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

Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

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

  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    People keep throwing out, "while missing our best player!" Guys, we aren't missing Lebron, CP3, or Rose here. Yea sure, maybe he's our best player, but he's still Danny Granger. We are missing Danny Granger. A one time all star and gold medal team bench warmer. We're missing a guy, that even if he comes back 100% will take an average ~40 win team to maybe a ~50 win team. Sure, 50 wins isn't BAD, but it's worse than our pace last year and it's no contender. I mean, if you're happy with that, god bless your little heart, but we just had a really solid season, and had tons of capspace and a draft pick to improve with, and a 50 win product isn't a step up, it is, in fact, a step back. That should **** you off, to have a good team set up for a monster off season, to end up, at best, a step back from where you started. That's nothing to be excited about because all those assets we had to improve with are now gone.
    We are missing our captain. We are missing the guy who the offense has revolved around for how many seasons now. We are missing our best player. Also hilarious how gold medal team bench warmer is an insult. "Hey, this guy wasn't good enough to play ahead of 3 of the other best basketball players in the world!"

    Just because he isn't LeBron or CP3 doesn't mean missing him isn't drastically going to affect this team. Especially at the start of the season. The team is really just now figuring out how to play without him. Look at all the close games we have lost. I'd say we win the majority of those with Danny Granger. When Danny is in the line up, any of our starters can legit go for 20+ any given night. How many teams can say that?

    Also not really sure how a 50 win season is a step back? Doesn't our season really depend on what happens in the playoffs? I'm sorry but i just dont see how this team has taken any steps back quite honestly. We had a slow start, but have picked it up. I'd say Hibbert has taken few steps back offensively. Bench is still a problem. But PG is better. West is better. Hill is better.

    We are 13-11. There are still 58 games left in the season. Thats a lot of basketball. Far too early to act like the sky is falling.

    Comment


    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

      I think you're too young to even go with the proven to not work comment... I mean, I know I'm only 6 years older, but it's been near a decade since we've been truly good... if a decade of mediocre isn't proof, I dunno what is. I think you just don't remember what an actually good team looks like.

      Comment


      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        Nothing we could have done better? You truly believe we had the most optimal off season possible? That's too ridiculous to even take serious, but here's a short handful of things we could have done better:

        1) Signed Asik on a great deal... Houston got him for 3 years 25, I would have given 3 years 30 and let Hibbert walk
        2) Gotten Scola for pennies on his value. Missing out on amnesty players was a huge fail
        3) Brand was another nice amnesty option
        4) Let George Hill go find an offer sheet. Other teams could only offer him 4 years, so I would have gotten him for likely less money without blowing my only 5 year contract.
        5) Traded for James Harden... since I saved my 5 year contract I can now use it on an actual star player.
        6) Not given Collison away for nothing... so now instead of an undrafted player or DJAugustine who's playing his way out of the league I have a decent backup
        7) Not given out a journeyman big man a 4 year contract... Brand and Scola are better and cheaper anyway.
        Do you realize the rest of the league won't just let the Pacers do what they want? This isn't 2k...you cannot just force other teams to make trades and players to sign with you.
        DG for 3

        Comment


        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          I think you're too young to even go with the proven to not work comment... I mean, I know I'm only 6 years older, but it's been near a decade since we've been truly good... if a decade of mediocre isn't proof, I dunno what is. I think you just don't remember what an actually good team looks like.
          Nothing strengthens your argument like telling the other guy he's to young to get it.
          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

          Comment


          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

            1) If you offer Asik more money he takes it. There's no reason he signs with Houston for less.
            2) Amnesty players have no choice but to go for the team that offers most for their contract. The Suns won the auction, but we had more cap space available if we don't sign Hibbert, so we could have outbid. We'd have him under contract for 3 years, he does not get a say in this.
            3) See above.
            4) George Hill was a RFA... meaning we could match any offer, he has no choice, he's ours.

            Hm, ok, so far every move I've made happens whether the rest of the league likes it or not... let's continue.

