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

Van Horn traded?

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

  • #16
    Re: Van Horn traded?

    Mohammad makes 5 mill a year too for as long as Thomas though so they take on a bit more salary here even if Thomas makes a tad less than Van Horn.
    They dropped Doleac, too.
    Ah, but Nazr does make more I see. Hmm. Wonder how that worked under the CBA then.

    Nazr's is like 5mil a year, and Doleac's is 1.5mil. Hmm.
    Yeah this trade can't work that way I would think. The Knicks are taking a lot more salary back than they give up, and they're over the cap so I would think the deal can't be done. I need an explanation on that though if it can be done. I know Atlanta doesn't have to take back equal salary, but I believe the Knicks have to. Hmm.. this should get interesting.
    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

    ----------------- Reggie Miller

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Van Horn traded?

      People are looking to much at Thomas & Van Horn on this, well I guess they are the princaples but still. The addition of Nazr Mohammed is, to me the main thing Isiah did here.

      Nazr hasn't yet proved he is capable of being a night in & night out starter but he has already proven to be one of the best backup centers in the N.B.A.

      This now allows Motumbo to play less min. during the regular season & now will not force Kurt Thomas to play center min. so much.

      Tim Thomas is a decent player. IMO, trading him & Van Horn is kind of a wash. BTW, didn't these two already get traded for each other once when Thomas was just a draft pick?

      My first reaction to this was to think the N.B.A. should step in & stop the move & not allow Atlanta to make anymore moves because they are destoying their franchise for the HOPE of salary cap. space (like anybody is going to sign there) but upon further review I actually don't think they came away from this as bad as I first thought.

      Niether Doleac nor Pryzbilla are as good as Nazr on their own. However this now gives Atlanta a starter & a backup center instead of just one center who really was a good backup.

      Still not a good trade, but not the salary cap. dump I first thought it was.


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

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Van Horn traded?

        Trade works on realgm trade checker ID# 1508064

        Using Hoopshype's numbers, the Knicks trade 14.8 million in salary and get back 16.8 million. That's within the 115 percent required range. They could have taken back a little over 17 million.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Van Horn traded?

          What's with New York?

          Can't their pro teams raise their players and draft well?

          They always gotta go get someone else's players.

          Although, I think neither the Yankees nor the Knicks have improved because of their trades today.
          They do it because they can. Their LOCAL broadcast/advertising revenue dwarfs everyone else in sports. If they have to play a luxury tax then they just pay it.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Van Horn traded?

            Bad trade IMO.

            Doleac for Mohammed's roughly a lateral deal IMO. Mohammed's a better defender while Doleac's better on offense - the problem is Mohammed's making 3X the money - and Doleac works EXTREMELY WELL with Marbury on the pick-and-roll.

            But that's not the real problem here. The real problem is the KVH-for-Thomas part of the equation. Thomas is one of the great NBA underachievers. Now maybe Zeke and Lenny can turn him into the player he was supposed to be in which case I'll change my tune. Guess what - he's in his 7th year in the league. He's established what he is - particularly last year when he was handed the team after Robinson was traded.

            So what'd we gain from this? We lost scoring. We lost rebounding in a big way. I could live with that if we got someone like James Posey who could defend but Thomas just may be a worse defender than KVH. KVH isn't gonna make anyone forget Shaq but at least he has some post moves. TT doesn't.

            Bad deal IMO though I guess the miracle could happen and TT turns into the 2nd coming of KG like he was supposed to be.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Van Horn traded?

              on realgm, buck fans are happy about the trade. their take is that kvh is a little better in most departments and is much better in rebounding (and equally bad defensively). timmy may be athletic but he has never done much with it.

              i guess milwaukee has just finally given up on tim thomas and his potential.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Van Horn traded?

                What's with New York?

                Although, I think neither the Yankees nor the Knicks have improved because of their trades today.
                The Yankees went from no third baseman to having the best player in baseball there now. The hole at second should not be a problem, not with the improvement on the other side.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Van Horn traded?

