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

Let's revisit the trade...

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

  • Let's revisit the trade...

    So, with all that's happened since the Golden State "blockbuster deal," what are your thoughts on the trade? Does it differ from your initial reaction to the trade?

    I was slightly against the trade when it happened, but I have a feeling that Al and Jack were more of a locker room problem than we'll ever know. It's also difficult to gauge the trade appropriately since Quis has been missing for so long. However, if I had to make a choice with what knowledge is public now, I would not do the trade. I still don't believe Al and Jack were the answer here, but I think we could have gotten a better deal for either (or both) in the offseason. Really, I do. Either way, as I said when the trade first happened, locking into Murphleavey's contracts was a terrible, terrible mistake that will likely hinder us for years.
    0
    Yes, I want Al and Jack (and Runi) back.
    0%
    0
    No, it was the right decision and I stand by it.
    0%
    0

  • #2
    Re: Let's revisit the trade...

    this is obvious. who has the worst record in the nba since the trade?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Let's revisit the trade...

      I'm still glad they're gone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Let's revisit the trade...

        I voted....'nuff said.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Let's revisit the trade...

          I was done with Jackson, no need for his antics anymore.

          I do wish I could have Al back, though.

          Very glad we don't have Jackson anymore.
          Super Bowl XLI Champions
          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Let's revisit the trade...

            The Warriors absolutely obliterated this franchise with the trade. GSW fans feel Stephen will be a fringe All-Star next season after a training camp with Nellie (whom probably agrees, given his considerable praise for him all the time). Al, even with his rebounding and defensive inconsistency, has shown to be a viable offensive option most nights and provides a lot of good-natured personality. Sarunas has been useless to say the least, but Powell has sparked a few solid performances off the bench in limited minutes.

            Also, I continually wonder how people consider Stephen Jackson a bad locker room influence. Sure, his temper gets in the way and his impending felony emits a bad vibe, but the only two crimes he ever committed were in direct correlation with his Pacers teammates and feeling (unjustly, even I can admit that) he needed to protect them. Otherwise, Tim Duncan called him the "ultimate teammate" and he is already a leader on the Warriors.

            We lost JO's best friend and a top-25 scorer 2 years in a row (of which consisted of post All-Star splits of 24 and 22 PPG). We gained two incredibly pedestrian players with terrible salaries that will only hinder this team's progress in the forseeable future.

            I understand most Pacers fans loathed Stephen Jackson and his so-called "image" - but I still absolutely hate this trade right now as much as I did on January 17.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Let's revisit the trade...

              Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Those of you who are voting that "Yes, I want Al and Jack (and Runi) back". You truly would want Jackson back on this team. I find that hard to believe.

              Should I start a thread about whether we want Artest back.

              Pacers are 31-40. I say if the trade didn't happen they'd have maybe 33 or 34 wins. To those of you who believe this trade somehow "ruined the team" I think you are being extremely shortsighted.

              One last thing. We are only talking about 1 year - that is the difference in the contract length between Dun and Murph vs Jax and Al. Some of you act like it is 3 or 4 years

              Pacers had to get rid of Jax - anyone who disagrees with that I think is a little bit well .....I won't finish that sentence.


              Edit: After thinking about this, I think the poll is flawed. There should be a third choice. Something like, "I did not like the trade - but no I don't want Al, Jax, Saras and Josh back on the team"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                Briefly, I would say that Jackson had a very rough ride in Indy, and it was probably better for both parties to sever ties. It seems to me that his trade value was incredibly low and the Pacers were just thrilled to get rid of him for whatever we could. I miss the passion he brought to the game and his defensive tenacity, but I don't miss it when that behavior accelerated into unnecessary emotional outbursts. He was an inconsistent shooter, and the Pacers seemed to almost overutilize him and live or die based on if Jax2 had an on or off night. I always believed that instead of clearing room for Marquis to play, that we should have started Marquis in the first place at SG with Granger at SF and give Jackson a reduced role as the 6th man (while trading Harrington), where I think he really would have thrived and we would not have had to depend so much on his inconsistent shot to dicate whether or not we would win games.

