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

Jermaine O'Neal heading to Toronto for T.J. Ford, #17 pick. Pacers get Baston, give up pick #41

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

  • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

    If we trade for Larry Hughes I will set him on fire. That's even worse. He has zero upside.

    I've seen TJ Ford play probably 100 games. He has talent. He does not have 8.5 million a year for the next three type talent though.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
      If we trade for Larry Hughes I will set him on fire. That's even worse.
      right. so, do you see why people might look at this deal and approve if before our option was larry and drew? at least TJ and the pick have some value.
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment


      • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

        On the basis of "I'd rather someone spit in my eye than punch me in the face"...sure.

        But if taking on more problems are our only options, then let's just keep JO and wait it out.

        I know, I know, and I'm not thrilled with that either...but trading our problems for other problems is why our roster is so horrible right now. No reason to continue to do that just for change's sake.
        Last edited by JayRedd; 06-24-2008, 12:14 PM.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
          It's basically refinancing your Tinsley mortgage on a guy with even less upside.
          Nope. When you re-fi, you at least get out of your first mortgage.

          It's like taking a second mortgage for more money that lasts almost as long as the first one.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Nope. When you re-fi, you at least get out of your first mortgage.

            It's like taking a second mortgage for more money that lasts almost as long as the first one.
            My bad. I'm a renter.

            Regardless, the point is that it's basically multiplying the current Tinsley problem.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
              If these are our options than just keep JO and wait it out. I know, I know, and I'm not thrilled with that either, but trading our problems for other problems is why our roster is so horrible right now. No reason to continue that just for change's sake.
              i'm not necessarily disagreeing. i think JO's value, even if injured, should improve by next summer when he is an exp. contract. but coming away from a JO trade with TJ Ford, Rasho, Speights and Chalmers wouldn't be the worst thing in the world -- especially when you consider the difference in price.

              as i said before i'd like to find a third team to send TJ to but the deal itself doesn't send me into a violent, storage unit-burning rage.
              Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 06-24-2008, 12:17 PM.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                coming away from a JO trade with TJ Ford, Rasho, Speights and Chalmers wouldn't be the worst thing in the world -- especially when you consider the difference in price.
                Well, one of Speights or Chalmers is a completely independent situation from the JO situation since we already have that #11 as an asset.

                And as Bird and many other reports have stated, getting a mid-to-late First Round pick in this draft should not be overly difficult...so Chalmers could also be attainable otherwise if we're really sold on him (Jeff, Shawne or Diogu could get us at least in the 20-25 range, me reckons).

                So that leaves you "coming away from a JO trade with" A) an expiring, B) a problem, and C) a pick you could likely get through means that don't include adding an additional problem to our roster.

                Doesn't sound as good in those terms.
                Last edited by JayRedd; 06-24-2008, 12:20 PM.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  Here's what I want:

                  A) One Rasho/Wally-sized expiring
                  B) One fairly paid player of value
                  C) filler

                  I really don't think that's unreasonable, regardless of JO's plummeting value. I mean, I wasn't in love with that Cleveland deal proposed earlier, but that was more in line with what we need.

                  Becauset the number one -- and unconditional -- factor is that we take on no more problems.

                  And, to me, TJ Ford is just another problem. It's basically refinancing your Tinsley mortgage on a guy with even less upside. He's another rigid asset that you can't move easilly because he's overpaid and locked up for multiple years. No GM in this league wants that anymore. Nor is he capable of playing over 30 mpg due to fragility and defensive liabilities. We wanna pay 8.5 for that for the next three years? Champ-ion-ship!
                  I wonder if we can really command the player of value-meaning no significant problems. Reason I say this is that JO may have reached the level where he, too, is perceived to be a highly-paid player of value but with problems. So it almost becomes the quandry of trading your problems, in this case of the physical variety, for someone else's player with certain perceived imperfections.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                    My bad. I'm a renter.

                    Regardless, the point is that it's basically multiplying the current Tinsley problem.
                    Not if their issue is to adjust JO's finacials and the current team culture. I get that Ford isn't your PG answer. He's your reduction of JO's contract that also helps mend the wound of moving Tinsley.

                    I see the deal as a step toward where they want to be which will not involve Ford and probably won't involve Murphy, Ike and several others as well.

                    Your future team is Danny, #11 pick, Dun maybe, Foster maybe and then whatever else you start putting together as of now. Ford gets injured for good, you clear cap space (and he's insured to cover his deal personally anyway). Ford plays 20 mpg for 2 years he has expriring deal value around the time Troy does too (and Dun perhaps).

                    3 years from now Danny is the man (you hope, that's why you are sticking with him) and the other acquisitions have either matured (picks) or been worked into from other trades.


                    I will agree that JO in his final year might be worth more and also fits into this rebuild for a few years plan. I don't love this deal but I don't hate it. If it's a PF that becomes a key guy AND a PG/SG that becomes a top 7 in that future rotation (guys like Speights and Chalmers) then you might as well get going now. And even more so if you are buying out Tins anyway.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Regardless, the point is that it's basically multiplying the current Tinsley problem.
                      Can't disagree with that.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Not if their issue is to adjust JO's finacials and the current team culture. I get that Ford isn't your PG answer. He's your reduction of JO's contract that also helps mend the wound of moving Tinsley.

                        I see the deal as a step toward where they want to be which will not involve Ford and probably won't involve Murphy, Ike and several others as well.

                        Your future team is Danny, #11 pick, Dun maybe, Foster maybe and then whatever else you start putting together as of now. Ford gets injured for good, you clear cap space (and he's insured to cover his deal personally anyway). Ford plays 20 mpg for 2 years he has expriring deal value around the time Troy does too (and Dun perhaps).

