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

Trade-talk roundup

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

  • #61
    Re: Trade-talk roundup

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    If it were me....I'd look to swing Ridnour's expiring Contract for some assets.

    Or, at the very least....see if i can swing something for Watson+Diener.
    I think they are doing something else, they want to go to the playoffs bad and don't care about next year cap space(they got Salmons two years contract)
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Trade-talk roundup

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I think they are doing something else, they want to go to the playoffs bad and don't care about next year cap space(they got Salmons two years contract)
      Maybe you misunderstood me.....I was suggesting that if we move Murphy+Diener to the Bucks for Ridnour+Warrick....that we try to do a subsequent deal to send Ridnour's contract to some other Team for some other useable assets.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Trade-talk roundup

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Maybe you misunderstood me.....I was suggesting that if we move Murphy+Diener to the Bucks for Ridnour+Warrick....that we try to do a subsequent deal to send Ridnour's contract to some other Team for some other useable assets.

        Not enough time for Bird to ponder on a trade then only to come up empty handed.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Trade-talk roundup

          Not sure what the Bucks would do or offer, but I would do the deal without Illyasova.

          I'd take Ridnour, Warrick and Alexander and be just fine with that.

          Ridnour would be our best PG instantly. Warrick could play the 4 and could actually start the 4 the rest of the season, and many think Alexander is a bust, so you can give him some time just to make sure. If not, they all expire at the end of the season anyways.

          You could toss them the home town boy Diener to give them a PG in return.

          Bird could even move Watson then if he wanted to for another asset.

          Last I heard though the Bucks were wanting to send us Charlie Bell. I wonder who was offered with him.

          Still don't expect anything to get done, but the Bucks did get smoked tonight at home against the Rockets so maybe they're a little more desperate... hopefully

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Trade-talk roundup

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Maybe you misunderstood me.....I was suggesting that if we move Murphy+Diener to the Bucks for Ridnour+Warrick....that we try to do a subsequent deal to send Ridnour's contract to some other Team for some other useable assets.
            I don't see Larry pulling the trigger on just Ridnour & Warrick for Murphy (and whomever). They're just back-up expirings, and Larry may have been able to get that with Z (without Hickson).

            If we're going to scheme for 16 more hours, let's let Milwaukee feel as though we're helping them make the playoffs ... and offer them Murphy & Watson for Ridnour, Warrick and their #1.

            Seth might send me copies of his pro prospect tapes if this happens.


            "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

            - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Trade-talk roundup

              I'd rather just hold onto Murphy than deal him for the Bucks package of mediocre talent. He'll probably have a lot more value at next year's deadline, I mean not many teams will have a double-double 10 million expiring big man.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Trade-talk roundup

                The trade will not be announced until Thursday, and a source told ESPN.com's Chris Sheridan there was a chance the deal would be expanded by the time it is finalized. But no matter what, the end result for Salmons will be a spot in the Bucks' starting backcourt alongside Brandon Jennings.
                The Bulls had been trying to force teams interested in Tyrus Thomas to include Salmons in the deal.
                One could only hope it could "expand" to this:

                Indiana Trade Breakdown
                Incoming Players
                Tyrus Thomas
                Luke Ridnour
                Charlie Bell
                Joe Alexander
                Ersan Ilyasova

                Outgoing Players
                Troy Murphy
                Earl Watson
                Travis Diener
                Luther Head

                Chicago Trade Breakdown
                Incoming Players
                Earl Watson
                Luther Head
                Kurt Thomas

                Outgoing Players
                John Salmons
                Tyrus Thomas

                Milwaukee Trade Breakdown
                Incoming Players
                Troy Murphy
                Travis Diener
                John Salmons

                Outgoing Players
                Luke Ridnour
                Kurt Thomas
                Charlie Bell
                Joe Alexander
                Ersan Ilyasova

                While we do take on salery post-'11, but we get 3 young players - 2 on a 29-game trial, + cap space we want/need.
                Chi no longer needs TT, & w/ KH playing more SG, Watson fills a need.
                Mil gets Murph & rids themselves of Bell for the cost of Ilyasova.

