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

Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

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

  • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    I understand where you are trying to go, but the argument is whether KP did enough to present a good plan. PG rejecting it is being used as evidence that KP put a bad plan together. A value judgement from others is implied in that argument.
    What I'm trying to say is that we cannot really know at this point. We'll probably never know if KP's plan was good simply because we'll never get the chance to see it in action. Therefore, any value judgement on it will be lacking in proof.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      To be honest, even if you hate the idea of bringing those two in with last year's team, I don't see any moves Pritchard could have done from May 2017 to February 2018 that would have made the Pacers the type of contender Paul wants to play for. He wants to be on a Cleveland level team, or a GSW level team. We just weren't ever going to have that here, realistically.
      That's how I feel too. I don't see any moves where Indiana could have been an instant contender. Hypothetical, Indiana could have signed Hayward, and PG could still thought that wasn't enough.

      People are assuming too much that PG rejected a "bad" plan from KP, but he would have stayed with a Hayward signing. Like I said before, he's playing with an MVP and arguably the best roster ever for him, yet I don't see him rushing to Presti's office to sign an extension with OKC.


      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


      • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Even as someone who supported the Nate hire, it cannot be denied that that is about the most boring average coaching choice you could make. Its how we do everything.
        I agree the hiring was boring, and he generally comes across as boring himself. But I'll give him this: I liked his fast-paced offense we started with at the beginning of last season. It didn't work, we abandoned it, but at least he showed he could do something like that, and I'm not convinced it was him rather than the personnel trying to run it, so I really hope he gives it a second try with this roster.

        Comment


        • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Therefore, any value judgement on it will be lacking in proof.
          Proof? We don' need no steenkin' PROOF.

          Just lack of evidence to disprove the scenario putting the Pacers FO in the worst possible light.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            I think Bird was completely useless when evaluating available players and that he wasn't willing to actually ask Herb to spend more money because he could never point to who he wanted to spend it on and why they would make a difference. I think Bird was perfectly happy to blame the budget.
            Why do you think this is? Was there an article or more reporting he was bad at evaluating free agents, and/or that he wasn't willing to ask Herb to spend more? I don't recall that, but maybe I missed it.

            Comment


            • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              Agness also said that he believed Hayward didn't want to play with Paul. So he was probably speculating on the whole thing.
              So why are people complaining about Hayward??? It sounds like he wasn't option from the jump. He won't sign here with PG on the team, but without PG the team isn't better than Boston.


              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


              • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                I hear there's a "spend lots of money and be flashy while losing" owner in Seattle.
                Honestly, I'd be sort of relieved if Simon sold the team to Jim Irsay, unless there's a younger-generation Simon family member who would be a better choice. Or if not Irsay, someone relatively similar who seems to 'go all in', so to speak. Maybe that's just my loose perception of Irsay, though.

                Comment


                • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  To be honest, even if you hate the idea of bringing those two in with last year's team, I don't see any moves Pritchard could have done from May 2017 to February 2018 that would have made the Pacers the type of contender Paul wants to play for. He wants to be on a Cleveland level team, or a GSW level team. We just weren't ever going to have that here, realistically.
                  Oh there was a way but most people probably would not have liked it. You don't think you could have gotten a kings ransom for Myles Turner, Glen Robinson III and our first round pick? My guess is you could have paired up Jimmy Butler and Paul George signed Jeff Teauge and then just fill out the roster and you automatically become a top 3 team in the East if not top 2. I'm not saying we were right or wrong to not do it, but that is the bold type of move we could have made to try and keep Paul. Now ultimately if Paul was gone no matter what it would have been a dumb move (maybe, I'm not sure Myles will ever be as good as Butler but they play 2 different positions).


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

                  Comment


                  • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    LOL, all this stuff is obvious. "Of course they wine and dine him." The duh is why weren't we as aggressive.

                    There was not a message to Paul the last couple years "We are going to try and when a title with you."

                    The message was "Well, we wanna compete, we gotta budget..."

                    Thats not wine and dining.
                    And theres the issue. Just because there isn't a rumor that we tried to do something doesn't mean it didn't happen. At his resignation presser, Bird made it sound like the purse strings were gonna be loose this off season.

                    The truth is we as fans have no idea what the Pacers were doing to try to land a big free agent. If they put together a photoshopped ESPN magazine for Chris Freaking Copeland, I'd imagine they'd go a little further for Hayward or any of the other All Stars.
                    "THIS IS MY CITY."- PAUL GEORGE

                    Comment


                    • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      And this is really indisputable fact. One cannot both proclaim to be on a budget and also willing to do whatever it takes every year to be over the top.
                      In my time as a Pacers fan, I've come to the conclusion that Herb Simon wants a budget most of the time, while being willing to spend/overspend for a specific reason when the team is perceived to be 'on the cusp' of true title contention. I recall the Pacers going into the luxury tax one year back during the JO era; I want to say 2004 or 2005? And the talk in the past year has been similar: A budget until we're close, then 'go for it' in the short term if necessary.

