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

The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

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

  • #76
    Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

    Best names from FA list (no particular order):
    Nazr, Pryzbilla, Nene

    Best others mentioned:
    Etan Thomas, Diop, Mbenga, Magloire (no particular order)

    P.S.-Harrison for Thomas + a 2nd round pick??? Whoa! I think we'd be getting duped there.

    P.S.-If we tried to pry Mbenga from the Mavs, wonder if we could squeak out a PG somehow? What are they planning to do on the Terry sweepstakes front? I suspect an aspiring youngster like Harris is off limits? Armstrong seems all but over the hill to me. Not too excited about him.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

      Originally posted by D-BONE
      P.S.-If we tried to pry Mbenga from the Mavs, wonder if we could squeak out a PG somehow? What are they planning to do on the Terry sweepstakes front? I suspect an aspiring youngster like Harris is off limits? Armstrong seems all but over the hill to me. Not too excited about him.
      Actually, to be honest, I'd like to see us make two moves this off-season. One would be a BIG trade where we bring in an impact player. Two, would be to make a trade with Dallas for MBenga and Armstrong. They both should come at a relative low cost unless Dallas plays hardball with DJ.

      What I like about Darrell is that he hasn't been worn down by a bunch of minutes, so he's fresher than you'd think. What makes him most appealing is that he is a leader. This team needs some character guys and he's one of the best in the league. I also like that his forte is defense. I've brought this up before, but I will never forget him crying in frustration when the Magic got tore up by injury and just missed the playoffs. It's wasn;t a boo-hoo, woe is me cry, it was one of those I want to compete and am frustrated jags. That really said something to me about his determination.

      You got to remember, this is a guy who can shift gears from being a scoring PG to a passing PG fairly easily and I think he typifies veteran influence. I don't want him for big minutes. Just a guy to steady the ship when needed, play 15 minutes or so and teach our PGs how to play..well, PG.

      As to his age, check out this list and look at their ages. Look how many of thses guys we've talked about wanting. Look at their ages. (SAm Cassell should immediately jump out at you.


      Players older than 33.0
      Player B-day Age
      1. Dikembe Mutombo (Hou) ........... 6/25/66 39.534
      2. Clifford Robinson (NJ) .......... 12/16/66 39.058
      3. Ervin Johnson (Mil) ............. 12/21/67 38.044
      4. Darrell Armstrong (Dal) ......... 6/22/68 37.542
      5. Gary Payton (Mia) ............... 7/23/68 37.458
      6. Stacey Augmon (Orl) ............. 8/1/68 37.433
      7. Toni Kukoc (Mil) ................ 9/18/68 37.301
      8. Antonio Davis (NY) .............. 10/31/68 37.184
      9. Dale Davis (Det) ................ 3/25/69 36.786
      10. Jon Barry (Hou) ................. 7/25/69 36.452
      11. P.J. Brown (NY) ................. 10/14/69 36.230
      12. Sam Cassell (LAC) ............... 11/18/69 36.134
      13. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ........... 2/8/70 35.910
      14. Robert Horry (SA) ............... 8/25/70 35.367


      I bet Terry and Harris are off limits, don't you? No reason to break up that tandem.
      Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

        I doubt you solve your center problems through FA.

        Here's a suggestion - and I haven't seen them play. Assuming you're taking the long term view, I'd be having conversations with Seattle. I already think a Peja for Lewis S&T makes sense for both teams. Seattle's afraid of losing Lewis for nothing because he'll want a max contract after next season and Lewis is a better player for Indy IMO.

        Figure out what kind of throw-in you need to get either Petro or Swift. It doesn't make a lot of sense for the Sonics to keep both of them - 2 raw, athletic shotblockers without much offensive game(yet). But obviously they see some potential because each got minutes at the end of the season and put up some numbers.

        Someone from the WC who's seen them play (and has an idea what Seattle's thinking) would need to comment on this but you're talking about shotblockers who don't need the ball and would be able to roam the paint, set screens, rebound, etc.

        If you want to win next year you don't do this. If you're going back to the Big P, it's worth looking at IMO.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

          Rick Smits, anyone?

          Yeah, looking at this list, I can't help but think we'd be better off trying to develop Harrison and add a couple of wrinkles to how we use our centers on offense.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

            I've thought since the draft that Petro would be the more complete player, but Swift had that little surge late season that made me wonder.

            I think Seattle realizes they are in the proverbial catbird seat reference their bigs. I like your proposal and it makes more sense in a lot of ways, than keeping Peja. we get a younger guy, who plays more in the style of Danny, so there is not as abrupt a change on court for our team.

            Man, that would be nice if we could pull that and imho, get Petro, not Swift, in the deal.

            Makes a lot of sense to me, Rim.
            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

              Originally posted by Anthem
              Second-rounder, and I'd probably do it.
              Does anyone remember when Jamaal Tinsley was our third point guard? Rick basically made him earn the starting job. He is now doing the same w/ David Harrison. I for one am not ready to give up on a project after only two years. Most NBA players aren't completely ready for 4 or 5 years. We need to be patient, something most of us don't understand. (Edit: don't be patient w/ Jamaal or Jax anymore)

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                Good noticing DK, I had completely forgotten about Lewis and the young bigmen on the Sonics. Take a guess as to what exactly it would take to get Lewis and one of the two?

