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

Getting a new PG

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

  • Getting a new PG

    I think that PG, not SG, is the biggest weakness on this team. I'm going to compile a list of (potential) starting caliber PG's that may be available. Then I'll see about trade ideas that may work for us to get them. Input would be greatly appreciated.

    I'll start out west:

    Houston PG's: Rafer Alston, Mike James, Steve Francis, Luther Head
    Dallas: Devin Harris, Jason Terry
    Golden State: Monta Ellis
    Clippers: Brevin Knight, Shaun Livingston
    Lakers: Jordan Farmar, Javaris Crittenton
    Memphis: Damon Stoudamire, Kyle Lowry
    Phoenix: Leandro Barbosa, Marcus Banks
    Portland: Jarrett Jack, Steve Blake, Sergio Rodriguez
    Sacramento: John Salmons
    Seattle: Luke Ridnour, Earl Watson, Delonte West

    Now for the East:

    Atlanta: Speedy Claxton, Anthony Johnson, Tyronn Lue
    Chicago: Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon
    Miami: Jason Williams, Smush Parker
    Milwaukee: Charlie Bell
    New Jersey: Jason Kidd, Marcus Williams
    New York: Stephon Marbury
    Orlando: Carlos Arroyo
    Philadelphia: Andre Miller, Louis Williams
    Toronto: TJ Ford, Jose Calderon

    There's a bunch of guys. Not all are starting caliber PGs. Some could become starting PG's, some we could get by with while waiting for the heir apparent. Some are undersized SG's who could play the point in O'Brien's system. I'll post some trade ideas later. Please feel free to post some of your own.

    My top 5 from this list:

    1. Hinrich
    2. Devin Harris
    3. Kyle Lowry
    4. Jose Calderon
    5. Delonte West
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Getting a new PG

    Lowry and Calderon are probably the most obtainable of those guys, but obtainable doesn't mean that those teams are looking to give them away. They'd want something of value back in a trade because those guys are good assets.

    I just don't know what Memphis really needs from the Pacers roster right now. They have plenty of forwards. And no, David Harrison wouldn't cut it in a deal.

    I think you could probably get Calderon for Shawne Williams, if you were willing to offer him up. I wouldn't do that if I was Indy, but that's the only motivation Toronto would have to trade him to the Pacers.

    West could also possibly be had, but with guys like Durant, Green, Wilcox and Collison, the Sonics are already stacked at the positions that the Pacers would offer as trade chips.

    Hinrich and Devin Harris will cost an arm and a leg. I don't think their respective teams would trade those guys unless an offer was ridiculously in their favor.
    Last edited by d_c; 11-13-2007, 02:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Getting a new PG

      Possible trades with Toronto to get Calderon:

      1. Ike Diogu for Jose Calderon

      2. Ike Diogu & Travis Diener for Calderon and Joey Graham or Darrick Martin

      3. Ike Diogu & Jamaal Tinsley for Calderon and Nesterovic

      4. Foster & Graham for Calderon & Kris Humphries

      5. Shawne Williams + Graham for Calderon.

      I like Calderon quite a bit. I think that he has all the tools to be a very good PG in the NBA. The fact that he is a free agent after this year and that TJ Ford is the starter in Toronto may make him available.

      The Raptors are thin in the Frontcourt, so bigs like Diogu and Foster would be attractive. With Diogu they get young talent in return for young talent. With Foster they get a proven veteran performer for the playoffs.

      I'd do the first 4 of these scenarios. I think Shawne Williams is too much to give up for Calderon.

      With Calderon gone the Raps need a backup PG. The trade with Diener solves that problem. With the Tinsley trade, the Pacers are obviously getting the lesser end of the deal talent-wise, but they're getting rid of $7 million in salary two years earlier when Nesterovic's contract expires.

      With the Foster trade, the Pacers would be getting a young big with talent (Humphries) whose contract is up after this year. This would free up some money to retain Calderon.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Getting a new PG

        Houston PG's: Rafer Alston, Mike James, Steve Francis, Luther Head
        I’m not sure what they need exactly but it is pretty clear they don’t plan on using Francis or Luther very much. I have no interest in Francis and I’m sure he’d think likewise about the Pacers. Dude should have signed in LA. I’m not interested in Rafer really after his overly ‘interesting’ summer. Mike James I doubt is really available.

        Dallas: Devin Harris, Jason Terry
        Terry is probably available at the right price. Problem is, unless that price is Troy Murphy I doubt we’d want to get him.

        Golden State: Monta Ellis
        Don’t see him as available.

        Clippers: Brevin Knight, Shaun Livingston
        Shaun would be a major gamble. This kid is a more talented version of Bender. He just seems to be brittle. Brevin is not really an answer.

