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

    What even is your argument man? All you've said is we couldn't have done better this offseason. That's not an argument as much as a statement, and I've already provided you with 7 moves, each superior to the ones we made, and 6 of them could not have been stopped. To have a compelling argument you first have to MAKE one.

    "We had the best off season possible." Really? Defend that statement.

    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.

      So let's see, I've saved money on center without downgrading significantly, I've acquired at least 1, if not 2 quality backup big men for cheap, I've retained George Hill, I've possibly traded for a true star player and given him my 5 year contract, and I still have a backup point guard. My team crushes this team.

      Why am I a fan if I think our roster is full of poor contracts and players who can't win it all? 5 years from now we'll have a new GM, a new coach, possibly a new owner, and maybe 2 players leftover from this roster. The Pacers are bigger than any of these things, and these things will always change over time.
      Just a few quibbles with some of your points:

      1) 3 years 30 million would have been an illegal contract. The Bulls had to have a chance to a match, so Houston was limited on what it could offer. If the Pacers wanted to increase the average salary per year, they would have had to offer 4 years. Plus, if the Bulls do happen to match, the Pacers have now lost Hibbert and they are already a few days into free agency so many of the top players are already gone. That's a big risk to take.

      4) The Pacers did not lose their designated 5 year deal by giving Hill 5 years. That only applies to extensions that are signed, not players who make it to restricted free agency. They still have that if they want to use it.

      Also, if you sign Asik to a large deal and keep Collison, the Pacers probably don't have enough cap space to sign Scola. They had between 10 and 11 million to start with. Asik on 4/40 (which the Pacers would have to do to outbid Houston and stay within cap rules) would have been about 4 million more than Hibbert's cap hold. So that's between 6 and 7 million left. If Hill signed an offer sheet on the first day or two of free agency (which would have been at least a couple million above his cap hold even if it was a couple million less than his current contract) that would have left the Pacers with not enough room to sign Scola and possibly not enough to sign Brand.

      Also, the Pacers had to make sure they didn't have to replace very many players in any one offseason since once you are above the cap, you get very limited exceptions to be able to add players. If they added Brand and kept Collison, they would been stuck in that situation next offseason.

      Basically I'm just pointing out that this wasn't a basic situation like it may have been in MLB where a team can be analyzed by how they used their money and which players they used it on. The cap and the various ways it can and cannot be manipulated creates quite a bit of trouble in that department.

      Comment


      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        What even is your argument man? All you've said is we couldn't have done better this offseason. That's not an argument as much as a statement, and I've already provided you with 7 moves, each superior to the ones we made, and 6 of them could not have been stopped. To have a compelling argument you first have to MAKE one.

        "We had the best off season possible." Really? Defend that statement.
        I don't believe we had the best off season possible. I never said that. I will defend the statement I did make:

        There isn't much we could have done better than what they did based on the information we had at the time.
        I believe the goal of our FO is to keep our starting 5 intact. The owner told them he is unwilling to pay any luxury tax because of our market size. Therefore, I make all evaluations with that thought intact.

        The one thing I do wish they would have done is bid on Brand or Scola. I will say that outright.

        Our team is the best defensive team in the league right now. They wanted to higher a backup center (not big man, center) who would be able to man the floor and protect the paint when Hibbert is in foul trouble. And he has to be able to do it on a regular basis because Hibbert only plays 30 minutes a night. I think Ian was a great choice. He is a good PnR player and he is a good shotblocker. I think 4 million a year is a fair contract. They gave up Collison and Jones because they wanted to keep capspace low and they felt that a backup center was a bigger need than a backup point guard since Hill plays more than Collison.

        I am okay with that, since neither Collison nor Jones were in our long-term plans. I do wish they would have kept Jones though, I always liked what he brought to the floor. Collison was expendable since we went with Hill, and even more so since it was clear we were either going to trade for Augustin or sign him outright if Charlotte didn't want to trade. As it was, we signed Augustin immediately following his release. At the time, that was a horizontal move. Augustin's talent level appeared very similar to Collison's before this year.

        We picked up a promising wing in Green. I didn't really like this move that much, but I knew we had Stephenson and he had played well in stretches last season. Plus, we had a starting wing combo of Granger/George, so he would fit in in either spot. A dynamic big wing trio. It grew on me until the season wore on.

        So we solidified our bench, resigned Hibbert (I wnated him resigned no matter the cost), resigned Hill to a reasonable contract. In reality, our bench probably got worse because of how our new additions have performed. But our bench has the potential to improve. Last season's bench would get no better than it was.

        That is why I think we did a good job. We had 5 starters, so unless we were gonna get somebody significantly better no major moves needed to be made. I may have done some things differently in hindsight, but at the time I was pleased at what they had done.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
          Just a few quibbles with some of your points:

          1) 3 years 30 million would have been an illegal contract. The Bulls had to have a chance to a match, so Houston was limited on what it could offer. If the Pacers wanted to increase the average salary per year, they would have had to offer 4 years. Plus, if the Bulls do happen to match, the Pacers have now lost Hibbert and they are already a few days into free agency so many of the top players are already gone. That's a big risk to take.

          4) The Pacers did not lose their designated 5 year deal by giving Hill 5 years. That only applies to extensions that are signed, not players who make it to restricted free agency. They still have that if they want to use it.