                It would be superb IF we wouldn't have to give up half our squad. Is Seattle still guard-heavy like they used to be? I mean they lost Flip. Anyone else they might lose or have already lost in a trade recently, besides Radmanovic?
                Guess what I am saying is ... would they need a SG or a PG?

                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                  One question about getting Lewis would be ... how are we going to handle the small ultra fast SG/PG's in this league? Assuming we put Petro/Harrisson at centre, Jermaine at PF, Lewis at SF and Granger for part time minutes at SF and the same for SG.

                  Our PF and SF would be ideal though, man!

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                    Originally posted by Mourning
                    One question about getting Lewis would be ... how are we going to handle the small ultra fast SG/PG's in this league? Assuming we put Petro/Harrisson at centre, Jermaine at PF, Lewis at SF and Granger for part time minutes at SF and the same for SG.

                    Our PF and SF would be ideal though, man!

                    Regards,

                    Mourning
                    This doesn't sound all bad to me either. Maybe we could acquire a proverbial perimeter defensive specialist. Somebody like a Trenton Hassel-type really for the sole purpose matching up in those cases.

                    Seems we'd be particularly vunlerable to quick SGs. DG could do a serviceable job there I suppose. In order to get him significant time at 2 he really has to upgrade in driving the ball to the hoop for scores, as many here have suggested.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                      I would like to nab Hassel to be a backup for us.
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                        Originally posted by Mourning
                        Good noticing DK, I had completely forgotten about Lewis and the young bigmen on the Sonics. Take a guess as to what exactly it would take to get Lewis and one of the two?

                        It would be superb IF we wouldn't have to give up half our squad. Is Seattle still guard-heavy like they used to be? I mean they lost Flip. Anyone else they might lose or have already lost in a trade recently, besides Radmanovic?
                        Guess what I am saying is ... would they need a SG or a PG?

                        Regards,

                        Mourning
                        Dunno - if they're as worried about just losing Lewis as they seem to be a straight up S&T for Peja would work - Lewis makes (I think) close to 11 and I think Peja may be able to get 10.

                        If he had another year or two on his contract you might get there by taking Fortson off their hands but his deal expires after next year. So that brings in draft picks. Of course Foster's the eternal trade fodder but I don't think he's worth much any more.

                        It's hard to see a monster need with them. They have Ridnour & Watson so they're OK at PG - enough to not want Tinsley anyway. They have Ray at SG and Peja would play SF. I assume they're gonna keep Wilcox (if they don't they may decide to keep Lewis after all).
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                          Why would we trade Peja for Lewis just because Seattle is afraid they will lose Lewis? Doing that trade would give us the same problem we have now with Peja and Danny. Yeah, they are going to TRY Danny at SG, and it's obvious he will be able to guard some people there. However what kills us are fast speedy guards and he won't be able to handle them anymore than Artest could.

                          If we were going to trade with Seattle I would rather trade Peja for Ray Allen, but of couse Seattle doesn't need two SF's either. A better idea is to make it a three way trade. Say add Boston and Pierce to the mix.

                          I haven't looked at the numbers but it would make more sense than trading Peja for Lewis. Peja opens up the floor for JO. Lewis is just a more experienced player than what we have in Danny.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                            Ray Allen does not play defense so he would not help out at the
                            perimeter. This team has to decide what they want to be.
                            Rebuilding or re-tooling. If re-tooling get some veterans on the team
                            and cast off Tinsley. Jackson probably will have to stay. Bring in
                            AD for Pollard unless he comes real cheap. This team is a mess and
                            it is hard to figure out what they are going to do. TPTB probably
                            don't know what they are going to do either. It depends on other teams
                            and what they want and who other teams draft also.

                            owl
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                              Originally posted by Will Galen
                              Why would we trade Peja for Lewis just because Seattle is afraid they will lose Lewis? Doing that trade would give us the same problem we have now with Peja and Danny. Yeah, they are going to TRY Danny at SG, and it's obvious he will be able to guard some people there. However what kills us are fast speedy guards and he won't be able to handle them anymore than Artest could.

                              If we were going to trade with Seattle I would rather trade Peja for Ray Allen, but of couse Seattle doesn't need two SF's either. A better idea is to make it a three way trade. Say add Boston and Pierce to the mix.

                              I haven't looked at the numbers but it would make more sense than trading Peja for Lewis. Peja opens up the floor for JO. Lewis is just a more experienced player than what we have in Danny.
                              Lewis shoots nearly as good from 3 as Peja, he's a much better slasher and better defender - when he wants to be. He's about twice the player Peja is, and younger and healthier.

                              The question is, who in the world WOULDN'T trade Peja for Lewis?
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The Offseason 06: Hunt for the Big Man IV

                                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                                The question is, who in the world WOULDN'T trade Peja for Lewis?
                                I'm guessing Larry Bird. But that's just me.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X