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

Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

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

  • #46
    Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, their first round pick and filler for JO and Tinsley. We might throw in Harrison if there is concern they lack size after the trade.

    The Lakers do this because they would get to keep Odom and get big veteran upgrades with Tinsley and JO. They would truly have a big 3 combination with Kobe, JO and Odom. Tinsley would never have to shoot the ball with Kobe on the court. I could see that working very well.

    The Pacers do this to steal the Laker's youth and move straight into rebuild mode. Farmar and Bynum address important positions on this team. We could use the #19 pick to snag a young SG. In any event, Farmar and Bynum would fit well with Granger, Ike and Quis in a young starting lineup. The Pacers also do this to purge Tinsley, eliminate their overpaid, injury prone 55 games per year "franchise" player. They also eliminate another head case in Harrison.

    We need to make this deal before West comes back to the Lakers and talks them out of it....and before Bender II occurs and JO's body falls apart.
    With no Odom included and sending Tinsley out....that would mean that we would be taking most of the players not named Kobe and Odom from the Lakers.....which also includes $26+ mil / 4 year contract ( which would be slightly less then Tinsley's contract ).

    I would much rather keep Tinsley and live with his inconsistencies rather then have 2 versions of Murphy....the expensive one ( the "Original" version ) and the slightly cheaper version ( VladRad )....both of which has contracts going all the way to the 2010/2011 season.

    Salarywise...there is no way that we can send out Tinsley without taking back EITHER Odom or VladRad. If the Lakers don't want to include Odom....which is very unlikely....then VladRad has to be included.

    To me ( and hopefully TPTB ), VladRad is a dealbreaker.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

      No deal to the Lakers, folks. Odom's injury should pretty much put that to rest.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

        Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
        No deal to the Lakers, folks. Odom's injury should pretty much put that to rest.
        Why? Wouldn't they be more likely to trade him?
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

          Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
          Indy wants Odom more than they want Bynum.
          Why?

          I can tell you why not for certain - Granger, Shawne, Ike. Those 3 are the MAIN youth/development players on the team right now. Why bring in yet another roadblock to their development?

          Now turning Dun into Odom would certainly help, but the fact is that Dun hurt the team most of all by being redundent, followed by being locked in at a high pay rate for his stats.


          I'm still far more in favor of my LAL/CHA 3-way deal, or similar, that brings Indy a higher pick than LA has and a backcourt player (less overall talented than frontcourt Odom is, the trade-off for moving up in the draft).


          I think the news is more in line with the Pacers really wanting to adjust things and looking as hard as possible at the market. But that's not the same as wanting to be done with JO. They just know that if something can be done then they need to do it, but hopefully now also realize that if it can't be done then it shouldn't after the Peja, Harrington and GS deals that were done mostly for the sake of doing something.

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          Better than that all-PG bull**** Rick would try and run. I don't care if NY is playing 5 guards, you don't counter a small lineup by going smaller. Eddie Gill at the 3 my ***.
          Let's be fair here, with the injuries/suspensions the last few years (not last year of course) there were plenty of nights that the team was suiting up 6 backcourt guys and 3-4 bigs at the most. When Danny is your PF and Jack is pulled to SF then you end up with Gill at the 2. No JO, no Foster, no Pollard, no Harrison...that frontline got thin in a hurry at times.

          But to intentionally build a roster that is way out of balance toward one type of position, that's a huge disaster waiting to happen.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-30-2007, 08:54 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            ... that brings Indy a higher pick than LA has and a backcourt player.
            I'd say this is the best scenario, too. You can't find a real high-level scoring guard in this draft. So, get a young one from elsewhere (a la the Gerald Green love) and pick high from the young bigs available.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

              Originally posted by Kraft View Post
              I'd say this is the best scenario, too. You can't find a real high-level scoring guard in this draft. So, get a young one from elsewhere (a la the Gerald Green love) and pick high from the young bigs available.
              Specifically this was my version, though the issue is would the Bobcats have interest in Odom...

