Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

    From here on in, any of it goes here. Be it the latest rumor, news, or just thoughts you have. We've had a ton of threads on it, and that's enough. It all goes here from now until training camp.

  • #2
    Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

    Here's a fantasy payroll I did for the Payroll thread.
    http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=32420

    Here's a fantasy payroll for the Pacers if they traded JO to the Lakers for the rumored deal. That deal being Brown, Bynum, Crittenton, a 2,008 #1, and the Lakers resigning Aaron McKie for $4,340,200 million and then the Laker's including $3 million in cash to offset McKie's salary. Signing McKie for $3 million doesn't work because he would be BYC. McKie would then retire or the Pacers would cut him.

    Pacer Payroll of 09-16-07.
    Player.....................2007-08
    Troy Murphy.............$9,206,349
    Kwame Brown...........$9,075,000
    Mike Dunleavy..........$8,219,008
    Marquis Daniels.........$6,373,900
    Jamaal Tinsley............$6,300,000
    Jeff Foster.................$5,500,000
    Ike Diogu..................$2,286,360
    Andrew Bynum..........$2,172,000
    David Harrison...........$1,734,316
    Danny Granger..........$1,516,800
    Shawne Williams........$1,470,360
    Javaris Crittenton........$1,285,200
    Kareem Rush.............$770,610
    Stephen Graham.........$770,610
    Andre Owens.............$687,456
    Aaron McKie............$4,340,400 (cut) Pacer's receive $3 million in cash.
    ----------------------------
    Total................$61,708,369..........($6,156, 631) under the lux tax.

    Interestingly since the Pacers receive $3 million in cash they could go $1.5 million over the lux tax and remain even. Thus they could trade for someone for $7,656,631 and it not cost them 2 for 1 dollars that going over the tax normally costs.
    Will Galen is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

      Can we put all trade rumors here? If not just delete this post.
      -----------------------------------------------------------
      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...aine_deal.html

      Nets passed on Jermaine deal

      BY JULIAN GARCIA
      DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

      Monday, July 16th 2007, 4:00 AM

      On June 28, the night of the NBA draft, Nets president Rod Thorn said he had received several "interesting" trade offers, one of which, according to sources, was a blockbuster that would have sent Richard Jefferson, Nenad Krstic and Jason Collins to the Pacers for Jermaine O'Neal.

      Now, it appears the odds of the Nets making a major deal before the season begins in November are growing slim. Thorn said none of the trades he discussed with other executives just weeks ago are likely to happen, for now.

      "They're all dead," Thorn said of the trade talks.

      The O'Neal trade discussions could resume again but the Nets have already added a big man to their roster who is expected to make a major impact. After Mikki Moore signed with Sacramento on Friday night, they signed free agent center Jamaal Magloire on Saturday. Magloire is a one-time All-Star who averaged 13.6 points and 10.3 rebounds in 2003-04 with the Hornets. Magloire averaged 6.5 points and 6.1 rebounds last year for Portland.

      If Magloire comes close to matching those numbers this season, the Nets could be a major force in the East. Krstic, whom Moore replaced in the starting lineup after Krstic tore his ACL last December, is expected back before the season begins.

      The Nets' next move likely will be adding a reliable shooting guard. Eddie House, who had an injury-plagued season for the Nets last year, is a free agent and there's a good chance the team won't re-sign him.
      ----------------------------------------------------------

      Here's what the same reporter said yesterday.

      ----------------------------------------------------------
      http://www3.realgm.com/src_wiretap_a...other_big_man/

      Nets Still Want Another Big Man
      July 15, 2007 - 10:22 pm
      New York Daily News -
      After losing Mikki Moore and signing Jamaal Magloire, it seems as though the New Jersey Nets might still be in the market for another big man.

      Help could come through a trade. Though talks with the Pacers regarding a trade involving Jermaine O'Neal and Richard Jefferson stalled on draft night, that deal may not be dead yet.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

        I would be shocked if the NJ deal went through. I just feel that would be a
        horrible trade for the Pacers plus JO is still in the east. JO will go no where
        if that is all that is available.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

          From the LG forum:

          Does anyone know the amount of Kwame Brown's trade kicker?
          http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=44997

          In a response from Larry Coon, it's 7.5%. That might affect some of the trade scenarios DD and others have suggested.

          For example, it might allow us to only take on 3 players in a trade of JO (plus maybe Harrison) to LA: Bynum, Brown, Crittenton (plus future 1st rounder, and perhaps S&T McKie/$3M).
          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

            .Nets Still Want Another Big Man
            July 15, 2007 - 10:22 pm
            New York Daily News -
            After losing Mikki Moore and signing Jamaal Magloire, it seems as though the New Jersey Nets might still be in the market for another big man.

