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

Pacers asking too much for Murph

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
    Getting under the cap also helps with trades next year, wouldn't it? Because we'd be able to absorb a higher salaried impact player, even if the salaries aren't an exact match. Is that correct?
    Yes, you are correct ( as Seth eloquently pointed out )
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

      Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
      Because the NBA is more than just what players you like or don't like. The NBA is a business and money has more to do with the league than players and teams. That is why we consider salary cap perspective when talking about the decisions of the Pacers (a company) or other teams. If I told you that you were on the hook for $16M next year, would you not do what you could to avoid having to pay such a massive bill? Of course you would. Even if you wipe your a*s with $100 bills.
      I really don't follow what any of this is supposed to mean.

      Of course the NBA is about more than what players you like or don't like. No idea what this is even referencing.

      As far as salary cap concerns go, I understand why fans want to discuss such things. It's fun to pretend GM the team and imagine what we can do with our cap room. This, however is about the Luxury Tax. Only ownership can have a valid opinion on how important that number is to them.

      As to your last point about "being on the hook for $16M next year", there are far too many factors to just say "get out from under it at all costs."

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

        Originally posted by Wage View Post
        I really don't follow what any of this is supposed to mean.

        Of course the NBA is about more than what players you like or don't like. No idea what this is even referencing.

        As far as salary cap concerns go, I understand why fans want to discuss such things. It's fun to pretend GM the team and imagine what we can do with our cap room. This, however is about the Luxury Tax. Only ownership can have a valid opinion on how important that number is to them.
        What I think that pacergod2 is trying to say is that the NBA is a business. What moves Owners sign off on can often be motivated purely for Financial reasons....mostly ( as we have seen with the Nuggets dumping Camby for a 2nd round pick and the Jazz including Maynor to move Harpring for Financial relief ) due to LT concerns.

        Of course, we're just fans and all we're doing is making assumptions based off of what Ownership wants to do and how important the LT is....but is it really far fetched to assume that Owners that have been losing a lot of $$$ over the last couple of seasons would be reluctant to pay LT next season and therefore factor this consideration into their decision making process on what to do?

        Originally posted by Wage View Post
        As to your last point about "being on the hook for $16M next year", there are far too many factors to just say "get out from under it at all costs."
        Could you elaborate on what factors you are referring to?
        Last edited by CableKC; 02-02-2010, 06:49 PM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

          Ok, my quote-fu is weak, so this is in response to CableKC.

          It is quite reasonable to believe that the owners are eager to get under the LT and would make a trade where that was the primary, or even only real benefit. We have no real evidence to suggest where ownership stands on the matter right now though. A LT debate makes more sense to me after a trade like this is completed, and we have evidence of it's importance to ownership.

          As to the last comment you quoted about "getting out from under $16M", I was simply responding to Pacergod, and trying to make sense of it all.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Absolutely! Only a blind person hasn't noticed the change this year. Or one wearing blinders and is so stubborn they can't see the trees for the forest.
            Call me blind then because I honestly hadn't noticed. What makes you guys say that beyond rumors from outsiders? Looking directly at Murphy, I don't see anything like that.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

              Originally posted by Wage View Post
              Ok, my quote-fu is weak, so this is in response to CableKC.

              It is quite reasonable to believe that the owners are eager to get under the LT and would make a trade where that was the primary, or even only real benefit. We have no real evidence to suggest where ownership stands on the matter right now though. A LT debate makes more sense to me after a trade like this is completed, and we have evidence of it's importance to ownership.

              As to the last comment you quoted about "getting out from under $16M", I was simply responding to Pacergod, and trying to make sense of it all.

              IIRC, Bird acknowledged during the past off season ownership was not going to go over the LT. Keep in mind that teams under the LT will share the money other teams pay for being over th LT. For a team like the Pacers who are having finanical difficulties, it means they will get about 5 mil for being under the LT. Hence, Pacers ownership is not wanting to do any trades that would put them over the LT and lose them 5 mil. Nor do they want to pay a dollar for each dollar they are over the LT. Thus the LT plays a very important part in making trades. You probably already knew this, but just in case you didn't maybe it helps to put it in perspective.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                Originally posted by Wage View Post
                Ok, my quote-fu is weak, so this is in response to CableKC.

                It is quite reasonable to believe that the owners are eager to get under the LT and would make a trade where that was the primary, or even only real benefit. We have no real evidence to suggest where ownership stands on the matter right now though. A LT debate makes more sense to me after a trade like this is completed, and we have evidence of it's importance to ownership.

                As to the last comment you quoted about "getting out from under $16M", I was simply responding to Pacergod, and trying to make sense of it all.
                Bird and the Simons have been quite clear for years that they (Simons) don't want to pay the luxury tax. That's been solidly established.

                So whether or not the team is looking at having to pay it plays a direct role in any moves they will or won't make.

                The further below the LT they are, the more likely they are to take on salaries.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                  Here the thing about Murphy: If we keep him, are we a playoff contender? Doubtful. If we trade him, what types of savings would we realize? Let's break it down:

                  -- Murphy makes roughly 12 million for 2010/2011
                  -- We realize LT savings of 1-2 million
                  -- We gain the tax that other teams play 4-5 million
                  -- Maybe Cleveland sends us some money for Z's buyout (1-2) million.
                  -- Additional savings this year (1-2 million)

                  Plus, I understand that Z has been paid most of his salary thus far, so the cost to us would be minimal.