                      In fact, prior to Paul saying 'I'm out', I recall Bird stating in his press conference that he almost didn't want to leave the position this summer because of the budget they were going to have to work with. Now maybe all he meant was they had a lot of cap space, but I also wondered if it meant that this was going to be one of those rare summers where Herb was willing to spend 'above the budget', so to speak. Maybe.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        And this is really indisputable fact. One cannot both proclaim to be on a budget and also willing to do whatever it takes every year to be over the top.
                        Call it whatever you want, but the Pacers as an organization have routinely taken the safe route. The organization does not like leavings it comfort zone, all the way from the top to the bottom. Our FO hirings have all been previously related to Indiana or have had Pacer ties. We rarely court free agents that seem unachievable to obtain or make trades that really move the needle (last big one was JO for Hibbert). If the Pacers keep spouting we have to below the budget, the rest of the league is going to listen to that. If I keep telling someone I don't like to go to the movies, why would they ever bother trying to invite me ?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          If we are talking hypothetically, one could definitely argue that Paul not letting the uncertainty about re-signing take over the news cycle might have allowed us to successfully pursue Hayward in this off-season. That's a pretty strong move though not at the "bring in a superstar" level because no superstars were available.
                          I agree; that would have been a strong move. I'd have been pretty excited by it. But even then, let's look at the roster:

                          Teague (or Holiday?)/TBD (maybe still Cory Joseph?)
                          George/Lance
                          Hayward/Robinson
                          Young/Leaf?
                          Turner/Seraphin

                          That's definitely better to me than what we ended the year with, but it's still probably not 'good enough' to Paul or to be a true contender against even Cleveland, let along Golden State, so I suspect Paul would have bailed next summer. We'll never know for sure, but that's what seems most likely to me.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            Agness also said that he believed Hayward didn't want to play with Paul. So he was probably speculating on the whole thing.
                            Both could be true. The Pacers very well might have been planning to try to sign him, while Gordon very well may not have wanted to play with Paul.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Why do you think this is? Was there an article or more reporting he was bad at evaluating free agents, and/or that he wasn't willing to ask Herb to spend more? I don't recall that, but maybe I missed it.
                              "Bad at evaluating free agents" is something that is my own evaluation. I think Bird looked too much for players he thought could be like him without paying much attention to whether they wanted to or whether a team full of them would be able to play together (because, of course, players choose their style of play to be complementary based on their teammates, not based on their own strengths or weaknesses). I think he gave lip service to a particular style of play but was unable (or, more likely, deep down didn't want) to change his player evaluations to find players who fit the supposed new system. You can pretty much go down his list of acquisitions the time he was here and see that they seldom reflected a single direction, more like a potpourri thrown together in hopes it didn't smell like a skunk.

                              "Wasn't willing to ask Herb to spend more" is also my own opinion. Given that he would spend the equivalent of what would buy a single upper-level player on two or three lower level players and that we have seen in the past that ownership will spend money on a competitive team, I think the perception of "Herb set a rock-hard budget and my hands are tied" comes as much from a bargain-hunting mentality on Bird's part as from a refusal to spend on Herb's. I strongly believe that if Bird went to Simon and said "Let me go after player x, y, and z. It will put us into the LT next year but we will be going to the ECF and possibly the finals" Herb would have been willing to do it. Ultimately, I don't think Bird trusted his own teams enough to believe they would compete with LeBron.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Paul George On OKC, The Trade, And KD's Advice

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Oh there was a way but most people probably would not have liked it. You don't think you could have gotten a kings ransom for Myles Turner, Glen Robinson III and our first round pick? My guess is you could have paired up Jimmy Butler and Paul George signed Jeff Teauge and then just fill out the roster and you automatically become a top 3 team in the East if not top 2. I'm not saying we were right or wrong to not do it, but that is the bold type of move we could have made to try and keep Paul. Now ultimately if Paul was gone no matter what it would have been a dumb move (maybe, I'm not sure Myles will ever be as good as Butler but they play 2 different positions).
                                If you think a lineup where Teague is the 3rd best player with Paul and Butler is good enough to beat Cleveland, fair enough, but I tend to doubt that's enough.

                                Teague/Joseph?
                                Butler/Lance
                                George/?
                                Young/?
                                ???/Seraphin

                                And keep in mind that keeping Teague and trading for Butler means we probably don't have much cap space left, if any, for free agency.

                                And assuming that team isn't good enough to beat Cleveland, Paul seems like he'd probably leave, and then we'd have no Paul, no Myles, no 1st round pick (Leaf or otherwise), and we'd have to rebuild with Teague and Butler. Not the worst thing in the world, but it's still another rebuild.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X