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

Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

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

  • #46
    Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

    I think people are overvaluing the TPE outside of the Harrington deal. This potential deal is an anomaly because Atl ownership is in such disarry that they don't want to take back any salary. Typically, teams try to trade talent for talent.

    The reality is that, if we can't use the TPE in the deal for Al, then we'll be left with some FAR LESS desirable players to choose from if we use it. The only teams who'd consider trading us a player making $7.5 or less for basically nothing (pick and/or $) are those teams that are trying to avoid the luxury tax, or perhaps teams that want to get below the salary cap for next summer's FA crop.

    So Philly might give us Korver or Hunter, Lakers might give us Mihm, Spurs might give us Bonner or Oberto, etc. But that's about it. Some other teams/players could come into play, but that's the ilk of player we'd be looking at -- not anyone near Al's calibur.
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

      Originally posted by blanket
      I think people are overvaluing the TPE outside of the Harrington deal. This potential deal is an anomaly because Atl ownership is in such disarry that they don't want to take back any salary. Typically, teams try to trade talent for talent.

      The reality is that, if we can't use the TPE in the deal for Al, then we'll be left with some FAR LESS desirable players to choose from if we use it. The only teams who'd consider trading us a player making $7.5 or less for basically nothing (pick and/or $) are those teams that are trying to avoid the luxury tax, or perhaps teams that want to get below the salary cap for next summer's FA crop.

      So Philly might give us Korver or Hunter, Lakers might give us Mihm, Spurs might give us Bonner or Oberto, etc. But that's about it. Some other teams/players could come into play, but that's the ilk of player we'd be looking at -- not anyone near Al's calibur.
      We could use it on Bonzi...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

        Originally posted by SoupIsGood
        OK, you found 13 players, but I'm going to toss out Richardson and Mason because I think I would rather have Al than either one.

        Anyway, you checked through 5 drafts, and checked the 17-30 spots in all of them, I'm guessing. That's 65 draft picks, and only 11 players.

        So, there's a 17 % chance that this pick we're trading away will be at least as good as Al.

        Looking at your list, I'd only consider Parker and AK stars. So, there's a 3% chance that we land a star with this pick.

        You can up those %'s a slight bit since this next draft is deep, but even if you do, I'd still much rather have Al.



        Thank God that Donnie does not GM with this attitude. "Well, we won't anyway..."

        Yeah, let's just admit defeat.
        You're using stats, on weak drafts. This years draft is going to be easily twice as good, so you can double anything. So that bumps up every team to landing a player as good as Al to 34%.

        Weed out bad teams that don't draft well, that had picks that low because of trades, and they % jumps even higher for the Pacers who draft well.

        I'm not admitting defeat by anymeans, I just don't put my stock in Al Harrington. I think a lineup of Harrison/JO/Danny would be just as productive, if not better. I would rather put my stock in Hulk, then adding on a very good player from the draft, hopefully a guard.

        Instead of having 3pieces for the ultimate goal, you would still have three this year, and most likely add the fourth in the draft.

        I'm not opposed to giving up next years draft pick, but to give it to ATL for Al Harrington isn't a good move IMHO.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

          Originally posted by blanket
          I think people are overvaluing the TPE outside of the Harrington deal. This potential deal is an anomaly because Atl ownership is in such disarry that they don't want to take back any salary. Typically, teams try to trade talent for talent.

          The reality is that, if we can't use the TPE in the deal for Al, then we'll be left with some FAR LESS desirable players to choose from if we use it. The only teams who'd consider trading us a player making $7.5 or less for basically nothing (pick and/or $) are those teams that are trying to avoid the luxury tax, or perhaps teams that want to get below the salary cap for next summer's FA crop.

          So Philly might give us Korver or Hunter, Lakers might give us Mihm, Spurs might give us Bonner or Oberto, etc. But that's about it. Some other teams/players could come into play, but that's the ilk of player we'd be looking at -- not anyone near Al's calibur.
          I think you are underrating cash cutting deals. Guys like Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson have "salary dump" written all over them. We can even throw in Tinsley, who Thomas likes.

          EDIT: then again, I don't know the market for these things and I could be totally off. If that is the case...bring on Al.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

            Originally posted by AnotherBirdCreation
            If we get Al our talent is on par with Dallas.
            You're plain nuts.

            Harris>Tinsley (because he can't/won't play)
            Terry>Sjax
            Howard>Granger
            Dirk>Al
            Who knows/cares
            Their sixth man, in Michael Finley, is also head and shoulders above the Pacers'.