                  Kukoc and Van Horn are not that similar

                  Kukoc is a great passer in fact that is his very best skill.

                  Van Horn is not a good passer at all.

                  Kukoc is no more like Van Horn than Croshere is and yet they get compared also.

                  The Knicks are trying to get more athletic
                  OK, at the risk of being called "politically incorrect" (not that I mind being called that), I'm going to bring up a pattern that I'm sure I'm not the first to observe.

                  I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".

                  Look at what he did to Croshere.

                  Look at his 20-year "cold" relationship with Larry Bird.

                  You KNOW it kills him to watch Carlisle's success.

                  Last month he traded away Lampe in the Marbury deal. (insignificant in itself).

                  Now he dumps 2 white players for 2 "more athletic" players.

                  He has now gotten rid of all three of the Knicks "less athletic" players in his first month.

                  (They may or may NOT be more athletic, but being more athletic isn't a guarantee of winning basketball. Who'd you rather have? Freddie Jones or Jerry West? Jones is a lot more athletic than Jerry West...).

                  I recall IT's incident last year about this time when he was stopped on the freeway (can't remember what the complaint was), but he insinuated that he had been the victim of some kind of racism.

                  Yes, I know that you're not supposed to say these kinds of things, but I believe it's true.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Van Horn traded?

                    I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people.
                    Yep, and he never started Zan Tabak, Jeff Foster, and Brad Miller, either. Or hired Ron Rothstein, Brendan Malone (twice), or Jim Stack (twice.)
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Van Horn traded?

                      I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".

                      Look at what he did to Croshere.
                      Sorry, I missed it. What did Thomas do to Croshere? If there's anything this year has shown, it's that Croshere should have played LESS than he did under Thomas.

                      If we had Brad instead of Pollard, Croshere would be averaging a DNP-CD. That's less than Thomas gave him.

                      This stuff is pure and utter crap, Roy. The world needs less of this.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Van Horn traded?


                        This stuff is pure and utter crap, Roy. The world needs less of this.
                        Well, I disagree. Whether it's white against black, or back against white, I think it is harmful to pretend racism doesn't exist.

                        Thomas appears to be washing his roster of all white players. Is it wrong to notice?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Van Horn traded?

                          Sorry, I missed it. What did Thomas do to Croshere? If there's anything this year has shown, it's that Croshere should have played LESS than he did under Thomas.
                          Yeah, it's hard to argue with how Zeke used AC - and I was far from an Isiah Thomas coaching fan.

                          Croshere started the 2000-01 season off as a starter. Zeke stuck with him for about 20 games. IIRC, at the end of those 20 games he was shooting about 36%, was a sieve on defense and had more TO's than assists.

                          That was enough of a shot for him IMO, particularly when Jalen came back (who should have been playing at SF NOT PG). And after that he didn't exactly bury him - he was still in the rotation and still had chances. But Isiah didn't have a lot of confidence in him - after his start, how could he?
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Van Horn traded?

                            I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".

                            Look at what he did to Croshere.
                            Sorry, I missed it. What did Thomas do to Croshere? If there's anything this year has shown, it's that Croshere should have played LESS than he did under Thomas.

                            If we had Brad instead of Pollard, Croshere would be averaging a DNP-CD. That's less than Thomas gave him.

                            This stuff is pure and utter crap, Roy. The world needs less of this.
                            Looks like I need to bump my Rectification thread...
                            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Van Horn traded?

                              I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".
                              or maybe, it just goes to show that black people tend to be better at bball than white people, a statement few people would argue with, i think.

                              or do you really think it's necessary to have a token white guy on nba teams?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Van Horn traded?


                                Well, I disagree. Whether it's white against black, or back against white, I think it is harmful to pretend racism doesn't exist.
                                It's very harmful, and there is no denying it from me. However I think it is more harmful to try make something into a race issue when it's not...
                                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X