                        3 years from now Danny is the man (you hope, that's why you are sticking with him) and the other acquisitions have either matured (picks) or been worked into from other trades.


                        I will agree that JO in his final year might be worth more and also fits into this rebuild for a few years plan. I don't love this deal but I don't hate it. If it's a PF that becomes a key guy AND a PG/SG that becomes a top 7 in that future rotation (guys like Speights and Chalmers) then you might as well get going now. And even more so if you are buying out Tins anyway.
                        I agree that the team is treating Tinsley completely separate. They think of that as "gone money", which it almost certainly is. I believe they're working on two parallel paths:

                        1. Try to improve/rebuild the team, including getting another pick, perhaps moving JO for a package they find acceptable while giving themselves some financial breathing room.

                        2. Getting rid of Tinsley

                        I believe, as far as the franchise is concerned, Tinsley is already gone. He won't ever play another game for us, and if they can find a more pallatable slug to take up his roster slot, they'll do it. Otherwise, I do think they will buy him out. He is a personna non grata as far as path 1 goes. (Naturally, they can't avoid the payroll ramifications, but they certainly can leave him out of the depth chart decisions.)

                        And, as I've said before, I think Ford is an upgrade on Tinsley and consider the health risk acceptable in our given situation.

                        Finally, while it is possible that JO's value could go up as his contract approaches it's end, the odds of him having another injury plagued season are high enough as to make it likely that his value will decline. I still believe he needs to play healthy and play well to enhance his value. If next year is a repeat of last year, then I'm not sure where the floor is.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          Here's what I want:

                          A) One Rasho/Wally-sized expiring
                          B) One fairly paid player of value
                          C) filler

                          I really don't think that's unreasonable, regardless of JO's plummeting value. I mean, I wasn't in love with that Cleveland deal proposed earlier, but that was more in line with what we need.

                          Becauset the number one -- and unconditional -- factor is that we take on no more problems.

                          And, to me, TJ Ford is just another problem. It's basically refinancing your Tinsley mortgage on a guy with even less upside. He's another rigid asset that you can't move easilly because he's overpaid and locked up for multiple years. No GM in this league wants that anymore. Nor is he capable of playing over 30 mpg due to fragility and defensive liabilities. We wanna pay 8.5 for that for the next three years? Champ-ion-ship!
                          Wow! 30 mpg? My Neon only gets around 27
                          Turn out the lights, this party's over!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                            Where did this idea come from that Ford is limited to 30 minutes a night due to his injury? His minutes were limited this season for one reason and one reason alone - Jose Calderon. Ford's injury doesn't physically affect his play in any way, shape or form. It's just that another bad fall could end his career. And remember, if that were to happen, he has insurance.

                            If we trade for the 25 year old Ford, it's with the intention of him becoming our long-term answer. He's too talented to be used as a "quick fix".

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                              Originally posted by The Unknown
                              Where did this idea come from that Ford is limited to 30 minutes a night due to his injury?
                              I was basing it on his career average, not his injury.

                              He's a defensive liability and can't be out there more than 35 mpg for any reason, with 30 mpg being more realistic for a contender. Essentially, he's more Fish/JWill/Jameer Nelson than Deron Williams/Gilbert/Chauncey in terms of how long you actually want him on the floor running your team.

                              Originally posted by DBone
                              I wonder if we can really command the player of value-meaning no significant problems. Reason I say this is that JO may have reached the level where he, too, is perceived to be a highly-paid player of value but with problems. So it almost becomes the quandry of trading your problems, in this case of the physical variety, for someone else's player with certain perceived imperfections.
                              When I say a "fairly paid player of value" I'm not talking about a great player. I'm talking about guys like Varejao, Foster, John Salmons, McDyess, Rafer, Matt Harpring or Kyle Korver.

                              All I want is a fringe starter/decent rotation guy for around $5-6 million per. Asking for someone like that who has objective value at their salary along with "not long-term garbage contracts" shouldn't be too much for JO at this point I don't think.
                              Last edited by JayRedd; 06-24-2008, 01:30 PM.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wells: JO to Toronto?

                                I really like this deal.

                                I would go either Speights-Chalmers, or Speights-Lopez in the draft. Chalmers could be a good backup for ford, he has all the opposite strengths. That would be a very strong PG tandem.

                                Ford can be a great perimeter defender, he would only really have problems with the big strong PG's who will overpower him, In which case, you could put a stronger long guy like Chalmers on him. While Ford has blazing speed and athleticism, chalmers is a great jumpshooter. Ford can gaurd a quick guy, Chalmers can gaurd a big guy.

                                With Ford's skills, it seems that he is fairly paid. He is not injury prone so much as he is a risk for a career ending injury. There is a difference. The insurance makes this a risk I think we can afford to take.

                                I do not think JO will have more value as an expiring contract. In fact, that will probably create a situation where we will be taking back worse contracts than we are now, because a team looking to trade for a 23 million dollar expiring contract is trying to unload some contracts themselves.

                                In that situation, it will probably make the most sense to let the contract expire... in which case, we lose him for nothing.

                                The only way we get better value than this is if JO looks like the old JO for the beginning of next year and we make a deadline deal. Personally, I think we are seeing some surprisingly good deals here and I woulden't take the risk. If JO does not impress at the beginning of next year you can almost count on losing him for nothing.
                                Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 06-24-2008, 01:54 PM.
                                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                                - ilive4sports

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X