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

Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

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

  • Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

    Rumors of Lakers talking to Nuggets got me to thinking what if Marcus Camby is not targeted for Lakers but for here?

    Lets say Lakers will not give up both Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum for JO. But instead trade Kwame Brown, Sasha Vujacic or Jordin Farmar and a 2nd rounder for Camby as was rumored.

    They then send Camby, Bynum , Cook , M.Evans and pick #19 to the Pacers for Jermaine.

    Pacers get Camby to play the shot blocker inside while allowing Bynum to develop.

    Diogu, Murphy, Foster, Baston and Harrison fill other bigman minutes.

    Camby's contract 8 mil has 3 years left and he's already 33 but very tradable if Bynum develops quickly.

    Pick #19 can be used on best player available. Maurice Evans is a hard nose defender who averaged 8 ppg in limited minutes in LA and is on last year of a cheap under 2 mil contract. Brian Cook hopefully could be moved entering 1st year of 3 year contract @ 3.5 mil per.

    Lakers get their man in O'Neal and keep Odom.

    Nuggets get their cap space after next season with Kwame , a back up guard Farmar or Vujacic and a 2nd rounder.

    Just a thought.

  • #2
    Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

    Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
    Rumors of Lakers talking to Nuggets got me to thinking what if Marcus Camby is not targeted for Lakers but for here?

    Lets say Lakers will not give up both Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum for JO. But instead trade Kwame Brown, Sasha Vujacic or Jordin Farmar and a 2nd rounder for Camby as was rumored.

    They then send Camby, Bynum , Cook , M.Evans and pick #19 to the Pacers for Jermaine.

    Pacers get Camby to play the shot blocker inside while allowing Bynum to develop.

    Diogu, Murphy, Foster, Baston and Harrison fill other bigman minutes.

    Camby's contract 8 mil has 3 years left and he's already 33 but very tradable if Bynum develops quickly.

    Pick #19 can be used on best player available. Maurice Evans is a hard nose defender who averaged 8 ppg in limited minutes in LA and is on last year of a cheap under 2 mil contract. Brian Cook hopefully could be moved entering 1st year of 3 year contract @ 3.5 mil per.

    Lakers get their man in O'Neal and keep Odom.

    Nuggets get their cap space after next season with Kwame , a back up guard Farmar or Vujacic and a 2nd rounder.

    Just a thought.
    I like the way you think.


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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

      Why would the Lakers send Camby when they could keep him and still get JO? Imagine a defensive frontline including Camby and JO!...with Kobe in the back court!

      Yes, they would lose most of their other assets. They would keep Smush as PG and Walton as SF and would completely lack depth, but their starting 5 would be considerably better than it currently is. It would definitely be a contender IMO.

      The Lakers are not shooting for the playoffs, they are shooting for a championship and NOW. Defense wins championships and adding Camby and JO would go a long way toward that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Why would the Lakers send Camby when they could keep him and still get JO?
        Because we don't give them JO if they don't agree to.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

          By sending Camby on to Pacers allows them to keep Lamar Odom as a 3rd option and he is a very good passer in the triangle.

          As for Smush Parker the Lakers are cutting all ties to him, Jackson doesn't want him back and he's a free agent. Luke Walton is also a free agent.

          Doubt its a reality but Camby coming here to anchor defense while Bynum develops seems like a good idea. Plus his contract is very tradable if Bynum became a monster quickly and very affordable here if Bynum is not ready or not the monster some envision.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

            And Walsh would have his dream realized of having a Marcus Camby on the Pacers...

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

              Maybe I am wrong, but would they be able to package Camby like that in a trade, so soon after a trade aquiring him? I thought that he have to be the ONLY player involved if he is aquired via trade. I know there is a time limit.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                By sending Camby on to Pacers allows them to keep Lamar Odom as a 3rd option and he is a very good passer in the triangle.

                As for Smush Parker the Lakers are cutting all ties to him, Jackson doesn't want him back and he's a free agent. Luke Walton is also a free agent.

                Doubt its a reality but Camby coming here to anchor defense while Bynum develops seems like a good idea. Plus his contract is very tradable if Bynum became a monster quickly and very affordable here if Bynum is not ready or not the monster some envision.
                I'm trying to figure out the logistics here......

                Kwame+19+Filler for Camby

                then

                Camby+Bynum for JONeal?

                Geez...I really have a problem here trying to figure out how the Lakers can get away with not involving Odom in any deal that they make. Is JONeal and Camby has such low trade value that the Lakers can make trade for all of them?

                This pretty much boils down to a Kwame+19+Bynum+filler for JONeal.....is that a fair deal...I think not?

                I still don't think that the Nuggets would take that deal for Camby....
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                  Or why not just make it a 3-way trade. Denver desperately wants to dump some salary, so taking on Kwame for Camby seems a real possibility. Don't know if Denver would wan't anything from the Pacers, but I could see them easily being the 3rd team in a 3-way trade.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                    Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                    Maybe I am wrong, but would they be able to package Camby like that in a trade, so soon after a trade aquiring him? I thought that he have to be the ONLY player involved if he is aquired via trade. I know there is a time limit.
                    essentially its a 3way trade

                    DENVER RECEIVES
                    brown
                    farmar
                    2nd rd. pick

                    INDIANA RECEIVES
                    camby
                    evans
                    cook
                    bynum
                    #19

                    LA RECEIVES
                    o'neal

                    but i'd tell them to keep camby we'll hang on to JO. that deal isn't remotely worth it.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                      Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                      essentially its a 3way trade