            The Pacers aren't close to being on par with Dallas in talent.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

              Originally posted by Shade
              Then you'd better hope the Pacers win a title in the next three years, or we have an older, much more expensive version of what would have been our 2007 pick. Plus we'd be without our trade exception.
              Look at the other 83% and say that same thing.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                Originally posted by Shade
                Then you'd better hope the Pacers win a title in the next three years, or we have an older, much more expensive version of what would have been our 2007 pick. Plus we'd be without our trade exception.
                What I was trying to say is that a mid first round pick, even in the best of drafts, has the potential to become a player like Al. More often than not, they turn out to be busts. The 2007 draft is very strong, because there are 10-12 really good players that will be available, and that assumes that everyone comes out. I would not count on Noah comming out (he does not need the money and by all accounts he prefers the college game to the NBA), and Oden has repeated at every opportunity that he intends to stay four years. Players like Horford and Cory Brewer will be good NBA players, but not stars. The 2008 draft promises to be just as strong with Eric Gordon and O.J. Mayo.

                FWIW, here are picks 10-20 in the 2003 draft:
                Washington - Jarvis Hayes, Georgia
                Golden State - Mickael Pietrus, France
                Seattle - Nick Collison, Kansas
                Memphis - Marcus Banks (to Boston)
                Seattle - Luke Ridnour, Oregon
                Orlando - Reece Gaines, Louisville
                Boston - Troy Bell (to Memphis)
                Phoenix - Zarko Cabarkapa, Serbia
                New Orleans - David West, Xavier
                Utah - Aleksandar Pavlovic, Serbia
                Boston - Dahntay Jones (to Memphis)

                You can do this for most years, and sometimes there is a good player that drops, but there is almost never a star that falls below the #10 pick. I pick 2003 because that was considered a very strong draft.

                Just for kicks, lets take a look at the very early draft board at nbadraft.net:
                http://www.nbadraft.net/

                The lottery in that draft is especially strong, and the top 5-7 picks there could be stars. And again, this is assuming that all these players come out. We would all be screaming bloody murder if we passed on Al to keep the pick, ended up in the lottery, and the draft ends up not having Oden or Noah.
                Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                  Originally posted by rexnom
                  I think you are underrating cash cutting deals. Guys like Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson have "salary dump" written all over them. We can even throw in Tinsley, who Thomas likes.
                  The Knicks don't care about saving money, so don't look for a "salary dump" move from them.

                  Besides, 1) I don't see LB making a deal with IT anytime soon, and 2) I wouldn't consider the addition of Crawford or Richardson while keeping our 2007 1st to be a better deal than losing our 2007 1st and acquiring Harrington.
                  "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                  -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                    Originally posted by Since86
                    You're using stats, on weak drafts. This years draft is going to be easily twice as good, so you can double anything. So that bumps up every team to landing a player as good as Al to 34%.

                    Weed out bad teams that don't draft well, that had picks that low because of trades, and they % jumps even higher for the Pacers who draft well.

                    I'm not admitting defeat by anymeans, I just don't put my stock in Al Harrington. I think a lineup of Harrison/JO/Danny would be just as productive, if not better. I would rather put my stock in Hulk, then adding on a very good player from the draft, hopefully a guard.

                    Instead of having 3pieces for the ultimate goal, you would still have three this year, and most likely add the fourth in the draft.

                    I'm not opposed to giving up next years draft pick, but to give it to ATL for Al Harrington isn't a good move IMHO.
                    I have a hard time believing that this draft is going to be twice as good as five other drafts turned out to be on average. There were some good drafts in that time span, if I remember correctly.

                    Regardless; it sounds like Donnie is fine with giving up the 1st for Al, and that's enough for me.
                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                      Originally posted by diamonddave00
                      Shawne Williams is basicly your 2007 #1 a lottery pic, while James White is your #1 in 2006.
                      I think that's a good way of looking at it. If Williams waited until next year, he'd be a 1st round pick then too.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                        Originally posted by FrenchConnection
                        You can do this for most years, and sometimes there is a good player that drops, but there is almost never a star that falls below the #10 pick. I pick 2003 because that was considered a very strong draft.
                        2003 is good because of the talent it produced. Depth wise, it was awful.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                          Originally posted by Hicks
                          I think that's a good way of looking at it. If Williams waited until next year, he'd be a 1st round pick then too.
                          I kinda like it, too. We essentially came away with two first-rounders this year.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            JO was drafted 17.
                            Manu Ginobili was a 2nd round pick, so we're set as long as we have one of those, right? Come on. I can't believe some of you are just assuming we're going to draft a stud in the mid to late first round.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                              I still maintain Thomas doesn't like Tinsley. He wanted him traded when he was Pacer coach. I believe what Vecsey said at the time. His Pacer sources are good and when he brought it up recently (around the Artest saga) he could've changed the original story and he didn't.

                              I now return you to your thread about draft pick values... I just think the "Thomas likes Tinsley and would love to trade for him" thing is more wishful thinking than reality. Thomas got fed up with him too...

                              IMHO,
                              -Bball
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Chad Ford on Harrington Saga

                                Originally posted by Hicks
                                I think that's a good way of looking at it. If Williams waited until next year, he'd be a 1st round pick then too.
                                We would have gone higher too, because he would have been the focus of a very good Memphis offense. Well, maybe in that draft he would have remained at the same spot, assuming that every player that could comes out.
                                Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                                http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X