            Help could come through a trade. Though talks with the Pacers regarding a trade involving Jermaine O'Neal and Richard Jefferson stalled on draft night, that deal may not be dead yet.
            If this trade goes through- I would stop everything that is going on in my life, break up with my girlfriend, say goodbye to my family and friends and personally go to Indy and pull a "saw" on DW& LB.

            That would be a horrible trade and I pray to every god out there not to allow this blasphemy to happen.


            I think Jefferson is way overated and only had this much success thanks to Kidd- He's just a good athlete- nothing special in my book.
            Krstic is a nice player- but he's not even as a second option- only a third. We would have the worst defence in the league with him

            We need a player to build this franchise around. He doesn't have to be the best player on the team- we already have some nice pieces which may turn out to be something special (DG,SW,Ike)- but these NJ guys are really not enough for our leading scorer,rebounder and shot blocker.

            On the other hand I would go for the LA deal without ever looking back.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

              There's always something we don't know when trying to figure contracts out! Plus, my math was wrong on the above fantasy trade. I didn't realize that until I started running Brown's figures with 7.5% added.

              Here's the new figures. I think they are right, but I wouldn't guarantee them.

              Let's see, JO makes $19,728,000, so to trade for him a team would have to come up with $15,702,400 in contracts. That's including the 25%, and $100,000 the NBA allows to make deals match.

              Brown makes $9,075,000. Add 7.5% and you get $9,755,625.

              Brown.......$9,755,625
              Bynum......$2,172,000
              Crittenton..$1,285,200
              ___________________
              Total.......$13,212,825
              Need.......$15,702,400

              $2,489,575 more contract money needed.

              Since Aaron McKie made $2,5 million last year, and it's rumored he is going to retire, the Laker's could sign him to a contract for the money needed, then give the Pacer's that amount in cash. In fact they could sweeten the deal a bit by giving the Pacer's the full $3 million allowed.

              Brown.......$9,755,625
              Bynum......$2,172,000
              Crittenton..$1,285,200
              McKie.......$2,489,575 ( sign and trade and then retired or cut)
              ___________________
              Total........$15,702,400 in contracts from the Laker's.
              Last edited by Will Galen; 07-16-2007, 01:08 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                Hoping the trade doesn't go through? Looks like NJ is all that stopped it because Indy wanted that deal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                  Its just been reported on nba.com that the nets just rejected the trade for JO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                    Originally posted by DgR View Post

                    That would be a horrible trade and I pray to every god out there not to allow this blasphemy to happen.

                    Interesting combination of thoughts you have there.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                      There's always something we don't know when trying to figure contracts out! Plus, my math was wrong on the above fantasy trade. I didn't realize that until I started running Brown's figures with 7.5% added.

                      Here's the new figures. I think they are right, but I wouldn't guarantee them.

                      Let's see, JO makes $19,728,000, so to trade for him a team would have to come up with $15,702,400 in contracts. That's including the 25%, and $100,000 the NBA allows to make deals match.

                      Brown makes $9,075,000. Add 7.5% and you get $9,755,625.

                      Brown.......$9,755,625
                      Bynum......$2,172,000
                      Crittenton..$1,285,200
                      ___________________
                      Total.......$13,212,825
                      Need.......$15,702,400

                      $2,489,575 more contract money needed.

                      If you are signing Aaron McKie you have to double $2,489,575 because he will be BYC and the Laker's can only count half in making a trade. That means Aaron would be getting $4,979,150. So even if the Lakers gave $3 million cash the Pacers would still have to pay him $1,979,150.

                      Brown.......$9,755,625
                      Bynum......$2,172,000
                      Crittenton..$1,285,200
                      McKie.......$2,489,575 (Actual salary double this.)
                      ___________________
                      Total........$15,702,400 in contracts from the Laker's.
                      Will, I don't think you can include a trade kicker when matching salaries. I've been wrong before, though.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                        If you are signing Aaron McKie you have to double $2,489,575 because he will be BYC and the Laker's can only count half in making a trade. That means Aaron would be getting $4,979,150. So even if the Lakers gave $3 million cash the Pacers would still have to pay him $1,979,150.
                        Pretty sure that's wrong.

                        McKie made 2.5mil last year. He can get up to a 20% pay increase without becoming BYC. A 20% pay increase puts him at 3mil, which is perfect.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                          Any chance this could get merged into the official thread?
                          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                            Damn, beat me too it.

                            :cottoncandy:
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Official JO to LA trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                              Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
                              Hoping the trade doesn't go through? Looks like NJ is all that stopped it because Indy wanted that deal.

                              So says NJ. I don't believe anything coming out of LA or NJ.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X