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

Who can we realistically get?

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

  • #16
    Re: Who can we realistically get?

    Originally posted by count55 View Post
    You won't be able to get an All Star just by sending or combining expiring contracts.

    You're going to need to throw in quality youth (of which we have none) and/or draft picks.

    The short answer to your specific question is: no one.

    All that expiring contracts by themselves will get is a player like Troy Murphy.
    Assuming you are correct, I have no idea on this btw, what do you think then that the plan is? Or do you think that the "plan" really has all just been a smoke and mirrors routine to give us hope and in reality they are hopeing to get lucky via the draft or other?

    Because if what you are saying is true then I really am depressed because we may really be looking at 5 to 10 years of rebuilding and then really only rebuilding to mediocre not contenders.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Who can we realistically get?

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Assuming you are correct, I have no idea on this btw, what do you think then that the plan is? Or do you think that the "plan" really has all just been a smoke and mirrors routine to give us hope and in reality they are hopeing to get lucky via the draft or other?

      Because if what you are saying is true then I really am depressed because we may really be looking at 5 to 10 years of rebuilding and then really only rebuilding to mediocre not contenders.
      I think in the short term (last year, this year) Bird wanted the team to be more competitive than it is. Probably wanted to make a run at a low playoff seed to get some fans back.

      But in the long term, it's all about 2-3 years down the future. Right now, it's just too much money committed to guys of too little impact.

      Right now, it's impossible to predict what particular FA signing or trade they might make, but competently run teams with salary cap flexibility have always been able to make good moves. There are so many things they will be able to do in a couple years that they just can't do right now.

      It's a tough situation right now, but it is what it is. And the reality is that a good portion of this current bunch isn't going to be here in a couple years and certainly isn't going to be here when the team is once again a factor in the eastern conference.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Who can we realistically get?

        Daniel Gibson seems to be the odd man out for the Cavs. I could see us going after him possibly.
        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


        • #19
          Re: Who can we realistically get?

          Originally posted by aero View Post
          Daniel Gibson seems to be the odd man out for the Cavs. I could see us going after him possibly.


          Yeah for the league minimum.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Who can we realistically get?

            Originally posted by Perdu View Post
            Man I'd love to have Gerald Wallace on the Pacers.
            He would die. He and the court at Conseco Fieldhouse do not get along.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Who can we realistically get?

              I want Jarrett Jack. Again. Seriously.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Who can we realistically get?

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                You won't be able to get an All Star just by sending or combining expiring contracts.

                You're going to need to throw in quality youth (of which we have none) and/or draft picks.

                The short answer to your specific question is: no one.

                All that expiring contracts by themselves will get is a player like Troy Murphy.
                getting at most "a player like murphy" is probably an exaggeration (depending on how highly you rate murphy). but yeah, i agree with the sentiment that you won't get an all-star in his prime for just expiring contracts.

                you can get a flawed player though, and if that player happens to fit well with the rest of your roster then his flaw might not matter as much. the model i have in my mind is the sheed trade that put the pistons over the top in '04. sheed is an excellent player but has his issues, which is why the pistons were able to acquire him for expiring contracts and a mid first round pick.

                we can use another all-star at just about every position, but the glaring hole is at pg. obviously you won't get guys like chris paul or even devin harris for just expiring contracts. in other circumstances, a guy like rondo (poor shooter, suspect attitude) might be a viable trade target, but since he's the celtics only young star, the celtics would probably want more than expiring contracts for him.

                2 possible all-star pg targets: arenas and baron davis. arenas has plenty of negatives - huge contract, injury history, and now possible legal problems. the wiz would probably be more than happy to trade him for our 2011 contracts right now. but then, he's a questionable fit for the team even when healthy, and the recent gun incident makes him an absolute no-no here. so that's a dead end.

                baron davis, due to age, injury history, and contract, might also be obtainable. when motivated, i think he's still an impact player. an interesting question would be whether he would be motivated if traded to the pacers. regardless, he fits the profile of the kind of player we could obtain with our 2011 contracts.

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                Right now, it's impossible to predict what particular FA signing or trade they might make, but competently run teams with salary cap flexibility have always been able to make good moves. There are so many things they will be able to do in a couple years that they just can't do right now.
                you won't hear the front office saying this, but this is probably a lot closer to the truth rather than having a firm 2011 plan. new trade opportunities are always cropping up - today's hot prospect might be tomorrow's overpaid contract. financial flexibility is a wonderful thing, but it's also a one-shot thing. once used, it's gone. the key is to be patient and wait for the right fit to come up before pulling the trigger. it's tough to be patient though if a team is losing as badly as the pacers are right now. it would be even tougher if 2011 rolls around without a decent trade or fa target in sight.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Who can we realistically get?

                  I heard Obie say they can use the money for 2 starters too. I think this is possible. Using Troy as an example isn't good, cuz his numbers are starter level, but the actualized total of his impact is not.

                  Ya, you need a 2nd best player, but I think you shoot for that and if not, you upgrade from a bunch of 6th 7th best players to maybe a 3rd and 4th best type. Caron Butler keeps coming to mind. Okafor would be an upgrade as well, more as a solid force in the middle defensively. Antwain Jamison seems possible too.

                  The fear is you overpay for a "starter" or two and your back in same boat. Dunleavy and Murphy looked like starters too and they are ..... in the perfect situation. This ain't that.