          Also, if you sign Asik to a large deal and keep Collison, the Pacers probably don't have enough cap space to sign Scola. They had between 10 and 11 million to start with. Asik on 4/40 (which the Pacers would have to do to outbid Houston and stay within cap rules) would have been about 4 million more than Hibbert's cap hold. So that's between 6 and 7 million left. If Hill signed an offer sheet on the first day or two of free agency (which would have been at least a couple million above his cap hold even if it was a couple million less than his current contract) that would have left the Pacers with not enough room to sign Scola and possibly not enough to sign Brand.

          Also, the Pacers had to make sure they didn't have to replace very many players in any one offseason since once you are above the cap, you get very limited exceptions to be able to add players. If they added Brand and kept Collison, they would been stuck in that situation next offseason.

          Basically I'm just pointing out that this wasn't a basic situation like it may have been in MLB where a team can be analyzed by how they used their money and which players they used it on. The cap and the various ways it can and cannot be manipulated creates quite a bit of trouble in that department.
          1) Ok, then 4 years 32 million. Minor detail, the bigger point was we could have offered more than Houston, and that we could have gotten Asik for less than Hibbert. Still true.

          4) My mistake on the 5 year thing, remains that we could have gotten him for 4 years instead of 5, shorter contracts are nearly always to your advantage. There's a reason players are often willing to take less per year for a greater overall contract value. Also no team had cap to offer Hill 10M+ a year, I mean honestly, name me 1 team who would have offered that.

          Keeping Collison isn't set in stone, giving him away for nothing was the problem. You don't think someone would have offered a second rounder for him? Better than nothing.

          Overall the point is NOT that these were THE MOVES, the point is that other, better moves existed and these are just some possible examples of that.

          Comment


          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

            One thing I learned from this thread, age might make you wiser, but it doesn't make you smarter.

            Comment


            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              If someone keeps saying they have all the right answers, odds are they don't.

              Comment


              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                I guess I learned a second thing.... Dece = vnzla81

                Comment


                • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                  Anyway, it always comes back to the same thing, some people are happy being a second round playoff exit max quality team every year hoping to get lucky, and some are willing to do anything for a championship. Guys like me and V and others I'm sure are never going to be satisfied with the sort of guys who will say, "Well, we're pretty good. We even took the Heat without Bosh to 6 games! That's good enough for me." Some people are always going to demand that you do everything you can, take risks and shoot for the championship. That's not to say the side who's satisfied with good and hoping to get lucky are wrong, it's just a different mindset. I appreciate the people who were willing to present actual arguments to me, it was a fun conversation on my end.

                  I'd probably argue that one of my three degrees makes me smart and that my Captain rank and command of 25 people has given me some wisdom... but I've argued enough for today. I'm going to go watch Harden finish taking apart the Knicks and get some sleep. Happy Holidays.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    Dece can you point me to the post you made during free agency where you said we should pay Asik $35 million?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      Dece can you point me to the post you made during free agency where you said we should pay Asik $35 million?
                      Whenever ppl bring up the whole "we should have signed Asik" thing I always point to the utter shock that EVERYBODY had with the contract offer that he received. Whenever he recieved extended mins in Chi, he hadn't shown to be much but an above average defensive C. He definitely wasnt putting up double doubles consistently. (AVG 3 and 5 a game, and 8 and 13 per 36)

                      Meanwhile Roy was coming off an AS berth, and a good run in the playoffs where he was our defensive anchor. Asik seemed to be a downgrade at the position in the offseason.

                      In hindsight, yeah you could say we should've signed Asik to a big contract, but to have thought he'd be putting up double doubles consistently and playing so well is a joke IMO.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        Dece, no one(or very few) on this board is happy with a perennial second round playoff exit. Guess what, its only happened once. How do you know this team is not going to be capable of improving upon last seasons success?

                        Dece you have an extremely negative viewpoint, while someone like Naptown Seth has an extremely positive viewpoint. In reality, it is probably a balance between the two.
                        There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                          Naptown, two other areas that could stand considerable improvement are steals and turnovers.

                          We are horrible at creating opponent turnovers, and we rarely get steals.

                          Wondering if this is purely an attempt to slow down offense and/or force long 2's?
                          That's easily explainable, actually. We don't gamble on passing lanes. By gambling on passing lanes you may get a steal but you could also leave a lane wide open. So, we prefer to not leave a lane wide open and only go for the safe steals.

                          We also prefer to clog the lane a bit and leave some open 20ft jumpers instead of a shot in the paint (well, the game against Denver was an exception to this rule).
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            Anyway, it always comes back to the same thing, some people are happy being a second round playoff exit max quality team every year hoping to get lucky, and some are willing to do anything for a championship. Guys like me and V and others I'm sure are never going to be satisfied with the sort of guys who will say, "Well, we're pretty good. We even took the Heat without Bosh to 6 games! That's good enough for me." Some people are always going to demand that you do everything you can, take risks and shoot for the championship. That's not to say the side who's satisfied with good and hoping to get lucky are wrong, it's just a different mindset. I appreciate the people who were willing to present actual arguments to me, it was a fun conversation on my end.

                            I'd probably argue that one of my three degrees makes me smart and that my Captain rank and command of 25 people has given me some wisdom... but I've argued enough for today. I'm going to go watch Harden finish taking apart the Knicks and get some sleep. Happy Holidays.
                            My epeen is bigger than yours.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              Originally posted by Dece View Post
                              Alright, that's fair, you aren't guaranteed to ever gain any, but you are never wiser at 21 than you are at 31.
                              Now that's a place where we can agree.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                Harden is definitely a great scorer, but it will be interesting to see if he's just a high volume scorer on a bad team a la Monta Ellis or actually a guy who can make his teammates better too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X