.

                        I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I think it's more likely that Granger get traded than JO. An all-star big man is a rare commodity these days, and I dont think DW and LB are going to be quick to get rid of him. I could easily see us trading Granger+Dunleavy for a good, starting SG. If we did this, we have Shawne at SF who I feel has a much higher ceiling than Granger anyways. JMO though

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Trading J.O.

                          Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
                          I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I think it's more likely that Granger get traded than JO. An all-star big man is a rare commodity these days, and I dont think DW and LB are going to be quick to get rid of him. I could easily see us trading Granger+Dunleavy for a good, starting SG. If we did this, we have Shawne at SF who I feel has a much higher ceiling than Granger anyways. JMO though
                          I would be surprised to see them trade Granger. I like Williams as well, but maybe one of them can play SG. Granger has done it before and certainly he's a better defender of the position than MDJ. He is also a better shooter. So, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just start Williams at SF. We need his perimeter shooting.

                          I would like to see the following lineup:

                          Quis - PG
                          Granger - SG
                          Williams - SF
                          Ike - PF
                          JO - C

                          We have a couple shot blockers in the middle, both with well rounded offensive games. We have a two good perimeter shooters in Granger and Williams. We have a slasher in Quis. Generally, this would be a good defensive team as well. Certainly Quis can bring the ball up the court as well as AJ. It would be a huge upgrade on D. Huge!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Trading J.O.

                            One of the big problems with trading JO at this point may be the other quality big men available in trade - Gasol and possibly KG. Gasol has been on the trade block and after KG's reported comments about opt outs, he very likely could be as well. You could easily argue that those two players are more attract trade targets for opposing teams than JO. If all three are available they could drive down their already deflated trade values.

                            I think TBTP missed an oppurtunity lasy year when NY had several expiring contracts. They had shown a willingness to except long contracts and could have taken Tinsley and / or Jackson. They had a few first round picks - 2 last year (although late picks). They had some decent, although not great, young talent (Crawford, Lee, Frye)

                            The best option now may be Charlotte. I doubt you could get Okafor, Wallace, or Felton, but if they don't win the lottery (1 or 2) you may be able to get their pick and May. The key being not having to take back alot of salary.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Trading J.O.

                              Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
                              I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I think it's more likely that Granger get traded than JO. An all-star big man is a rare commodity these days, and I dont think DW and LB are going to be quick to get rid of him. I could easily see us trading Granger+Dunleavy for a good, starting SG. If we did this, we have Shawne at SF who I feel has a much higher ceiling than Granger anyways. JMO though
                              If JONeal stays.....I agree with you....but I don't think that it will be Dunleavy that's packaged with Granger....but Tinsley.

                              Like it or not....the only way that I think that we can improve the roster...especially in the backcourt ( outside of trying to spending money on a FA that will likely be a backup player ) is to try to package Granger or Shawne with Tinsley.

                              It may not be preferable....but I would argue that there are several reasons to try to move either Granger ( the likely candidate ) or Shawne:

                              - Although Dunleavy should be the first to go...no one is going to take on Dunleavy's overpaid contract. I just don't think that many GMs want to take on the contract. If Dunleavy could easily be moved....he would have been moved by the Ws a long time ago. The reality is that Dunleavy's a decent backup player that is simply overpaid...no GM will take him.
                              - Since Dunleavy isn't a long-term solution at the SG spot and won't likely be moved anytime soon....this means that we will have to figure out a way to get a new Starting SG ( Sorry...but I just think that Marquis is best used as the 1st Guard to come off the bench and should not...for now...be relied upon to be our starting SG ). Unless we are able to somehow sign Desmond Mason or Pietrus.....which I doubt....we're gonna have to trade for one.
                              - Because I think that it is absolutely critical to move Tinsley while getting back the best Guard available......I don't think that Shawne will fetch as much of a backcourt as Granger would. Although I would prefer to move Shawne first....since Granger is more of a known quantity....he simply doesn't have as much trade value as Granger does.
                              - Assuming that we somehow get a SG...but we don't move one of the existing SFs.....there isn't enough minutes to give to whoever our new Starting SG is, Marquis, Granger, Dunleavy and Shawne. Shawne won't be able to crack the SG/SF rotation without someone getting injured...or moved.

                              If we could somehow move Tinsley ( by himself ), sign a FA starting PG that can run the show, somehow trade or acquire a SG without including Granger, Shawne or Ike....then I would be happy with keeping Granger or Shawne. But the way I look at it....if JONeal won't be moved or Granger, Shawne or Ike isn't traded....then we are going to be stuck being the mediocre team that we are now. Keep in mind that I don't want to move Granger cuz he's bad or anything...I just think that he's the best tradeable asset next to JONeal that can help us get rid of Tinsley and get a decent PG back in return...something that I think is absolutely critical for the offeason.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Trading J.O.

                                I don't think that the Pacers should trade JO because this would really hurt them defensively. Find some other way to get this turned around. But if it happens?

                                JO and Shawne for Randolph and the Blazers number 1 pick? Of course Portland won't do it if the pick is 1 or 2. I wonder if Portland would do it for Noah at 3. Plus if the Pacers wind up with a top 10 pick of their own, maybe they could add Acie Law.

                                There is always the Knicks. JO would probably like to play for Thomas. Would you trade Tins and JO for Francis, Crawford, Frye and whatever number 1 pick the Bulls give them. Don't the Bulls have the option of the Knick pick or Bulls pick or was that last year? Would NY do it? I still think it hurts the Pacers defensively unless Frye is better defensively than I think.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X