                  At this point, if you can get two really really good starters, I think you can take a nice step forward.

                  Let's face it, though, unless they hit the lotto or rob someone blind in a trade, the 3 year plan isn't saying that they'll be contenders, it's saying they'll be in the playoffs. Disheartening yes, but a step forward, imo.

                  I think 5-7 years may be more what we are looking at, honestly.

                  Alot depends on how much better the existing young guys can improve, if not to stay here, but at least to become valuable assets down the line (ala the Garnett trade).

                  I'm not wavering on my support, I never will, unless they leave town (cringe), but I think I need to face it, they are bad team, even when healthy and have one tradeable assets.

                  That's not the recipe for a quick turn around, even with expiring contracts. That alone isn't enough.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Who can we realistically get?

                    AK47? We could move Murphy and Ford for him.
                    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Who can we realistically get?

                      Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                      AK47? We could move Murphy and Ford for him.
                      I think AK47 is Utah's Murphy. I could be wrong, but I think he has a huge contract and isn't producing what they expect.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Who can we realistically get?

                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                        I want Jarrett Jack. Again. Seriously.
                        i had the same thought a do-over on jarrett jack a la mark jackson.

                        jarrett isn't that great but he may have been the best starting pg the pacers have had for a while. he'd still be useful as a combo guard should we get a better starting pg down the road. wonder if toronto would part with him for expirings - maybe if bosh walks next summer, since they supposedly wanted jack for his college connection to bosh.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Who can we realistically get?

                          I just hope we can find some serviceable players for every position.

                          We need SG's and SF's. Our two best players, Dunleavy and Granger, may or may not ever be reliable from a health standpoint in our fast paced system. Head is a streaky scorer, which is better than nothing at all. Dahntay is Dahntay, and he is an OK backup on an average team if the team plays fundamentally sound basketball and can otherwise make up for his mistakes. Rush needs a fresh outlook, despite a slight uptick recently. He still cannot make shots consistently, which is strictly mental at this point. His form is good in my opinion, but to be a shooter you have to believe instinctively that every shot you take is going in. He plainly does not, and may not until he has a change in scenery. I truly hope this is totally wrong, because I think Brandon has many other positives about his game, but in our offensively oriented team structure, if you can't score consistently, you become a liability.

                          We don't have a center or true power forward unless we hire a big man coach to teach anyone we do have for those postions the footwork and positioning and shot selection at a professional level required to be a factor, and that is not going to happen any time soon.

                          Other than Price, Diener will be our backup point guard for next year because Ford will likely still be here and the franchise will only carry a certain amount of point guards. Unless Price has lots of time to develop this year (which may or may not happen, depends on Bird at this point who I would guess has finally forced O'B to bench Ford to see if Price has what it takes). So, a point guard is in order, as well.

                          This summer, our expirings become high value. Maybe we can get one star, Danny can return to health, we can get a couple of high draft picks (maybe trade for an additional first rounder) and fill out the roster at every position through trading our expirings coupled with some of our players who have "potential" this summer.

                          Maybe then we can aspire once more to the elusive lofty goal of a 36 win season once more. My prediction for 37 wins this season is totally laughable at this point because of every reason conceivable short of a brawl.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Who can we realistically get?

                            players that the pacers might get for the expirings plus young players(Rush,AJ,TH or even Hibbert) are Michael Red, Kaman, Baron D, Kirk H, Tyrus T, G wallace, AK 47, Ramon Session, Iguadola, I will name more later.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Who can we realistically get?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              players that the pacers might get for the expirings plus young players(Rush,AJ,TH or even Hibbert) are Michael Red, Kaman, Baron D, Kirk H, Tyrus T, G wallace, AK 47, Ramon Session, Iguadola, I will name more later.
                              Not one guy on that list I would want to hitch my financial commitment wagon to. Not one.

                              Wallace and Igoudala, maybe, but you can't pay them like franchise guys, cuz they aren't and I think that's exactly what Igoudala is getting paid like currently.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Who can we realistically get?

                                Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                                Caron Butler
                                Josh Howard
                                Baron Davis
                                Chris Kaman
                                Andre Igoudala
                                Gilbert Arenas (NO)
                                Steve Nash
                                Rip Hamilton
                                Ben Gordon
                                Monta Ellis
                                Andre Miller/Greg Oden combo
                                Andres Nocioni
                                Elton Brand
                                Antawn Jamison
                                David West
                                Rajon Rondo


                                There are ALOT of exceptions though. I hope to have a real computer handy soon because I have been VERY anxious to make several threads about almost everything. I PD from PS3.

                                For example, to take on BDiddys contract, we get a 1st, a 2nd, and Al Thornton as well.

                                For example, if we get Brand, we get Speights and Thaddeus.

                                OR if we take on Peja Stojakavic, we get David West, Darren Collison, and two future top 3 protected 1sts.

                                Or just do straight up trades like West, Rondo, Harris, Ginobli, Parker, Carter, Gasol, or Ellis.

                                Most realistically as of now, Ellis, Igoudala, West, G Wallace, Calderon, Battier, and Jamison/Butler package.
                                Do you play PS3 online? If so, whats your PSN? I had PaCeR all throughout PS2 games, but someone took it on the PS3, now mine is aRmanTi.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X