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

Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

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

  • #76
    Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

    It would be nice if we could package our 1st with another player to get us a real starting PF.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
      For the first few games, we'd probably let him come off the bench and let him adjust to playing rotation minutes again and the other players on this team.

      The PF rotation of Randolph and Tyler would be pretty good.
      He hasn't played more than ten minutes in a game since November 14th. He hasn't been playing at all recently (ankle injury), but even before getting hurt he was only getting token minutes. I take it you are aware of that and you are referring to the rotation minutes he got last season in GS - but he only played in 33 games. Now if I were Larry I'd want to make damn sure before pulling this particular trigger, because Randolph was practically always in Nellie's doghouse and D'Antoni won't play him. What gives?

      Not a good shooter yet in his young career, but he can put it on the deck and get to the line - and he's a grade-A FT shooter. Can rebound - unusual combination of skills and size.


      :
      :

      "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

      "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

      "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        I was under the impression you couldn't be out of the 1st round of draft 2 years in a row. As along as you had a 1st pick it didn't matter who's pick it was. I guess I'll have to update my info on this.
        You are correct.

        Teams are required to have only a first round pick, and not necessarily their first round pick. So teams may trade away their own future picks in consecutive years if they have another team's first round pick in one of those years.

        http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q74

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Her has the catch.....Randolph has shown SOME flashes of brilliance......but he has also shown an inability to play consistent minutes under 2 Coaches that run high-scoring offenses that favors athletic players. IMHO.....Randolph is likely more polished then any Player that we can draft ( unless Bird drafts another Senior ) but there is something "missing" in Randolph's game that can only explain why he was jettisoned from GSW and about to be booted from the Knicks. IMHO opinion, from what i have read, it's the lack of IQ and a false sense of entitlement that is worrisome for me. For the Pacers and the growing liklihood that we will miss the Playoffs again, I'd rather use our assets to try and acquire a Starting SG or PF rather then take on Randolph.
          ITs not a either or situation to me like you are making it out to be. Whats our first worth this year? What was our first worth last year? We couldn't package a deal last year to land us a starting player so why am I to think we can do it this year? Our players aren't better and we had expirings last year.

          If a team was stupid enough to give us a high quality starter which is what I think you want for a expirings and our first then sign me up. I just don't think there is a deal like that out there.

          Again a low basketball IQ and a sense of entitlement at age 21 isn't surprising to me. Its almost expected given his age.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

            Not at all, he is still just a kid who hasnt harnessed his own abilities, people say he lives like a superstar and hasnt even done anything, and has attitude problems, not to mention he will quit on you. We dont need Eddy Curry light, but you never know if these are just rumors.
            "Did we learn anything?"-Jonathan Ames

            "No, but thats okay, It's a good thing to stay in the dark about things - it keeps life more interesting."- George Christopher

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              You are correct.

              Teams are required to have only a first round pick, and not necessarily their first round pick. So teams may trade away their own future picks in consecutive years if they have another team's first round pick in one of those years.

              http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q74

              I wonder when it was changed, or if I'm just misremembering. Granted the game was a decade ago, but I was pretty certain I was remembering it correctly. Hmph.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers



                Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                  We need a, "mean hombre" in the paint as stated by Jim O'Brien, and Anthony Randolph is neither "mean" nor "hombre". That is to say, at this point in his career, it has not been established whether Randolph belongs in the NBA or WNBA. On a more serious note, playing Randolph next to Hibbert seems like a disaster...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                    Beef in the paint would be nice. I'd settle for a big man who can do an effortless standing dunk underneath the rim, though.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                      Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                      I wonder when it was changed, or if I'm just misremembering. Granted the game was a decade ago, but I was pretty certain I was remembering it correctly. Hmph.


                      The rule came into effect when, I believe it was Ted Stipen(sp?), traded that teams 1sts away for years.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                        Not to Indiana... at least it doesn't seem so.

                        Read more from the New York Post http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knick...kUc6SQP0uOEWvI

                        Walsh received a trade request last night from the agent for Anthony

                        Randolph, who has been out of the rotation since mid-November.

                        Walsh met with Randolph's representative, Bill Duffy, one hour before tip-off of the Knicks' 93-83 loss to the Kings. Duffy asked Walsh about the possibility of dealing Randolph, who was taken out of the rotation in mid-November, resulting in the Knicks going on a 13-1 spree.

                        The Post reported Thursday that Walsh was waffling on whether to trade Randolph to Minnesota for a first-round pick that could be used in an Anthony deal, but the Nets are the ones closest to landing him.

                        Walsh still could use an extra first-rounder in another deal before the Feb. 24 trade deadline.

                        "I won't comment on a private conversation," Walsh said.

                        "The truth is we had a very constructive meeting with Donnie regarding Anthony," Duffy wrote in a text message. "Donnie said he would have an open mind and would only do what would be mutually beneficial. I agreed that was fair, but emphasized the sooner the better. He would not get specific but said we should circle back very soon."

                        "I know nothing about that," Randolph said.

                        A league source said Walsh has not acted in the past 24 hours as if he has any shot at Anthony, even though he met with Anthony's agent, Leon Rose, at halftime last night. In an interview with ESPN, Anthony said his "ultimate dream" was to play in New York, but did not specify the Knicks and for the first time mentioned the possibility of opening the new Brooklyn arena for the Nets.