            5) This one isn't for sure, definitely the *Thunder could have preferred Houston's package, but its certainly not impossible as that's what this whole thread starting talking about.
            6) I have Collison under contract, there's nothing that can force me to give him away.
            7) Nothing in the world forces me to give Ian a contract.

            So, no, we aren't playing NBA2k here, these were all very reasonable moves, and only 1 of them is in question, that being the Harden trade. Fortunately the other 6 moves look really good wthout that trade, we still have Paul George, who's a real good player.
            Last edited by Dece; 12-17-2012, 08:54 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Well maybe if you stopped watching the Griz you'd get around to watching the #1 rebounding team in the NBA instead, ie the Pacers. All this talk about how Paul isn't so hot, how Roy isn't so hot, yet they are destroying FG% left and right and yanking down rebounds with the best of them.

              The Pacers defensive FG% is .017 ahead of 2nd place. .017 is the same gap from 2nd to freaking 14th, that's how dominate their lead in that stat is. Memphis is 2nd in Off Reb% while Indy is only 10th, but Indy is 2nd in Def Reb% with Memphis all the way down at 22nd. Indiana has the most rebounds of any team in the NBA right now.

              So how is it that Gasol has to "share" rebounds with his dominate teammates but Hibbert doesn't have to share rebounds for the #1 rebounding team? Oh, right, West and Paul just stand around and watch while Roy gets a free shot at everything.
              Good post, Seth, but I can't let this crap slide. Peck doesn't get a pass, and neither do you.



              "Dominate" is a verb. "Dominant" is an adjective. A dominant team is one that dominates.

              Time to step your game up, son.

              Comment


              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                Originally posted by cgg View Post
                Nothing strengthens your argument like telling the other guy he's to young to get it.
                Nothing proves lack of wisdom like believing you don't gain it with age.

                Comment


                • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                  Our team is the best defensive team in the NBA so far by almost every single metric, yet they struggle offensively. The mere fact that Danny Granger is the most explosive scorer on the team has an outsized effect in this particular situation, his specific skillset is absolutely crucial, and partially evidenced by how much better our team looks now that Paul George has been filling it for the last few weeks, compared to how we looked before he broke out.. I have every reason to believe that our team is going to be better than last year once Danny returns, considering George and West are playing at a much higher level and our team defense is amazing, but lacks the scoring punch that Danny can provide.

                  Plus our team is simply adjusting to the lack of Danny and improving as the year goes on. Our schedule the past 10+ games has been significantly higher in SOS than the first half, and yet we've won 9 of our last 13.
                  Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                  Comment


                  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    Originally posted by Dece View Post
                    Nothing proves lack of wisdom like believing you don't gain it with age.
                    Oh gosh, I know tons of people that didn't gain any with age.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      Alright, that's fair, you aren't guaranteed to ever gain any, but you are never wiser at 21 than you are at 31.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        I assume the asking price would've been PG+West. That's tough. In hindsight, I wouldn't do it. We'd just have no way of replacing West for at least 4 years. Obviously, we could pass on Granger in 2 years and sign a PF, but that's lateral.
                        I'd take my chances with the current team and hope George keeps it up.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          Originally posted by Dece View Post
                          1) If you offer Asik more money he takes it. There's no reason he signs with Houston for less.
                          2) Amnesty players have no choice but to go for the team that offers most for their contract. The Suns won the auction, but we had more cap space available if we don't sign Hibbert, so we could have outbid. We'd have him under contract for 3 years, he does not get a say in this.
                          3) See above.
                          4) George Hill was a RFA... meaning we could match any offer, he has no choice, he's ours.

                          Hm, ok, so far every move I've made happens whether the rest of the league likes it or not... let's continue.

                          5) This one isn't for sure, definitely the *Thunder could have preferred Houston's package, but its certainly not impossible as that's what this whole thread starting talking about.
                          6) I have Collison under contract, there's nothing that can force me to give him away.
                          7) Nothing in the world forces me to give Ian a contract.