              Pacers
              JO out
              Knight (or Wallace), Kwame, #8 pick in

              LAL
              Odom, Kwame out
              JO in

              CHA
              Knight (or Wallace if you play him at the 2) out, pick #8 out
              Odom in


              I put it not so much as a trade proposal but as the idea of the kind of thing they might want to be (or are) looking at. You don't have to find a JO taker that has what you want, and you also don't have to take full salary back. You could be at the far end of the salary exception (25%), and getting the below-cap Bobcats (or other) involved to help the less balanced dealings go through would help a ton.

              But you have to give them a reason to want to do that, and that means getting less back than you are giving. BTW, I ran that version through RealGM a month or so ago.

              I just don't like Odom or even really Bynum for that matter as a solution to the current problems.

              You could even use that 8 pick to trade down in order to get another enticement for CHA (making it a 4 way deal instead) to jump in, and then still get a guy like Nick Young or even Splitter.



              Something else to keep in mind, the 2008 draft does have a ton of backcourt talent still (which is why I'd rather give ATL a pick this year than next), so perhaps you don't really need to force that to happen right now. Look, if it's a rebuild then you can't think just this year, you have to look down the road at your future opportunities as well and make sure that what you go for now meshes with what will be easier to come by later.

              Don't chase a PG now and then try to find your way to a big next year if the team isn't going to make the playoffs in 07-08 (which seems unlikely to me). This is another reason I love going after a guy like Knight or some other mid-level vet for the backcourt.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Something else to keep in mind, the 2008 draft does have a ton of backcourt talent still (which is why I'd rather give ATL a pick this year than next), so perhaps you don't really need to force that to happen right now. Look, if it's a rebuild then you can't think just this year, you have to look down the road at your future opportunities as well and make sure that what you go for now meshes with what will be easier to come by later.

                Don't chase a PG now and then try to find your way to a big next year if the team isn't going to make the playoffs in 07-08 (which seems unlikely to me). This is another reason I love going after a guy like Knight or some other mid-level vet for the backcourt.
                NBADraft.net (admittedly not a paragon of accuracy) is currently projecting Law at #20. If you can get Law with the Lakers pick, you consider it.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                  How about this one?

                  Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown and filler (Mo Evans or Sasha Vujacic - maybe 19) for Jermaine O'Neal and Troy Murphy?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    NBADraft.net (admittedly not a paragon of accuracy) is currently projecting Law at #20. If you can get Law with the Lakers pick, you consider it.
                    Boy, I just went and looked, and I don't agree with their picks at all. I should have just stopped reading when I saw they have the Bucks taking Jeff Green over Conley at #6.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                      A trade with LA without sending back Odom would leave the Pacers with a team that probably wouldn't win 30 games next season.

                      I'd like to get Jordan Farmar as well. If we could put together a package that sent the Lakers Tinsley and JO for Odom, Bynum, and Farmar I'd be down with it even without a draft pick.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                        I'd like to get Jordan Farmar as well. If we could put together a package that sent the Lakers Tinsley and JO for Odom, Bynum, and Farmar I'd be down with it even without a draft pick.
                        We have our winner, I'd do that trade also.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          NBADraft.net (admittedly not a paragon of accuracy) is currently projecting Law at #20. If you can get Law with the Lakers pick, you consider it.
                          draft express has him going #11. really unless he has terrible workouts, i can't see him slipping that low when you look at the teams and their needs that are picking 10-18 (i broke it down on pg 1 of this thread)

                          Seth... talking about bringing odom hampering the growth of the team. its possible if we hang on to murphy that could be true. but i think we're going to have that problem with either of the two most likely deals out there (with LAL and with BOS) in either Odom or Wally. I tend to look at Wally as being more of a problem because we either pay his ridiculous salary to ride the bench or we play him and he takes minutes away from our young developing SG/SF core (daniels, dunleavy, granger and williams). odom would at least fill a need in losing JO (as both a PF and a guy who could be the #1 option). and doesn't wallace bring the same problem in that because he's a SG/SF he'd be taking minutes away from our developing core?
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                            Boy, I just went and looked, and I don't agree with their picks at all. I should have just stopped reading when I saw they have the Bucks taking Jeff Green over Conley at #6.

