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

Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

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

  • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    They let him go because they got insulted that Lin went and got the most money he could.
    Thank god Pritchard and Walsh aren't apparently as thin-skinned as the Knicks are. The fact is Lin may be worth that money in the short run, but as the league adapts, he's not going to keep putting those numbers up, and he will become an albatross around Houston's neck with that contract. Apparently someone in NY DID learn something from the Isiah era....
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

    Comment


    • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      I don't think they care. They make so much money off of everything else that they'll pay the tax without worrying about it.

      BTW: Knicks didn't blink on Lin because of the tax. He was worth more than what they would have had to pay. They let him go because they got insulted that Lin went and got the most money he could.
      For discussions like this in the future, I hope someone puts on YouTube a 3 second clip from The Dark Knight Rises where Batman says, "They know. They just don't care." Would fit in nicely here.

      Comment


      • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
        Thank god Pritchard and Walsh aren't apparently as thin-skinned as the Knicks are. The fact is Lin may be worth that money in the short run, but as the league adapts, he's not going to keep putting those numbers up, and he will become an albatross around Houston's neck with that contract. Apparently someone in NY DID learn something from the Isiah era....
        Lin isn't worth his contract on the court. But he's worth his contract.

        The Knicks were foolish for not matching despite the poison pill Houston handed them.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

          SI article on Dwight negotiations. Apparently, Houston was lowballing and the Afflalo deal may indeed be the best.

          http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ml?PID=4003003

          The offerings from Houston, sources said, weren't as plentiful as previously believed either. In both the two-team talks with Houston and three-team discussions that involved the Lakers and would have sent center Andrew Bynum to the Rockets, sources said Houston was offering only two first-round picks. From Houston's perspective, however, the comparative value of the picks far outweighed anything available to the Magic elsewhere and it had been made clear that a third pick could be added "if it got the deal done."

          One of the picks, which would have come via Toronto as part of Houston's recent trade of point guard Kyle Lowry, has protections that make it likely to land in the lottery. The other being offered, by way of Dallas, had an outside chance at becoming completely unprotected in 2018 if the Mavericks didn't finish the regular season in the league's top 10 in the five years prior.

          Many assumed that the Rockets' three first-round picks from this year's draft -- guard Jeremy Lamb and forwards Royce White and Terrence Jones -- would be made available in a Howard deal. But sources close to the Magic said Lamb was the only such prospect offered, and that he was off the table by the time the talks involved the Lakers and Lamb had impressed at the Las Vegas summer league in July (he averaged 20 points in five games). Meanwhile, unwanted players like Gary Forbes, Jon Brockman and Marcus Morris were made available (along with shooting guard Kevin Martin, whose expiring $12.9 million contract was a must to make the money work).

          On the Rockets' side, meanwhile, sources said the message had been sent that the Magic could have one or possibly two prospects from a pool that included Morris, Patrick Patterson, Lamb, Jones, White and Donatas Motiejunas. Houston offered significant salary-cap relief, but, as had been the case on the topic of young players, never in the form that the Magic wanted.

          "I enjoyed working with Rob on a potential deal," Rockets general manager Daryl Morey told SI.com via text message. "He went with what was best for Orlando and over time people will see that he has made a good decision. He has a plan for Orlando and he has proved his ability to execute a plan to make franchises great from his time in San Antonio and Oklahoma City."
          Hennigan wouldn't discuss the negotiations in any detail but made it clear he is content.

          "What's available in theory and what's available in reality aren't necessarily the same," he said. "At the end of the day, we're happy with the net result of the trade considering the circumstances."
          They still got robbed.

          But if this is true, it at least makes sense why Houston couldn't get it done.

          2 picks (one non lottery, one probably early teens), cap savings and a pile of crap
          vs.
          4 non-lottery picks, two decent prospects and Afflalo.

          The second one is miles better. It's not like Orlando needs to cut salary at this stage of rebuilding; they need to stockpile young assets and picks, like Cleveland.

          Comment


          • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

            Originally posted by ballism View Post
            SI article on Dwight negotiations. Apparently, Houston was lowballing and the Afflalo deal may indeed be the best.

            They still got robbed.

            But if this is true, it at least makes sense why Houston couldn't get it done.

            2 picks (one non lottery, one probably early teens), cap savings and a pile of crap
            vs.
            4 non-lottery picks, two decent prospects and Afflalo.

            The second one is miles better. It's not like Orlando needs to cut salary at this stage of rebuilding; they need to stockpile young assets and picks, like Cleveland.
            Eh, I think the Houston package still looks better.

            From the article, it sounds that Houston was willing to go up to 3 picks (TOR pick, DAL pick, and presumably their own) + 2 prospects + cap savings

            vs

            3 non-lottery picks (why do you say 4?), 2 prospects + Afflalo + bad contract (Harrington, McBob)

            (I'm calling McBob a bad contract because ORL is apparently going to cut him).

