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

Chad Ford Chat

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

  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

    Originally posted by SIR-LANCE-ALOT View Post
    No way we will get any value in return for Granger, he is damaged goods, no team will take a chance on him with that type of injury, if we get oj mayo for granger, that would be a steal if we could fleece the mavs for granger
    A Danny Granger trade doesn't make sense under any circumstances, really.

    Maybe his knee is shot, and so he can't play as anything except a jumpshooter. If that's the case, then nobody would want him.

    Maybe he comes back good as new, and he's the Granger from 2009 again. If that's the case, we'd be insane to trade him.

    It's time to move on and discuss some other ridiculously unlikely thing.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

      Here is why Granger is gone this summer

      A look at the future of our cap

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Salary 3.png
Views:	1
Size:	12.5 KB
ID:	3241124

      The salaries in pink are projected

      Whether we resign DJ or Hans we still need to sign backups and will have other rookie contracts

      If we are keeping West Granger is gone!

      Comment


      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

        Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
        Here is why Granger is gone this summer

        A look at the future of our cap

        [ATTACH]663[/ATTACH]


        The salaries in pink are projected

        Whether we resign DJ or Hans we still need to sign backups and will have other rookie contracts

        If we are keeping West Granger is gone!
        I doubt David gets $11M/year over a three year deal, likely closer to $9M. PG's starting salary on a max deal is $13.7M, not $14.7M. Tyler and Lance's deals are a bit high and will also be escalating, so you can knock $1-2M off your estimates for the early years. That alone is about $5M in savings. If we can also find a way to dump Gerald Green prior to next summer, you likely have a enough to keep Danny at $8-9M. Green serves no purpose once Danny returns and we run a wing trio of DG, PG, Lance. $3.5M for a 4th wing is too much - some team can use Green as a rotational wing where he can earn his pay and we can grab a guy like Sam Young for cheap. Also keep in mind, that we have two first rounders prior to PG & Lance getting deals, so if one of them can take the backup PF or PG spot at a $1M/year rookie deal, then that will save some money too. It will be tough, but it's possible. West and Danny are going to have to accept $8-9M/year though.

        Comment


        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

          Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
          Here is why Granger is gone this summer

          A look at the future of our cap

          [ATTACH]663[/ATTACH]

          The salaries in pink are projected

          Whether we resign DJ or Hans we still need to sign backups and will have other rookie contracts

          If we are keeping West Granger is gone!
          DJ won't want only 3.5M and 5 years IMO...

          Tyler and Lance is overpaid...

          Comment


          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

            Originally posted by pezhan View Post
            DJ won't want only 3.5M and 5 years IMO...

            Tyler and Lance is overpaid...
            If we pay D.J. 3.5 or more with a 5 year deal I will


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

            Comment


            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

              I don't think DJ will be back....Also, if Plumlee is as athletic as they claim, he could very possibly replace Ian at the backup 5, which would save us an additional 4M a year...Dropping both Green and Ian would net us 7.5M a year....Once Danny is back we have no need for Green, Ian would be a bit harder to replace, but I can only assume that is why Plumlee was drafted ahead of his stock....From what I hear, he is putting up decent numbers for the MadAnts, so that could be a real possibility....So without DJ, Green, and Ian, you are looking at 10.5M spending cash....

              Looking at your projections, I would say that West is a bit high...I say he gets 4/36M. Lance is on a tear right now, but how long will it hold up....There is no way in hell that he is worth 6M/yr right now....So far he has 1/2 a season that looks promising, and 2 years of bench fodder....He has more to prove, but I see him at 5/20M max....Just those two adjustments nets another 4M/yr

              Just those adjustments alone allow for 14.5M more to spend....
              Last edited by ejwallace; 01-09-2013, 11:41 PM.
              http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

              Comment


              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                Ian has put up a few good games lately, 75% of his games as a Pacer have still been terrible and he's not worth a 4 yr. 16 mil contract. How some of you guys can be in love with his 5 points, 3.9 boards and .89 blocks is beyond me. Tyler is putting up better overall numbers in the same amount of time and everyone hates him. I don't hate Ian, I just think he's overpaid and we should have done better with all our cap space. If Plumlee would end up as a serviceable center and could move Ian and Green together, thus cleaning the slate from the summer of 2012, I'd be happy. In all likelihood we'll be keeping Ian and with the opportunities he's had to develop, he'll be putting up the same numbers in 4 years. I can live with it but don't tell me he's starting center material.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                  This was only meant to be an estimate as there are a lot of moving parts

                  West is having a borderline all star year...not taking a pay cut since this is his last
                  deal and he took less this time because of his knee injury

                  Granger is not going to take a 40% pay cut

                  George's contract will begin in 2014...if you bump the $13.7 million (2012 max) by 4% per year it is $14.7 million

                  2014 Starters

                  Roy $15m

                  West $11m

                  Granger $11m

                  George $15m

                  Hill $8m

                  =$60m

                  + 10 minimum salary players = $70m

                  no Lance, Green, Hans, Ian, DJ

                  ain't going to happen

                  Like I said if West stays Granger is gone!!!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                    You guys are way over-forecasting for bench players. We never needed Dhantay Jones for the money we wasted on him. We don't need Gerald Greene for the money we're wasting on him.

                    If somebody wants to pay Lance a five-year contract at $20 million, they can have him. All of the money we want to spend at the wings should be tied up primarily in Danny and Paul, with the third and fourth wings on a rookie contract scale.

                    You'd think Donnie Walsh, and his love of overpaying for bench depth but not paying enough for starter quality, was writing the posts above.