                I've always liked Harrington okay, but he really didn't seem to fit into our system the second time around. He is a very talented guy, but like JO he overestimates his ability to be a viable first option in the offense which can lead to him chucking up some dumb shots. RC failed in two ways with Harrington, firstly being that he never seemed to draw up a coherent offense that adjusted to the fact that JO and Harrington were both on the floor, secondly he never really seemed to establish with Harrington that he wasn't our first option on offense. It was a bizarre situation.

                Saranus was utterly terrible to watch, but his contract ends at the end of next year and he provides a decent warm body, so we probably should have just ridden it out until next year. His futility is definately shown by his lack of playing time at GS.

                All that being said, we got two roleplayers with gigantic contracts, a 3rd string PG who has failed to distinguish himself in any way shape or form, and a questionable tweener who may or may not be something special. So yes, I am a little disappointed.
                Proudly supporting the Indiana Pacers since 1992.

                Currently on the Darrell Armstrong, Mike Dunleavy, Jr., and Marquis Daniels bandwagons.

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                  I don't know how to vote. My option's not there. Give Jack, keep Al. Or, if we have to give up Al in this deal, how bout we get somebody who can actually play a little back?

                  From a talent and consistency standpoint there's no question we got hosed. Ike is iffy at best from a potential basis. McLeod is completely non-descript and Murhphleavy are way overpaid for how absolutely mediocre they are. At best 2nd unit players in the NBA. Between those two and Tins we've got possibly the three worst on-ball defenders in the league as startes (sometimes).
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                    i voted yes just because of Runi. not so much for the other 3
                    If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                    [/center]
                    @thatguyjoe84

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                      Nellie's system isn't the most complicated for players that can shoot the ball. Jax and Al were always going to look good in that system. However, without playing any defense they are at best a 1st round and out team. When they get a coach who wants to build some defense into what the Warriors do, they are going to come up against a capable but highly distractable Jackson and unmotivated or unable to defend Harrington.

                      Apart from all the other images issues with Jackson and the friction between Al and JO about 'being the man' their defensive lapses are the reasons they will struggle to ever get back to a contending team. Al when he was 6th man with the Pacers and Jax when he was with the Spurs had very well defined roles and when they weren't on their coaches had players who they could replace them with.

                      Rebuilding this team was never going to be a quick fix scenario.

                      I think we should give Dunleavy, Murphy and Ike atleast a training camp before people start to declare that the Warriors utterly beat us down in this trade.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                        I would undo it and try to find a better trade. Draft picks, expiring contracts, anything but 2 overpaid soft non D playing stiffs. Ike has also been disappointing.

                        I'd much rather have Runi back, McLeod might be the worse player I've seen on the Pacers in 10+ years.

                        At the moment we are the worst team in the entire NBA, sickening.
                        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                          The Warriors absolutely obliterated this franchise with the trade. GSW fans feel Stephen will be a fringe All-Star next season after a training camp with Nellie (whom probably agrees, given his considerable praise for him all the time).

                          Also, I continually wonder how people consider Stephen Jackson a bad locker room influence. Sure, his temper gets in the way and his impending felony emits a bad vibe, but the only two crimes he ever committed were in direct correlation with his Pacers teammates and feeling (unjustly, even I can admit that) he needed to protect them. Otherwise, Tim Duncan called him the "ultimate teammate" and he is already a leader on the Warriors.