                Just a thought/ hope...
                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Trade-talk roundup

                  Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                  I don't see Larry pulling the trigger on just Ridnour & Warrick for Murphy (and whomever). They're just back-up expirings, and Larry may have been able to get that with Z (without Hickson).

                  If we're going to scheme for 16 more hours, let's let Milwaukee feel as though we're helping them make the playoffs ... and offer them Murphy & Watson for Ridnour, Warrick and their #1.

                  Seth might send me copies of his pro prospect tapes if this happens.
                  It's cute that you think that Murphy's value is still worth a 1st round pick....I'm beginning to wonder if we ever got any real offer beyond Expiring contracts for Murphy and that all we ever got were garbage long-term contracts.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Trade-talk roundup

                    I'm still holding out hope that we can land Ilyasova. I'm an idiot, I know.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Trade-talk roundup

                      Apparently I missed quite a bit of Murphy to the Bucks rumors today. Guess we'll know something by 3PM ET!

                      Warning. Long article or 2

                      http://www.fanfeedr.com/nba/2010/02/...wo-days-this-m

                      The most talked about potential deal for Milwaukee has been the possible acquisition of Troy Murphy. Murphy is a slick shooting, rebounding, “stretch” four who seems to be a logical answer to the question, who can help the Bucks become more efficient on offense and do a better job on the boards? Murphy slides Luc Richard Mbah a Moute back down to the three, his most natural position in my opinion, and gives the Bucks a burly looking front-court. But at what price?

                      Talks have centered around expiring Buck contracts. Murphy’s contract calls for $11,047,619 this season and $11,968,253 next season. So, the Bucks could toss the combined $12 million in expiring contracts of Kurt Thomas, Luke Ridnour and Francisco Elson at the Pacers and make the numbers work. But from a pure talent standpoint, that would be crazy for the Pacers to accept. So they wouldn’t take something like that, especially if the Bucks aren’t willing to part with a first round pick (which hasn’t really been established either way at this point from what I understand, though the Bucks appear to be leaning against doing this). Indiana would probably counter (and reportedly has) with the inclusion of a young player in the trade, specifically Ersan Ilyasova. So, the Bucks would need to adjust the trade and replace Elson with Ilyasova. The numbers work, but now the Bucks are giving up two expiring contracts and a young player with (possibly) vast potential for the right to take a player off the Pacers hands that isn’t really helping them win games anyway.

                      In addition, this sets the Bucks back for next season. The addition of Murphy and subtraction of Ilyasova would leave the Bucks with a payroll of $59,815,722 without including rookies and any free agents they’d want to add to their roster which would stand at nine. A few more signings and the Bucks are getting awfully close to the luxury tax line, which is at roughly $69 million this year and will likely be lower next.

                      Isn’t that a little unbalanced? The Pacers don’t NEED Troy Murphy. He probably is doing them more harm than good right now due to his contract size. So the Pacers are more or less asking the Bucks to take his contract off their hands and give them a young player too. Well, the Bucks have reportedly rebuked that offer and countered with the rationale that if they are taking a contract off the Pacers hands and giving them a young player, the Pacers must do something for the Bucks. Namely, taking the (small, but lengthy and therefore burdensome) contract of Charlie Bell back in return. As I just detailed, the Bucks would really harm their financial flexibility next season (they’d regain it after Murphy, Michael Redd and Dan Gadzuric would total over $37 million in expiring contracts next season) by taking on Murphy’s deal. Including Bell and the remaining seven million dollars left on his deal allows the Bucks more wiggle room.