            To me, the TOR pick by itself outweighs all the guaranteed non-lotto picks that ORL actually got. The key piece for the Magic appears to be Afflalo, and while he's a nice player and all, I think I'd rather take my chances in the lotto if I were ORL. It's true that ORL doesn't need cap space now, but cap space is a valuable trade commodity that can easily be turned into extra picks, as the Cavs have shown. So that's another negative for me.

            No, what I think is that ORL decided to be competitive rather than bottoming out as commonly believed. With Nelson, Big Baby, and now Afflalo, I'd say they could easily win games in the 30s. Taking the Houston deal would have meant a true rebuild, and possibly their owner wasn't up for that with a new arena to fill.

            EDIT: I agree though that ORL is still getting robbed. They really should have traded Dwight last year, when Brooklyn (the most desperate of the Dwight suitors by far) still had the assets to make a far better offer. In retrospect, getting Dwight to extend another year was a horrible, horrible move for the Magic.
            Last edited by wintermute; 08-16-2012, 05:11 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              Eh, I think the Houston package still looks better.

              From the article, it sounds that Houston was willing to go up to 3 picks (TOR pick, DAL pick, and presumably their own) + 2 prospects + cap savings

              vs

              3 non-lottery picks (why do you say 4?), 2 prospects + Afflalo + bad contract (Harrington, McBob)
              you are right, i thought they got 4 in the Lakers deal for some reason.

              re the main point, unless i'm reading it wrong, the article describes two different reports. The one you are talking about -- with prospects -- comes from sources close to Houston.
              The other one -- only Lamb at first; then he's off the table too -- comes from Orlando sources.
              Obviously one of these reports is wrong. A lot of PR going on at the moment. Which one, who knows.

              The Houston version has been discussed a number of times. I agree that it's fairly solid -- compared to the end deal.
              I posted it because I hadn't heard the Orlando version of the story before. That's a far worse deal than the one you are talking about.

              Btw, regardless of which of these reports is true... Houston wasn't going to offer a ton of "cap" as such. They don't have much.
              It was basically Martin's expiring, partially guaranteed contracts and a bunch of other expirings, just as McBob.
              So in terms of turning it into extra picks 'like the Cavs', their situation isn't very different in either case.
              They can still look for Baron Davis type "shorter contracts for longer contracts" deals, which would've been their option with the Houston trade too.

              And next summer, they'll still be able to have max salary room and fish for these "picks for cap" deals. With the Houston deal, they simply would've had ~11 extra mil cap next summer, bringing the total up to 25-30 mil. But it's rather unrealistic you are going to need that much for "Cavs deals" in 2013 alone.
              And after that, they have another wave of cap coming.

              From my point of view, getting rid of Turkoglu etc for expirings would've been nice a year ago, when they still had Dwight and those deals were longer. Now, it's rather pointless because it doesn't change their situation in a realistically meaningful way.

              Also, in a sense, if the Orlando report is accurate..... isn't getting more prospects and taking on Al Harrington a "Cavs deal"?
              The end result is the same. They pass on short term cap, spend money and get more prospects. Only unlike the Cavs with Baron Davis, the Magic have an option to cut Harrington and lower the cap hit.
              Last edited by ballism; 08-16-2012, 07:44 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                Lin isn't worth his contract on the court. But he's worth his contract.

                The Knicks were foolish for not matching despite the poison pill Houston handed them.
                I have been in Houston recently and his picture is on billboards everywhere. He is the new face of that franchise......

                Comment


                • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

                  Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                  They got insulted by the idea of restricted free agency... LOL
                  They got insulted that Lin revised and signed the "poison pill" contract. Which secured Lin more money.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

                    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                    They got insulted that Lin revised and signed the "poison pill" contract. Which secured Lin more money.
                    He still signed only one contract. It's not like he leveraged the Houston offer to try to get more out of the Knicks, or that he even played the Rockets at all. They initially offered him a four-year deal, then revised it to be three years with the same total. The Knicks are just mad that he didn't take a huge hometown discount.

                    I see absolutely nothing wrong with how Lin conducted himself during free agency. In fact, I think his professionalism was extremely commendable. Knicks FO is just a bunch of sissies.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

                      Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                      In fact, I think his professionalism was extremely commendable. Knicks FO is just a bunch of sissies.
                      Generally I don't agree with you, but understand where you're coming from on most of the issues. On this one? Not so much. I'm guessing you either really hate the Knicks, or really love some Jeremy Lin. Not sure how anyone could construe what Lin did as "extremely commendable professionalism". I can understand feeling he didn't do anything wrong, but what you said? Yikes.

                      If any Pacer player worth anything more than 5 million a year did what Lin did, this place would be up in arms and ready to declare war against the player and his new team. You don't get that kind of reaction from fans with "extremely commendable professionalism".

                      Comment


                      • Re: Dwight Howard Traded to Lakers

                        I want to be clear, I'm on Lin's side. I was just saying why the Knicks didn't sign him.

                        If the Pacers let go of a player who rejuvinated the fan base, made the team more exciting, actually helped win games, and would have more than made up for his contract two months into the season, I'd be more upset with the Pacers rather than the player who took the good deal.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X