                          I understand most Pacers fans loathed Stephen Jackson and his so-called "image" - but I still absolutely hate this trade right now as much as I did on January 17.
                          I pretty much agree. I've been to several games this year and have watched on the jumbotron as the Pacers "get psyched up" in the tunnel before they come out. Jackson's enthusiasm at game time was infectious, and he always got teamates stoked before the game. Now a couple of players jump around and come out without much feeling at all, and hardly take care of business. Not to mention that Jackson was a somewhat viable option to take the last shot. Who is left to do that now?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                            Jackson was the most competitive player we had, he wanted to win. Our team misses that more than ever, the fans were just not willing to forgive Jackson for his "bad behavior" so it was a bad situation. Still Jackson and Harrington are both way better players than Murphy or Dunleavy and nobody is questioning that. I don't think Diogu is going to be anything special.

                            I don't expect the Pacers to be a good team for a long time and it sucks, but theres nothing to be done about it. Just accept it.

                            We would have been much better off getting rid of Tinsley and Jermaine. We could of probably gotten Garnett if we would of traded Tins/Jermaine/Granger for Garnett plus filler/draft picks. That is my opinion.
                            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Let's revisit the trade...

                              Originally posted by skyfire View Post
                              Nellie's system isn't the most complicated for players that can shoot the ball. Jax and Al were always going to look good in that system. However, without playing any defense they are at best a 1st round and out team. When they get a coach who wants to build some defense into what the Warriors do, they are going to come up against a capable but highly distractable Jackson and unmotivated or unable to defend Harrington.

                              Apart from all the other images issues with Jackson and the friction between Al and JO about 'being the man' their defensive lapses are the reasons they will struggle to ever get back to a contending team. Al when he was 6th man with the Pacers and Jax when he was with the Spurs had very well defined roles and when they weren't on their coaches had players who they could replace them with.

                              Rebuilding this team was never going to be a quick fix scenario.

                              I think we should give Dunleavy, Murphy and Ike atleast a training camp before people start to declare that the Warriors utterly beat us down in this trade.
                              First, weren't Dun, Murph and Ike in that same system. Are you saying they can't shoot? I hope they can because they aren't in the NBA for defensive reasons.

                              Second, give them training camp? What about the former Pacers, training camp won't help them? Or are they so good they didn't need camp to get up to speed?

                              I didn't need to see another year to know the Pacers fleeced Dallas on the Detlef for Herb trade. I didn't need even a half season to realize that trading Jax away to get Rose was a huge mistake. I didn't need more than a few months to realize that the JO for Dale deal was actually very nice for the Pacers.

                              Let's stop p***yfooting around on this. You might not like Jack, you might like him gone, but given the ONLY option of having THAT deal done or not done (doesn't prevent other deals from getting done later) how can you not see that this was a freaking mistake.

                              They overreacted to losing Peja for nothing, tried to fix the image by forcing Al in, tried to appease his complaints and the fans problems with Jackson with another attitude trade, and within a single year have dropped the talent level to nothing.


                              RC was coaching this team last year too and with JO hurting they still hung in to push into the playoffs. You saw what this team did vs that NJ team, at least last year they won 2 and put up a good fight in game 6 despite tons of problems.

                              That shows just how much less talent there is now.


                              I'm sorry, but scoreboard is the thermometer and it says this deal was horrible for the Pacers. You don't even have a decent contract situation to fall back on. The Warriors are more liquid and don't have to tank just to keep a pick.

                              If you keep Jack and he's found guilty then you void his contract and make a dent into the cap. If he's not then it proves that maybe he was wrongly criticized (given the fact that Dino was already convicted). Either way you win for sticking with him.

                              Al was complaining and being problematic, but he was still playing ultimately. Bird wants to talk tough and talk discipline, well just bench his rear or make Rick do it. His contract is still nicer than Dun or Murphs.

                              Saras is a better offensive guard than McLeod.

                              Ike has shown me nothing more than Powell has (though Powell is a different type of big, more of a JO/face up type).



                              Couldn't the Pacers have sent all those guys to Philly for AI and then moved AI to DEN for Dre?

                              Well they certainly can't do it now, they rushed into a deal even though much better ones were still out there if only a team had the patience and foresight to find them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X