                    We need to invest heavily in our starters, and if that means that we sacrifice depth to keep George-Paul-Danny-David-Roy together with a few competent backups that play a limited role (PGTBD, Lance if reasonable, in the 2-3 year, $5-8M range, Tyler for the same, and Plumlee/Ian) then so be it.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                      No matter how good he's been lately, Paul George won't be getting a max contract until he shows he's better than a healthy Danny Granger when both are healthy. He'll get a nice salary bump, up to something between what Hill and West are making.

                      Until he takes over their roles in the 4Q, there's no way he's getting close to a max deal.

                      He's playing well, I'm not complaining. And mostly, he's keeping things interesting until David and George need to make clutch plays.

                      If that gets him a max, then our salary situation is #$%^ed for a decade.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Wow Peck you are killing me, here is a break down of the teams you are mentioning(note that I expect Ian fans to break down every single stat to make him look like Hakeem)
                        I just love how you shift your 'arguments'. Before, you go on and on about how badly the Pacers overpaid Mahinmi, even though his contract takes up 5% of the Pacers cap. 5%, for a legit backup 5, who could start for a few teams and certainly play meaningful minutes for most.

                        Now that he's playing well, you feel the need to throw a connection to Hakeem out there. You won't credit him for his good play, only remind us all that's he's no Hakeem.

                        Lol, it must be tough for you to watch this Pacers team play so well, 3rd in the east, 8th overall, all while their leading scorer is out and their 'scrub' bench players are starting to round into form.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                          Barnes, Jefferson and Ezeli for Granger and Plumlee works. Ezeli is who we should've drafted. I'm doing this trade is possible.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Wow Peck you are killing me, here is a break down of the teams you are mentioning(note that I expect Ian fans to break down every single stat to make him look like Hakeem):

                            So you have Miami, Miami plays Bosh at center, Bosh is way better than Ian and Haslem even at this point is still better than Ian and yes I know the Pacers won yesterday.

                            There is no possible way on earth you can say with a straight face that the 6'8" (at best) Haslem is better than the 6'11" Mahinmi. Now if Ian were an immobile stiff like say Stuart Granger then yes, but that is the whole point he is very athletic for his size. No he's not better than Bosh, they would move Bosh back to his natural 4 spot. That is unless you don't think LeBron can play the 3, which I'm sorry but he can.

                            Philly? Hawes is better than Ian.

                            Debatable but Hawes hasn't been starting anyway. They are bringing him off of the bench and have been starting Lavoy Allen at Center. Sorry but Ian is better than Allen for sure & IMO he's better than Hawes as well.
                            Cleveland? are you forgetting about Varejao? Zeller?

                            Nope I'm not forgetting about sideshow Bob. He is better, I won't argue. When he is healthy that is, so far this season he hasn't been. But even then he really would be a more natural 4 which is what he played for years & as far as Zeller goes

                            Washington? how about Nene, Okafor or Seraphin? not sure if you are serious here.

                            Dead serious. Okafor evertime I have seen him looks like the ghost of Okafor to me however even if healthy both he and Nene are really just 4's playing out of position. Nene on the other hand I just can't take serious because he is always hurt. Seraphin on the other hand is a legit option. Ok, I'll say that Ian probably would start due to experiance but I bet would eventually lose the job to Seraphin who ultimately will be the better player.
                            Boston? maybe if they move KG to power forward but why would they do that?

                            Charlotte? Bismack Biyombo, Mullens or Haywood?

                            Biyombo is a little raw and like some from above is really a little undersized to be a starting caliber center. Perfect power forward mind you but I'd take Ian for now, couple of years I don't know we'll see how he develops. Haywood will qualify for Medicare next season and as for Mullens

                            Portland? Hickson or Meyers Leonard?

                            I like Hickson but on defense he is pretty brutal to watch at times. Not 100% sure on that one, I'll go ahead and say you are probably right there. As to Meyers Leonard?

                            Dallas? Kaman is still way better.

                            Meh, not sure I agree with that anymore but for agurments sake I'll say knowing Carlisle you are probably right.
                            San Antonio? Tiago Spliter is way better than Ian.

                            Phoenix? more minutes than a healthy JO? maybe.

                            Agree

                            Memphis? playing time over Darrell Arthur and Speights? maybe.

                            I'll bump that up to a probably because I think Arthur in particular is a 4 & well Speights has games where he looks good and then he has every other game.

                            Chicago? sure if they don't play Gibson at center.

                            Which is what they did prior to Asik leaving so IMO Ian would just take his spot & Gibson goes back to being the best backup 4 in the NBA.

                            New York? is he going to get playing time over Camby, Rasheed, Kurt Thomas and Amare at center? I don't think so.

                            Well Sheed is now out with injury, Kurt Thomas is my age and Camby isn't what he used to be. Are the plans to use Amare at the 5? I'll agree with you here that he would not get the min. I originally thought he would.

                            Milwaukee? over Dalembert and Joel Przybilla? I don't think so but you never know with Milwaukee.
                            Yea I think Ian is better than both of them myself but it's not like he is consistant every game either so who knows.


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

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Yea I think Ian is better than both of them myself but it's not like he is consistant every game either so who knows.
                              I guess we are going to agree to disagree, thanks for taking the time to explain your point though
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                I guess we are going to agree to disagree, thanks for taking the time to explain your point though
                                Hey I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong. When we made the trade I didn't like it (still don't for other reasons but that has a lot more to do with how the front office handled it and nothing to do with Ian) but in the first pre-season game I could see he was much larger than I thought. I think he is a good backup 5. Not good enough to replace Roy but certainly good enough to replace Roy when he goes to the bench.

                                Now on the other hand we are still in the same thoughts when it comes to Augustine & Green. I'm not fooled by D.J. haveing 3 decent games. If he plays this level the rest of the way maybe but my gut feeling is he won't be able to do it.

                                As to Green I've been trying to figure out a way out of that contract since about pre-season game 3.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X