        Lakers: Jordan Farmar, Javaris Crittenton
        Javaris, would be nice prospect to include with Bynum. On his own I wouldn’t understand getting him. Farmar has shown nice flashes this season but I’m not convinced he is anything more than a career backup.

        Memphis: Damon Stoudamire, Kyle Lowry
        Damon is more available than Lowry (unfortunately, I love Lowry). I don’t know how I really feel about bringing him in. Seems like it’d be a lateral move mostly.

        Phoenix: Leandro Barbosa, Marcus Banks
        Barbosa is going nowhere unless Wade, Lebron or Kobe is involved. Banks given his strength is defense might actually do well in Jim’s system. Problem is we’d be better having Foster shoot 3s than Banks.

        Portland: Jarrett Jack, Steve Blake, Sergio Rodriguez
        I’m fairly certain that Jack is the odd man out here, and I’m thinking it’d take Danny (or Dunleavy if Portlant added Raef or Darius) to get him. Their biggest need is a SF. I guess ultimately I’d like to get Rudy F out of the deal too.

        Sacramento: John Salmons
        Truth be told, I know very little about this guy. Isn’t he more of a SF than a PG/SG? I don’t think he has much of a jumper. I haven’t seen enough of him to really make an educated guess.

        Seattle: Luke Ridnour, Earl Watson, Delonte West
        I really don’t know what to make of Seattle’s PG situation right now. Watson had been starting but it looks like Luke will be the #1 with Delonte as the backup now. So Earl looks like the most obtainable. Seattle will want exp. contracts or prospects and they have durant and green at SF/SG so we’d be talking Ike, probably. Ultimately I think I’d prefer Delonte, but Earl wouldn’t be bad either. I’d rather have one of those two because they’re both better defenders than Luke.

        Atlanta: Speedy Claxton, Anthony Johnson, Tyronn Lue
        All available, none desirable. If I had to choose one, I’d want Lue I suppose.

        Chicago: Kirk Hinrich, Chris Duhon
        I highly doubt Kirk is available. Duhon probably but they’d want Ike.

        Miami: Jason Williams, Smush Parker
        Next. JWill’s exp. contract would be nice, but I’m not really a fan of either. Though I supposed Smush is a decent defender and more of a scoring PG that JOB might like. I dunno…

        Milwaukee: Charlie Bell
        If Milwaukee was interested in not having Charlie, they could have let Miami take him.

        New Jersey: Jason Kidd, Marcus Williams
        I would love Kidd (even at his age) but its not happening. Marcus was supposedly the hold up in the JO to NJN so I don’t think he’s avail.

        New York: Stephon Marbury
        Would not be in my top 10 options. But if NYK would take one of our bad contracts, I’d consider it.

        Orlando: Carlos Arroyo
        Not really a defender or a 3pt shooter.

        Philadelphia: Andre Miller, Louis Williams
        I highly doubt Andre is available, but I’d be interested. Louis Williams has had a couple of good games this season but is a SG in a PG’s body. He lacks some basic PG skills that we’d probably need.

        Toronto: TJ Ford, Jose Calderon
        I don’t really know about availability – but I think both are solid.
        This is the darkest timeline.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Getting a new PG

          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post

          Golden State: Monta Ellis
          Don’t see him as available.
          Word on the street was that if Nellie was to come back (which he did), don't be surprised to see Ellis being shopped around.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Getting a new PG

            I do think that point guard is our weakest position.

            Guys i'd like to get from that list:

            - Kyle Lowry
            I think he can be a fine player. Don't see what we have that Memphis would want though. However with Mike Conley on board I think that Lowry can be had.

            - Jarett Jack
            Doesn't get much credit but I think he is a real solid point guard. Worth having on your team.

            - Jordan Farmar
            Nice talent. I like his game. Not exactly for sure what we have to offer LA that they would want though.

            - John Salmons
            Putting up killer numbers in Sacramento. Not sure that Salmons is exactly a pure point guard but he is a very good player.

            - Luther Head
            Not really a point guard however this kid can light it up. Pretty quick. Excellant shooter. I think he can make a nice combo guard off the bench and with all of Houston's guards I think that Head can be had for a reasonable price.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Getting a new PG

              Step 2 in this process is figuring out which of these guys would actually be an upgrade over Tinsley. There are two categories, guys who are better than Tinsley now, and guys who will be better than Tinsley in the next 2 seasons.

              Here's what I think:

              Devin Harris & Jason Terry (now)
              Monta Ellis (now)
              Brevin Knight (now)
              Farmar & Crittenton (future)
              Lowry (future, but close now)
              Barbosa (now)
              Jarrett Jack (now)
              Salmons (He's a PG like Quis is a PG)
              Delonte West (now)
              Hinrich (now)
              Kidd (now)
              Andre Miller (now)
              Louis Williams (future)
              Ford & Calderon (now)
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment

              Working...
              X