                        Rose also is the agent of disgruntled Knicks center Eddy Curry, who hasn't dressed this season. Rose and Curry met after the game.

                        An ESPN.com report last night said Randolph would be dealt in the next two weeks for a first-round pick, with the Wolves, Pacers and Blazers mentioned as possibilities. The 21-year-old Randolph, obtained in the David Lee sign-and-trade from the Warriors, played in 14 game, but only has appeared in garbage time since mid-November.

                        Rose, who lives in Camden, N.J., said he popped in to see some of his clients, including the Kings' Jason Thompson and Omri Casspi, as well as Curry, who told The Post last week he wanted to speak with his agent to find out more about his status.

                        Rose said, "I'm here to watch the game. With all due respect, if there's something to say, I'll say it."

                        Anthony finally acknowledged the Nets as a potential destination, which does not bode well for the Knicks' longshot bid. The Knicks' best chance at Anthony would be if he spurns an extension with the Nets.

                        "I see what the future holds, they'll move to Brooklyn," Anthony said of the Nets. "Me going back home to Brooklyn, opening that arena, I think about all that stuff."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          ITs not a either or situation to me like you are making it out to be. Whats our first worth this year? What was our first worth last year? We couldn't package a deal last year to land us a starting player so why am I to think we can do it this year? Our players aren't better and we had expirings last year.

                          If a team was stupid enough to give us a high quality starter which is what I think you want for a expirings and our first then sign me up. I just don't think there is a deal like that out there.

                          Again a low basketball IQ and a sense of entitlement at age 21 isn't surprising to me. Its almost expected given his age.
                          I forgot what Expiring Contracts that we had last season. Which Players were Expiring and how much did we have in Expiring Contracts?

                          Did we really have any Expiring Contracts that could have realistically gotten anything of value?

                          Also...I can understand a sense of entitlement at the age of 21 IF they just entered the NBA....but a sense of entitlement after entering their 3rd year to me isn't a good thing....it's a sign of immaturity. But ignoring that part...even if it's just a matter of growing out of it given time and experience....a low basketball IQ is something that I'd be concerned about and something that I think that Bird values.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I forgot what Expiring Contracts that we had last season. Which Players were Expiring and how much did we have in Expiring Contracts?

                            Did we really have any Expiring Contracts that could have realistically gotten anything of value?

                            Also...I can understand a sense of entitlement at the age of 21 IF they just entered the NBA....but a sense of entitlement after entering their 3rd year to me isn't a good thing....it's a sign of immaturity. But ignoring that part...even if it's just a matter of growing out of it given time and experience....a low basketball IQ is something that I'd be concerned about and something that I think that Bird values.
                            What I am referring to is when Bird tried to package players along with our first to get a deal done for a quality starter. This would have been after last years expirings were gone and around draft day.

                            We couldn't get a deal done then even with a higher pick so I am not so sure we could package a 14th-17th pick this year with an expiring to land us a quality starting pf or sg. If we can i would gladly forge Birds signature to a deal like that.

                            Anthony Randolph is one year older than Paul George and I don't consider him to have a good basketball IQ yet. Sure Bird values a high basketball IQ but thats not the only thing he values and one thing is for sure Bird has been taking more players with above average athleticism with below average basketball IQ. Players like PG, Lance, even McRoberts and Solo were considered to have low basketball IQ's. To me there are players that will grow to have a higher basketball IQ's and then there are players that will never have a high basketball IQ even with a unlimited amount of minutes. Its hard for me to think that anyone could judge Randolphs potential to have a high basketball IQ at 21 but thats just me.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 01-16-2011, 09:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              What I am referring to is when Bird tried to package players along with our first to get a deal done for a quality starter. This would have been after last years expirings were gone and around draft day.

                              We couldn't get a deal done then even with a higher pick so I am not so sure we could package a 14th-17th pick this year with an expiring to land us a quality starting pf or sg. If we can i would gladly forge Birds signature to a deal like that.
                              In all fairness though, those expiring contracts over the summer weren't really worth anything due to so many question marks. Ford had been stuck to the end of the bench all last season and it was clear the Pacers wanted to move him. Foster was coming off of back surgery and missing the majority of the season, and Dunleavy had a lack luster season returning from injury.

                              The only productive and healthy expiring contract was Troy Murphy, and well... he netted us Collison w/o having to trade our draft pick, so it's all about want and need when it comes to other teams around the league.

                              I'm sure Jeff Foster will have a lot of value to teams and it will come down to what the Pacers are offered, and if they even want to move Foster.

                              Dunleavy is healthier. He hasn't returned to the form we all had hope, but he could help a team as a shooter, a team that can hide his defensive liabilities.

                              Ford has played decent at times, and he's actually been getting minutes all year as backup, so he may have some interest as well from a team that would like security at PG.

                              I wouldn't add or trade a pick unless it's someone you really feel will make this team better in the long run.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                                I HATE trading away draft picks. HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE IT!
                                That said, is this draft shaping up to have a player better than Anthony Randolph at where we would be picking? This doesn't seem to be all that deep of a draft. I'd like to take a chance on Randolph, on the off chance that all these players start to 'get it' about the same time!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X