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

Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

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

  • #16
    Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

    I'm just happy trade-centric articles are back. Seems like there has been no player movement at all this year. Admittedly I haven't been following that closely.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

      I personally would attempt to grab Gordon and Anderson from the Hornets.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        I personally would attempt to grab Gordon and Anderson from the Hornets.
        I would too...

        but Dell Demps would probably Pricthard off the phone(they love Ryno and for good reason IMO)

        he might even say like Larry Legend once said "They don't have enough talent on the roster for Anderson and Gordon"


        didn't Bird say that about Danny and the #10 pick in 2010 for the #3 pick. He was right on the money in that evaluation.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          I would too...

          but Dell Demps would probably Pricthard off the phone(they love Ryno and for good reason IMO)

          he might even say like Larry Legend once said "They don't have enough talent on the roster for Anderson and Gordon"


          didn't Bird say that about Danny and the #10 pick in 2010 for the #3 pick. He was right on the money in that evaluation.
          I can't remember the specifics of the rumors but there was all kinds of stuff floating about Jersey wanting Danny and yeah that's when Bird said that.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

            Man if we trade West I hope we really get something great in return. He's my favorite Pacer right now and the focal point of our offense. Would suck to lose him to a not so good package. I'd love to re sign him. Re tool the bench at the deadline and in offseason and Paul continues to grow. Grab some veteran bench players and I think we have a shot at the title if Danny plays close to what he was. Even if he averages 16 or 17 I'd say we have a good shot.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              let him walk


              please there are plenty of teams who have exprings or a TPE tack on a 1st rd pick with them and get value instead of letting him walk. We are a small market team and small market teams cant let valuable chips like West walk for nothing.

              Hell the Blazer got Damian Lillard for Gerald Wallace at last years deadline. If the Blazers would of just let Wallace walk and lose out on the pick wouldn't you be livid? D-West should have great value at the deadline don't know if we can get a lottery pick but we can get a good return.


              trade him or sign him long term but letting him walk should not be an option for the Pacers.


              No way they trade Dre for DJ and Hans that would be beyond awful for the Nuggets



              If I am the Magic GM I am salivating can get top value for J.J and they also have other decent trade chips. I would have a fire sale to help the rebuild.
              Did you even read what I said. What do you think the word value means? What do you think me saying I would rather have the cap space means? As for your example, the Blazers traded Wallace for VALUE. The last thing you want to do is make a trade just to get some perceived value for the player, when that value isn't greater than what having the cap space may be. Stop acting like we can't sign anyone good with cap space, it is beyond idiotic. We just freaking signed West last December, and we beat out the CELTICS for him. If that doesn't show that we CAN sign good players, then I don't know what will. It isn't that good free agents won't sign with a small market, it is good free agents won't sign with a bad small market team. If you are a good team, you have just as much chance as a big market. The only thing that is laughable is making a trade just to make a trade because you want to get value in return, ignoring the fact that as long as you spend the money you saved by not re-signing him you ARE getting value in return. It is false logic to think the only way you get value is by trading the player.


              If you are just looking at skill yeah it would be terrible for the Nuggets, but if they are looking for cap space they most likely would be willing to take worse players to get that cap space. It really just depends on how desperate they are for cap space, and if they get better offers or not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                But if the Pacers continue to hover around the 0.500 mark come trade deadline, they should DEFINITELY move West.

                I think the last time the Pacers actually sold high on someone was DD. That got Jermaine O'neal. That worked out quite well in the beginning (no one could know he was going to have knee issues). It would be nice to sell high for once instead of waiting till a player has no value (ie. Tinsley and just about every player since).
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                  But if the Pacers continue to hover around the 0.500 mark come trade deadline, they should DEFINITELY move West.

                  I think the last time the Pacers actually sold high on someone was DD. That got Jermaine O'neal. That worked out quite well in the beginning (no one could know he was going to have knee issues). It would be nice to sell high for once instead of waiting till a player has no value (ie. Tinsley and just about every player since).
                  This. West isn't coming back anyway. His value isn't going down and neither is his age. Hell, neither is his price. We need to flip him and maybe a pick for a bench. We can move Danny to 4 and keep Lance in with PG at 3 in a crunch if need be.


                  Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
                  Senior at the University of Louisville.
                  Greenfield ---> The Ville

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                    Why trade West? You resign him because right now the team is in "win-now" mode with all the key pieces in place and hitting their primes. You are trying to win over the next 3-4 years with Hill-Paul-Danny-West-Roy, period. They can maintain a decent 3 deep regular minutes bench with the remaining money and stay cheap (ie, Sam Young deals, rookies) for the rest of the bench.

                    You don't need cap space anymore. You got the guys you needed to get with the cap space (Hill, West). Those are the two guys doing the most to help the team win and coming through with the most clutch play. If you move them you might as well punt the entire ship because you are going to be an overpaid, underwinning team with zero trade assets. You won't even be in a good rebuild position.




                    DJ + Hans for Miller would seem to make some sense for Denver if they really do have concerns for cap space. They might get a better deal but I don't think that's certain. They are at 47m with just Iggy, Lawson, Gallinari and McGee. W Chandler and Koufos takes that to 57m, so that's their team and that's without Brewer being resigned. They can't really afford to keep Miller (or one of those other guys instead).


