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

Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

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

  • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

    My take then was "this trade is potentially ok, but we need an immediate move to balance out the talent level."

    I'm sticking to my guns.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

      Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
      Wow, the Black Hole Duo just became the Black Hole Trio in GS (with Baron).

      The only player I'm shocked we're sending out is Al. He was a favorite of casual fans. I'm sure he's got to be shocked about this as well.

      I HATE Murphy's and Dunleavy's contracts. HORRIBLE.

      And I'm surprised we got Diogu without sending Harrison out in the deal.

      I'll have to think about this a bit. At first glacnce, I don't really like, though I'm ECSTATIC that Jack is gone! I'm just really concerned about those massive contracts.
      I feel pretty much the same way today.

      Comment


      • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

        At first, I thought this game was about dumping Jackson and gaing Ike Diogu. Still do.

        I am surprised that we have played so poorly, but I was throwing this season away anyway.
        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
        RSS Feed
        Subscribe via iTunes

        Comment


        • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

          Look I didn't post when the trade happened....So you still don't know my position!!!!

          Seriously though, I know we took some hits to do so, but it was a necessary trade to dump Jackson.

          Comment


          • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

            Originally posted by Seed View Post
            Exaclty. When each side thinks it screwed the other one, there's always the possibility that both turn out to be right..

            I still think so.

            Comment


            • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              I saw the Pacers listed and that Saras and Powell were thrown in too and I thought "boy, we must have pulled in some serious talent to give up that much".

              Nope. Team is slower and in a worse contract situation. I agree that Al had been problematic with his recent play, but Jack seemed to be doing well enough.

              And don't give me that "high IQ players" crap. You've got a high IQ for the game, maybe try using it to put up BETTER RESULTS. WTF good is talent, IQ or anything if it doesn't produce something.

              There are a lot of versions of this I could have liked, I'm not such a Jackson fan that I don't appreciate the reasons to move him, but GD at least get something in return besides a couple of slow, spot up shooting types with perhaps "limited" defensive ability.
              I just read the whole thread and the interesting thing is I don't know of anyone who really changed their opinion. Those who didn't like it at first still don't. Those that did like it, still do. Those who were in the middle, I don't know where they are.
              I still don't obviously. I wonder why?????

              oh yeah, 12-23, no playoffs, maybe the head coach fired for it, maybe JO or Tinsley or both gone, all of which ensure even more losing.

              Ladies and Gentleman, YOUR Indiana Hawks.


              I'm sorry Buck, but don't the people that didn't like the trade have scoreboard now. Naptown (not me, just nap) said "give it 25 games" because of chemistry issues. After 25 games we are getting worse results than ever.

              The team is worse than the 97 team that missed the playoffs. The team is worse than the Indy 500s of Bob Hill (who had a ton of talent). This team just lost Stipanovich to injury and are throwing the ball into Herb, that's how bad it's been since the trade (forget opinion, let the scoreboard do the talking).


              And I'm one of the people actually willing to let the entire situation return to see what they can do with a training camp/offseason, so I'm not pulling for tank or blowing it up. Yet still even I see the reality of the situation, that the team probably doesn't have anywhere near the talent to win.

              You bring in guys that are leading a team to a sub-500 record what do you expect them to do here?


              If you think Rick is currently the problem then why not fire him and keep Jack/Al/Saras for the new coach to work with...unless you don't truly think RC was the issue (which means he still isn't)?


              Looking back at the comments the most telling one was "TPTB saw Kevin Durant play and decided to tank so they would have a shot to get him". The coach and players are trying, but what about management?

              I do enjoy seeing the replies about whether or not Jack would be a starter in GS, people trying to water down his game. That's definitely the comic relief in this thread.
              Yep. Apparently we were crazy to think Jackson would start over Ellis. To me that shows the massive disconnect between Pacers fans and what NBA coaches and GMs think about the talent here, and of course Flip just backed up the view that Nelson has been proving with actions.

              Comment


              • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                If I were to list the reasons for the Pacers terrible record since the all star break - the trade would make the list but it wouldn't be at the top of the list. I think if the trade hadn't occurred, the Pacers would still be crashing right now - just not quite as bad

                Comment


                • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                  Troy - I didn't want Troy when this team still had Croshere. I think he's a fine "fit" with this team. Since he's more physical and rugged than Foster, I like the flexibility Rick now has with those guys.
                  Holy miscues does this look painfully wrong. Dude got owned on the glass by Detroit last night. His poor rebounding in the 3rd was a big part of the game getting away from them.

                  They put Foster on Shaq and beat Miami for chrissake. But you like how tough Murphy is. Yeesh.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    If I were to list the reasons for the Pacers terrible record since the all star break - the trade would make the list but it wouldn't be at the top of the list. I think if the trade hadn't occurred, the Pacers would still be crashing right now - just not quite as bad
                    Here's why I disagree with that. The one possible way the post trade team has won is when Quis played. They've had no other true SG to play, no solid defensive SG, and only Tinsley to really create off the dribble.

                    All issues solved by having Jack still. Save the Dun passing stuff too, just compare Dun's assists in GS vs Jackson's.