                      DENVER RECEIVES
                      brown
                      farmar
                      2nd rd. pick

                      INDIANA RECEIVES
                      camby
                      evans
                      cook
                      bynum
                      #19

                      LA RECEIVES
                      o'neal

                      but i'd tell them to keep camby we'll hang on to JO. that deal isn't remotely worth it.
                      Cool, my bad. I was thinking it was 2 separate trades. Thanks for "clearing the fog."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                        essentially its a 3way trade

                        DENVER RECEIVES
                        brown
                        farmar
                        2nd rd. pick

                        INDIANA RECEIVES
                        camby
                        evans
                        cook
                        bynum
                        #19

                        LA RECEIVES
                        o'neal

                        but i'd tell them to keep camby we'll hang on to JO. that deal isn't remotely worth it.
                        Yes, JO is currently the best player of this group....but do you honestly think this deal is not even remotely worth it?

                        Camby is one of the best shotblockers, defenders and rebounders in the entire league. He also has toughness which the current crew of soft Pacers lacks. Bynum is a young stud C who will absolutely feast in the Eastern Conf. Bynum's ceiling is way up there and in 3 years he might be the better player. JO might pull a Bender within 5 years. A #19 pick in this deep draft is just gravy considering JO's injury history and the FACT that the Pacers MUST rebuild if it ever wants to be a contender again.

                        At 19 years of age, I see Bynum as another draft pick...but with proven NBA experience...against Shaq no less. He would likely have dominated in college and would be one of the top 3 picks in this particular draft. Do you think we could get a top 3 pick for JO? Maybe. But it's highly unlikely we could get Marcus Camby, the #3 and the #19 picks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Yes, JO is currently the best player of this group....but do you honestly think this deal is not even remotely worth it?

                          Camby is one of the best shotblockers, defenders and rebounders in the entire league. He also has toughness which the current crew of soft Pacers lacks. Bynum is a young stud C who will absolutely feast in the Eastern Conf. Bynum's ceiling is way up there and in 3 years he might be the better player. JO might pull a Bender within 5 years. A #19 pick in this deep draft is just gravy considering JO's injury history and the FACT that the Pacers MUST rebuild if it ever wants to be a contender again.

                          At 19 years of age, I see Bynum as another draft pick...but with proven NBA experience...against Shaq no less. He would likely have dominated in college and would be one of the top 3 picks in this particular draft. Do you think we could get a top 3 pick for JO? Maybe. But it's highly unlikely we could get Marcus Camby, the #3 and the #19 picks.
                          i'm all for trading JO, i just want it to be worth it.

                          bynum and the pick, obviously the best elements for us. but we get a tiny exp. in evans (1.5mil) and camby's 3yrs remaining about $24mil total. then to take on cook who is a slightly shorter david harrison (both have decent footwork and offensive promise, but neither can defend and foul like its going out of style). and the original logic was to move cook but why take on another harrison when we haven't been able to move harrison and his cheaper contract?

                          so we load ourselves up at the PF and C position, we're committing ourselves to 8 players at those positions...

                          murphy/diogu/cook/baston
                          camby/bynum/foster/harrison

                          while A) solving none of our problems in the backcourt and B) doesn't give us the same financial relief a straightup bynum, odom, #19 for o'neal would.

                          so no, not worth it to me. i'm not saying camby isn't good, but i'm saying he isn't worth it without ridding ourselves of one of tinsley/murphy/dunleavy.
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            essentially its a 3way trade

                            DENVER RECEIVES
                            brown
                            farmar
                            2nd rd. pick

                            INDIANA RECEIVES
                            camby
                            evans
                            cook
                            bynum
                            #19

                            LA RECEIVES
                            o'neal

                            but i'd tell them to keep camby we'll hang on to JO. that deal isn't remotely worth it.
                            I'd think that trade is OK, but I'd hope to improve our pathetic backcourt more in a JO trade. For this reason I would rather have Farmar than Cook, or maybe get a guard from Denver. Steve Blake would be great, but he played well enough to likely be unavailable.

                            For the obvious health reasons I'm not keen on Camby. He's a china doll, though one could almost say the same for JO.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers/Lakers/Nuggets?

                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                              i'm all for trading JO, i just want it to be worth it.

                              bynum and the pick, obviously the best elements for us. but we get a tiny exp. in evans (1.5mil) and camby's 3yrs remaining about $24mil total. then to take on cook who is a slightly shorter david harrison (both have decent footwork and offensive promise, but neither can defend and foul like its going out of style). and the original logic was to move cook but why take on another harrison when we haven't been able to move harrison and his cheaper contract?

                              so we load ourselves up at the PF and C position, we're committing ourselves to 8 players at those positions...

                              murphy/diogu/cook/baston
                              camby/bynum/foster/harrison

                              while A) solving none of our problems in the backcourt and B) doesn't give us the same financial relief a straightup bynum, odom, #19 for o'neal would.

                              so no, not worth it to me. i'm not saying camby isn't good, but i'm saying he isn't worth it without ridding ourselves of one of tinsley/murphy/dunleavy.
                              Yes, I certainly agree our back court needs the upgrade more than anything else, but I don't see us getting a better deal from an asset standpoint. Yes anything's possible, but I would do this trade tomorrow if offered. At minimum, the pick and Camby give us a couple valuable trading cards that could go a long way toward healing our back court issues. ...so if this deal goes down I would be looking to move Camby or other assets to shore up the back court.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X