                  Let's also assume we grab a pick in 2011 (that turns out to be a later first rounder)

                  Keeping Murphy (assuming we go over the LT): 19-20 million
                  Trading Murphy: Savings of 19-20 million

                  I'm not the one signing the checks, but you know that Morway and Bird know the implications.

                  My main concern is that the Pacers are playing musical chairs with Murphy and once the trade deadline comes, they might be stuck with Murphy if another team comes in with a better deal that Cleveland jumps at first. In this NBA environment, other teams are looking at savings and may make a deal that may not make sense from a talent standpoint, but they realize savings.

                  If Foster retires and, if the Pacers deal Murphy for an expiring, the Pacers could realize savings of 18.6 million off the cap, plus additional luxury tax savings that may push the savings up towards 25 million.

                  Better players than Murphy have been dealt for salary cap purposes and Larry needs to evaluate the situation so that we're not in a position like we were last year with Tinsley.

                  My dark horse team to acquire Murphy: Dallas. Dampier's contract is not guaranteed for next season and they could obtain immediate salary cap relief.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                    Getting under the cap also helps with trades next year, wouldn't it? Because we'd be able to absorb a higher salaried impact player, even if the salaries aren't an exact match. Is that correct?
                    Yep. We're also much more likely to be a sign a decent player over the summer. We won't have crazy money to throw around, but a DJones/JJack-type deal would be very do-able. If we've got Murphy past the trade deadline, that means we'll be only paying for minimum-level players next summer.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      You're right....we have no clue what the Owners are directing Bird to do with those Contracts....for all we know....they could be telling Bird to get the most out of a trade for any of the Big 4 regardless of the Financial impact to the Team.

                      I'd really wish this were the case.....but the reality is that the Pacers aren't the same as the Lakers where they could afford to pay a lot of $$$ for going over the LT based off of the sale of Kobe Bryant Jerseys along. Given the financial woes of PS&E over the last couple of seasons, dwindling Revenues and fanbase.....it's not out of the realm of possibility that the financial impact to the Team of any trade is not a major concern for the Owners.
                      It also may be a case not being able to look past the end of your nose. We really do not know Troys value. If they feel he is worth more than Z and some tinker toys and not trading for that would be better long term for the Pacers then just maybe I give the benefit of the
                      doubt to management.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                        Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                        Would Bird be more optimistic about moving Mike if a team offered as oppose to Troy which we see is happening now?
                        Murphy, for all his flaws, has proven that he's much more durable than Dunleavy.

                        Any team looking to acquire Dunleavy right now is going to pay a lot of money while not knowing how many minutes he can handle. That's not exactly something that goes over well with team owners and management these days.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Although d_c and many here would have to confirm this...I thought that it was the Pacers insistance on getting Diogu that the GSW trade expanded from a Dunleavy for SJax to one that included Harrington and Murphy.

                          I always thought all the Diogu talk was just someone blowing smoke up someone else's rear. I don't mean that comment towards any of the posters. I'm talking about writers/broadcasters supposed sources.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Sam Perkins could guard centers.
                            Sam was also simply way cooler.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Although d_c and many here would have to confirm this...I thought that it was the Pacers insistance on getting Diogu that the GSW trade expanded from a Dunleavy for SJax to one that included Harrington and Murphy.
                              It's most likely the other way around.

                              The original trade the Warriors wanted was the same thing they tried to do with the Hawks the previous summer: They wanted a straight up Murphy for Harrington swap. They tried all summer long to get that done with Atlanta but the Hawks wanted nothing of it (Hawks ownership at the time didn't want any long term contracts).

                              The Pacers were also unwilling to do that.

                              It wasn't until Dunleavy for Jax as well as Diogu were thrown in that the Pacers were willing to do it. The Warriors also liked Sarunas a lot. Nellie said his son had scouted him extensively and liked what he saw. They thought he was a a pretty good asset to "even out" the trade.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                                Originally posted by Kraut N Beer View Post
                                From the Cavs side, Murphy is a good addition for a championship run but likely not someone you go and get by trading away a promising young talent. At this point, I would even be close to considering Murphy for Z straight up just for the cap savings, or Murphy for Z plus a pick (any pick) and we agree to drop Z in a month to re-sign with the Cavs. Sign someone off the NBDL that is hungry and finish out this awful season.

                                I just can't see anyone else making an aggressive play for Murphy. No one wants to take on more salary next year due to the free agency bonanza this summer. Who is there besides Cleveland that has a serious chance at the Finals and would be going after Murphy with a fat offer? Cleveland has a lot more leverage on this trade if they are the only one looking to deal for Murphy.
                                Agreed. I don't know how anyone could consider the team with the best record in the league to be desperate enough to trade off a promising young player and a 1st for Murphy.

                                I would have to think Cleveland looks at him as a player it would be nice to get, but the fate of the franchise doesn't hang in the balance if they don't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X