                    They also have struggled to get consistant outside shooting from anyone. Al is dropping the 3 at a freaking 45% rate still.


                    That team was a slightly better than .500 team. Right now that might be good enough to catch the Butler-less Wizards in the first round and perhaps get to the 2nd. I like that a lot more than the worst season in almost 20 years.


                    Let's say that nothing is changes this offseason save a draft pick (assume the get it, still very iffy). You tell me why they will be better next year. I'm not being a tool about this, I'm serious. Like I said, I'm sort of interested in at least seeing what they can do without changes, but I don't really know exactly what they can do to be a better team.

                    And if you have to make deals to fix the situation couldn't you use the Jackson and Harrington contracts a lot better than the Dun and Murphy deals? No one wants the money/length on either of them. Jack is fair priced and Al is maybe even a bargain.


                    Stand pat and you are in a better position to deal. This trade only made sense if it A) improved attendence which it failed horribly to do or B) got the team winning more games, another disaster.

                    People simply hate Jackson so much that they refuse to let the results prove them wrong. No matter what, if it means their dog is killed by a drunk driving Dunleavy and Murph punches their mother in a post strip-club brawl that spills over into a nearby neighborhood, they still will say "at least Jack is gone". To me that's stubborn to the point of stupidity.


                    I know that I'd be expected to say "you were right" if this team was playing great and Jackson was ruining the Warriors. But that's not what is happening.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      My take then was "this trade is potentially ok, but we need an immediate move to balance out the talent level."

                      I'm sticking to my guns.
                      Without reading the thread, I do remember a lot of us were convinced other moves would be made before the deadline. Oops.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                        If we didn't make the trade we would have a better chance to make the playoffs in the East. That still wouldn't have make us a good team.

                        As long as we are starting Dunleavy at the two we aren't going to be very good. I hope when we made the trade that isn't what we envisioned.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                          Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                          As long as we are starting Dunleavy at the two we aren't going to be very good. I hope when we made the trade that isn't what we envisioned.
                          My thoughts exactly. I've also got two extra QFTs for you from other threads, so I'll just leave them here.

                          Right on the money today, man.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Yep. Apparently we were crazy to think Jackson would start over Ellis. To me that shows the massive disconnect between Pacers fans and what NBA coaches and GMs think about the talent here, and of course Flip just backed up the view that Nelson has been proving with actions.
                            You are absolutely correct. There are plenty of people whom are not exactly fond of Stephen Jackson and his reputation, but all of those detractors also acknowledge he is a damn good NBA performer. Additionally, as you said, just look at the words given by former teammates and coaches. I'll take Nellie, Flip, Duncan, and Rick's words (just to name a few) any day over a casual fan disenfranchised by the modern-day NBA.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                              It's just about the criteria you use to judge the trade.

                              If you look at the standings now, Golden State has a chance (but just a chance) to make the play-offs, and are showing signs that they're pretty entertaining, if not really all that good.

                              It's been I don't know how many years since the Warriors have made play-offs (9? 12? A lot). So for them, to even have the chance to make the 8th seed is a big deal for their franchise. Even if JRich, Ellis, and Davis seem more responsible for their run, Al and Jackson have played reasonably well. Hell, I'm even rooting for them now. It's not like we're in direct competition with them...

                              The Pacers, on the other hand, have been stuck in limbo every season since our Finals trip save one (the infamous 61 win season that gets way too much credit on this board). We needed a significant upgrade at SG before the season, so Jackson needed to go anyway.

                              How many of the posters here would be thrilled with just making the play-offs? How about even if we made it as high as the 6th seed? Nobody probably. We've been fortunate to have good teams and this one isn't one of those.

                              So big picture, this was a great trade to me. I couldn't even root for Jackson when he was a Pacer, so I'm glad he's gone. Al, it might have been nice to see what he could have done with a different coach, but he's always going to be a selfish player. Not that that's necessarily bad for a scorer, but it doesn't help much with defense and rebounding.

                              The four main principles: JO, Carlisle, Jackson, and Harrington-they were a bad mix. That we got a possible replacement for JO in Diogu is a major plus. The salaries we brought on are not that big of a deal when you separate them (Dunleavey and Murphy do not HAVE to be a package deal).

                              We had to tear it down to start rebuilding. No one said it would feel great losing, but we're in a better position than we were before.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Huge trade! Murphy/Dunleavy/Diogu/McLeod for Harrington/Jackson/Sarunas/Powell

                                Jackson is still a bad player. All we're hearing about his glorious stint in Golden State is nothing more than hyperbolic ranting from fanboys.

                                He still throws up more bricks than any other shooting guard in the league.
                                He still is a lousy shooter.
                                He still literally runs away from rebounds.
                                He's still a turnover machine.
                                He's still a team cancer.

                                He's been ejected twice already while with the Warriors.

                                And the Warriors are a better team now than before the trade? Then explain this nice little fact...

                                Pre-Trade: 19-21 (.475)
                                Post Trade: 16-18 (.470)

                                Ike is a season way from being by far the best player in this deal and his ability combined with ridding ourselves of the cancer (Jackson) was worth taking on Murphleavys contracts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X