                            I don't exactly like Noah at 9 either.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Specifically this was my version, though the issue is would the Bobcats have interest in Odom...

                              Pacers
                              JO out
                              Knight (or Wallace), Kwame, #8 pick in

                              LAL
                              Odom, Kwame out
                              JO in

                              CHA
                              Knight (or Wallace if you play him at the 2) out, pick #8 out
                              Odom in
                              I'm not sure about this, I would think that we could get more for JONeal.

                              Help me understand it better....but doesn't this trade boil down to trading JONeal for the #8th pick and clearing salarycap space by the start of the 2008-2009 season?

                              Since we probably won't be able to pry Gerald Wallace from the Bobcats.....we would be getting Brevin Knight. At best, for the long term, this trade would net us a solid 32 year old PG that we can resign after this season, the #8 pick and whatever salarycap relief that we get from this.

                              If we want a cost-cutting move that involved JONeal....this would be one of the better ones since it could "technically" clear JONeal's salary from the payroll by the 2008-2009 season ( assuming that Brevin isn't resigned ).

                              But honestly, IF a Boston trade that could net us Green/Ratliff/#5 were available....even without Delonte or Conley....I would consider that trade before this trade....we get a higher pick ( which...admittedly is only a few spots ahead of the #8 pick ) and a younger SG prospect that has already played in the NBA while clearing a decent amount of salarycap space.

                              I will say that this trade is more feasible from the standpoint of all teams....assuming that the Bobcats give up Knight instead of Wallace.

                              For the Pacers, although I would prefer any deal with Boston over this ( if I were to simply look at the trade itself ), we get a veteran PG that knows how to run at team and can play for another 2 or 3 years and a #8 pick, while getting whatever salarycap relief benefits for the longterm.

                              For the Lakers, although they would give up Odom ( something that I don't think the Kobe/Phil wants ) and Kwame ( a prime trading asset ), they would get JONeal and keep Bynum ( something that the Buss family is EXTREMELY reluctant to do ). On second thought, this maybe more of a push for the Lakers....although they get JONeal and keep Bynum ( which technically makes Kobe/Phil/Buss family happy )....they have to give up 2 of their only other trading assets to do this.

                              For the Bobcats, with Jordan's push to make the team more competitive...assuming that they keep Gerald Wallace...they essentially trade the #8 pick for Odom. For the long-term, it maybe better to build upon the draft....but according to Jordan, he wants to win now...and that means getting solid Vets that can help the team. Odom could easily fit that mold and is clearly better then anything ( short-term ) that the Bobcats can get from the draft.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 05-30-2007, 07:51 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

                                Cable, I think my view is looking at a smart deal that you still are going to take a hit on due to the situation. I'd like to see him with more value, but if they could get a top 10 pick AND a quality vet PG/SG I'd feel really pleased. I think you consider resigning Knight (and that situation is why I see them willing to do it) and let him be at the worst what AJ/Army have been even if you draft a PG this year or next.

                                I certainly don't dislike the Boston version you have either. I guess what I'm looking most at is what will those teams honestly be willing to do and how can the Pacers avoid making their cap situation worse.


                                I agree that if you do move Murph then Odom coming back is different because you could use Odom just like Troy was used but with much better effect I think. He's better off the dribble, a better defender and even more aggressive at the rim I'd say.


                                Ultimately I think most of us agree that there are ways they can work this that aren't pie-in-the-sky options yet don't ruin the team either. Boston has suffered at the hands of JO many times so I can see their interest but I think that the Lakers (and Kobe) sense the need of a guy like JO far worse and would be more willing to deal. Law with their pick might not be too shabby.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X