                      So here’s a likely Bucks proposal, assuming the Pacers are hung up on getting Ilyasova and the Bucks really want Murphy:
                      Bucks give: Thomas, Ridnour, Ilyasova and Bell
                      Pacers give: Murphy and Brandon Rush

                      The Bucks take on $14,037,293 in future salary obligations, but alleviates them of the $7,951,360 in Charlie Bell’s future money, leaving them on the hook for just $6,085,933 additional money for the services of Murphy and Rush.

                      Inlcuding Bell would be the key to this deal if the Bucks were forced to give up Ilyasova. But even in this situation, the best of the best financially, the Bucks are still not getting Murphy for nothing. The Bucks operate in the harsh reality that is small market NBA basketball. Something for nothing is never an option when every dollar counts.
                      I personally wouldn't add Rush to a deal. Obviously with Thomas and Elson being traded for Salmons. I'm guessing our deal will revolve around Ridnour and Ilyasova, with the Bucks asking the Pacers to take Charlie Bell in the process


                      another tidbit

                      http://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articl...medium=twitter

                      Dime: What are you hearing out in Milwaukee?
                      Jeremy Schmidt: There’s actually now been some rumblings about a deal with the Pacers. If the Bucks were to take on Troy Murphy, I’d think they’d move Kurt’s expiring, Luke’s expiring and then either Hak or Ersan, probably Ersan. Murphy has a year left after this one so he doesn’t kill the Bucks there. Pacers would probably rather have Ersan than Warrick, for the simple fact that we all know what Warrick is and Ersan can be better/may already be as good.

                      Dime: What does Murphy bring to Milwaukee?
                      JS: Murphy gives the Bucks the rebounding and outside shooting that Ersan provides, but isn’t as good a defender, fortunately Bogut covers everyone’s *** there.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Trade-talk roundup

                        Looks like the Salmons deal may have involved 2 different expiring contracts

                        http://twitter.com/GeryWoelfel

                        Barring last minute change, Bucks will get John Salmons for Hakim Warrick and Joe Alexander. More at myjournaltimes.com

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Trade-talk roundup

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          I'm still holding out hope that we can land Ilyasova. I'm an idiot, I know.
                          I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we trade Murphy to the Bucks....not for Ilyasova....but for Expiring Contracts.

                          My absolute guess?

                          Murphy+Diener ( or Solo )

                          for

                          Kurt Thomas + Ridnour

                          From what I have been reading.....there are conflicting reports that the deal for Salmons is either for Warrick/Alexander or Kurt Thomas/Elson. I'm totally guessing here ( based off of what I have been reading on RealGM ) is that if Kurt Thomas isn't going to the Bulls...he's going to be offered as part of a package with Ridnour for Murphy and filler. Kurt+Ridnour works for Murphy+filler....Warrick+Ridnour doesn't work ( salarywise )


                          I'm totally guessing here....hence the "green" post....cuz I'm bored and maybe holding out hope for something that may not be there.....but I can totally see this happening. Despite his age....didn't someone here compare Kurt Thomas to Dale Davis?

                          EDIT - NM.....what pwee31 said.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 02-18-2010, 02:44 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Trade-talk roundup

                            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                            I'm still holding out hope that we can land Ilyasova. I'm an idiot, I know.

                            I don't think so, b/c I like Illy as well. I'd also like to get Ridnour and Warrick. Sure none of them are allstars, but they are better than what Bird got in last years offseason. I've kept my eye on Illy this year and Warrick the last couple both are nice players.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Trade-talk roundup

                              I rather have Warwick, because of his inability to hit 3's.


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Trade-talk roundup

                                Tyrus is a Bobkitty?

                                Chicago has agreed in principle to trade Tyrus Thomas to Charlotte for Flip Murray, Acie Law and a future first round pick, a source tells Y
                                9 minutes ago from web

                                link: Charlotte trades for Tyrus Thomas http://tinyurl.com/y95kkth
                                2 minutes ago from web


                                http://twitter.com/wojYahooNBA
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X