                    And even if that doesn't pan out, the level of expiring money with DJ and Hans is enough to tempt a lot of teams that want to start thinking about savings. OTOH the Pacers need to apply some of that savings to their own cap so it might be smarter to trade down a bit in salary rather than trying for a 1 to 1 dollar swap, and Miller's $5m fits that view well. For the Pacers this deal makes a ton of sense, and for the Nuggets they can't really take back an actual player for Miller. They need to be in the market for a draft pick, and a pick at 18-22 might not be so bad if Miller is the difference maker the team needs.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                      Originally posted by Steagles View Post
                      This. West isn't coming back anyway. His value isn't going down and neither is his age. Hell, neither is his price. We need to flip him and maybe a pick for a bench. We can move Danny to 4 and keep Lance in with PG at 3 in a crunch if need be.


                      Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
                      I think Danny at the 4 could work, but short term. Which is all you would need to get through the remainder of the season.
                      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                        Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                        But if the Pacers continue to hover around the 0.500 mark come trade deadline, they should DEFINITELY move West.

                        I think the last time the Pacers actually sold high on someone was DD. That got Jermaine O'neal. That worked out quite well in the beginning (no one could know he was going to have knee issues). It would be nice to sell high for once instead of waiting till a player has no value (ie. Tinsley and just about every player since).
                        But you know what they didn't do? They didn't trade Dale in 1999. They did make that AWESOME trade to move Antonio while he "still had value" (ie, headed to a future AS game) for the great Bender pick, and losing Tony might have been the difference between winning and losing the 2000 Finals.

                        Dale was finally moved when the team was already losing - Rik, Jax and Mullin. And Dale had postured about money and got himself in a bit of bind with his agent that forced things along a bit more than he might have wanted. Had Rik stayed then they would have spent a bit more to keep Jax, not traded Dale and would have taken another shot at it. And they were old.

                        You don't bail on value right when your in-prime team is starting it's 4-5 year run. That would be akin to trading Dale or Reggie in 1996 or 97. And at the time many posters here at PD would have backed that view given the disappointment of not repeating the ECF runs. In fact they DID TRADE VALUE in 1997 to get a young player coming up - Jax for Rose. This was a big part of why they failed in 1997, and they recognized that when they traded to bring Jax back.



                        So let's slow the roll on the whole "obviously you trade while a guy has value, it's the smart move". It hasn't been, not when the core is all young and in place. You don't panic in a weird year or a weird 2-3 months. You must have vision for the situation that's only just been assembled in the last year.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          But you know what they didn't do? They didn't trade Dale in 1999. They did make that AWESOME trade to move Antonio while he "still had value" (ie, headed to a future AS game) for the great Bender pick, and losing Tony might have been the difference between winning and losing the 2000 Finals.

                          Dale was finally moved when the team was already losing - Rik, Jax and Mullin. And Dale had postured about money and got himself in a bit of bind with his agent that forced things along a bit more than he might have wanted. Had Rik stayed then they would have spent a bit more to keep Jax, not traded Dale and would have taken another shot at it. And they were old.

                          You don't bail on value right when your in-prime team is starting it's 4-5 year run. That would be akin to trading Dale or Reggie in 1996 or 97. And at the time many posters here at PD would have backed that view given the disappointment of not repeating the ECF runs. In fact they DID TRADE VALUE in 1997 to get a young player coming up - Jax for Rose. This was a big part of why they failed in 1997, and they recognized that when they traded to bring Jax back.



                          So let's slow the roll on the whole "obviously you trade while a guy has value, it's the smart move". It hasn't been, not when the core is all young and in place. You don't panic in a weird year or a weird 2-3 months. You must have vision for the situation that's only just been assembled in the last year.
                          I know this is a trade topic, hence why people are talking about trades.

                          But I'll never understand the fascination with trading David, for a couple of reasons:

                          1. Just because he has value to other teams, doesn't mean we'll get anything of value in return.
                          2. Obviously, people forget what this team looked like before he got here. David has been responsible for a massive growth among these players, and has drawn toughness and professionalism out of them. Think about Lance/Paul, hell, even Danny was clearly invigorated with having West around.

                          All in all, I think it's a stretch to say, "No way David comes back." or "He has no interest in re-signing." Based on what? At this point he's a leader on a team with top 3 seed aspirations and a Championship run in mind. If Danny's back, how many games does he swing? 4? 5? This team could be right up at the top of the league, and he knows that.

                          My guess is the Pacers only moves before the deadline will be to offer cap relief. I wouldn't be stunned to see them try to package Tyler/DJ for a pick or some bench scoring (Is Morrow available/inexpensive?), but I would be surprised to see any major move involving Paul/David/Roy/Danny/George.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                            I'm with Naptown_Seth and Dere2K3 on this one. I have to wonder what makes some of you think that West would not return to the Pacers, and why some people are so eager to rid the team of its best contributor. Just makes no sense to me.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                              I'm with Naptown_Seth and Dere2K3 on this one. I have to wonder what makes some of you think that West would not return to the Pacers, and why some people are so eager to rid the team of its best contributor. Just makes no sense to me.
                              He probably won't return cause he'll want too much. Simple as that. And probably want too many years.

                              Of course he might not, but the way he's playing this year, I'm sure he'll want more than $10M/season. If that is the case, I'd rather just go after Josh Smith.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                                He probably won't return cause he'll want too much. Simple as that. And probably want too many years.

                                Of course he might not, but the way he's playing this year, I'm sure he'll want more than $10M/season. If that is the case, I'd rather just go after Josh Smith.
                                That's a pipe-dream. I really don't think J-Smoove would want to play here. I could see the pacers making a run at Paul Milsap however. He's used to playing in a smaller market, and I think he would welcome the opportunity to go somewhere and not have to look over his shoulder at a young player coming for his spot from the bench.

                                And I don't think ppl WANT West to leave at all, but with us not knowing what we're going to have when Danny returns, many want to improve other parts of the team and feel the most realistic way to do so is to trade the one player that most every team could use in West.
                                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-12-2012, 12:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X