                          So, no, we aren't playing NBA2k here, these were all very reasonable moves, and only 1 of them is in question, that being the Harden trade. Fortunately the other 6 moves look really good wthout that trade, we still have Paul George, who's a real good player.
                          I like Harden, but IMO Harden & Asik in our starting lineup is not better than PG, Hibbert, the loss of West or Granger (we can't afford them all next year when Harden's max kicks in), and the multiple first rounders you would have to combine with PG to get Harden.

                          I somewhat agree with you on Hill, however, we saw some absolutely ridiculous deals being handed out this summer. What if some team offered him 4 year 40M? Now he's on the books at 10M vs 8M. We just don't know the circumstances of his free agency value to fully pass judegement. Letting the market set your players value can burn you too, look at Hibbert.

                          Agree on bench. We whiffed and I'm willing to admit it. Ian Manhinmi is worth $3-4M, so I'm ok with his salary on an annual basis, however I question the length of the deal or the fact that we gave up an asset in DC when we didn't have to. DJA is terrible and the jury is out on Green (not looking good though). I would have liked to have been active on the amnesty wire. Add in the fact that Hansbrough has regressed and Lance has been forced into the starting lineup and you have a recipe for a terrible bench, which has held true.

                          I disagree with you on the potential of starting lineup. They proved last year how good they could be - they had the best win % in the entire league after Hill entered the lineup and were + 47 against Miami and had the best +/- in the playoffs. Our bench just sucked. And to think, that starting lineup can be better (West and PG improvement has actually happened). It's not just Granger missing, we are missing HIbbert's shooting too, which I believe will come around. Since PG became assertive 7 games ago, the starters have been solid. You add Granger and get Hibbert going, and they can contend as a starting unit. The problem has, and will continue to be, our bench. We desperately need to improve the bench. I'd try and keep Mahinmi and Lance - the rest, inluding Plumlee and picks, are in play. We are going to have to take on $$$ though as the value of most of our bench is of an expiring contract. Shawn Marion, Vince Carter, Devin Harris, & JJ Barea are all players I would look at. All could likely be had and wouldn't jeopordize future cap space to resign West, PG, or DG (should we choose too).
                          Last edited by purdue101; 12-17-2012, 09:25 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            I think you're too young to even go with the proven to not work comment... I mean, I know I'm only 6 years older, but it's been near a decade since we've been truly good... if a decade of mediocre isn't proof, I dunno what is. I think you just don't remember what an actually good team looks like.
                            First off, 26-21 = 5. You are 5 years older than me. Also, I turn 22 in a month, so depending on when your birthday is the difference may be even less.

                            Secondly, I have been a Pacers fan for over 15 years. Which means I watched both the end of the Reggie as our star era and the entirety of the JO era.

                            Thirdly, even if I had missed out on good teams, being a Pacers fan doesn't stop me from watching any of the other 29 teams in the NBA.

                            So please spare me this talk of "wisdom" when there are people alive who are 3 and 4 times your age.
                            Last edited by aamcguy; 12-17-2012, 09:32 PM.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              I was just as foolish at 22 as I was at 21 but really this is all very off topic of the point being made. I shouldn't have mentioned age, I was wrong. Still true that you will grow wiser, regardless of your 15 years of NBA fandom, but irrelevant to this discussion, ad hominem etc.

                              Fact remains you haven't made a very compelling argument.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                                I was just as foolish at 22 as I was at 21 but really this is all very off topic of the point being made. I shouldn't have mentioned age, I was wrong. Still true that you will grow wiser, regardless of your 15 years of NBA fandom, but irrelevant to this discussion, ad hominem etc.

                                Fact remains you haven't made a very compelling argument.
                                I disagree; I think you just don't agree with my argument. And since I like what has been done with the team the past couple of years and you clearly don't, we are not going to agree. But you are asking how people can be happy with our team this year. If you refuse to listen to myself and others who feel the same way about the team, you are going to keep asking.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X