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

Faried + 14th, should we bite?

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

  • #91
    Porter Jr. for Bogdanovic, Sabonis + Young (Whether he opts-in) - Given the cap relief and the likely fact we just gave Washington 2 of 3 of their starting front-court who play well together we might keep the 23rd pick. Markieff would be a nice fit next to Sabonis.


    If the Pacers make this trade I will question their sanity.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • #92
      What I expect the Pacers are thinking and what I would like to see is adding a player and add a draft pick. Next year is where I could see some players moved for a "star" player.
      We shall see.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

        You just don't pay attention to this whole thing - do you. He was drafted by the Pacers FOR the Spurs. Anyone that wants to state that the Spurs didn't draft him is just oblivious.
        The Spurs traded for the rights to Leonard. I know full well what happened but they didn't draft him, the Pacers did.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by owl View Post
          Porter Jr. for Bogdanovic, Sabonis + Young (Whether he opts-in) - Given the cap relief and the likely fact we just gave Washington 2 of 3 of their starting front-court who play well together we might keep the 23rd pick. Markieff would be a nice fit next to Sabonis.


          If the Pacers make this trade I will question their sanity.
          Have to give something to get something and I'm not sure the 23rd pick and cap relief would be enough given Porter Jr's potential from Washington's point of view. (He was a 3rd overall pick, who shot 50fg%-443pt% last season)
          I think us having to give up Sabonis is the reason it doesn't happen if the conversation were to startup.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by festar35 View Post

            Have to give something to get something and I'm not sure the 23rd pick and cap relief would be enough given Porter Jr's potential from Washington's point of view. (He was a 3rd overall pick, who shot 50fg%-443pt% last season)
            I think us having to give up Sabonis is the reason it doesn't happen if the conversation were to startup.
            I would have no problem with giving up Sabonis and the 23rd pick to make that deal. I would rather keep Thad but even that is not to great a price. Porter is better in the head that PG ever was and not that far behind in ability either.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by owl View Post
              Porter Jr. for Bogdanovic, Sabonis + Young (Whether he opts-in) - Given the cap relief and the likely fact we just gave Washington 2 of 3 of their starting front-court who play well together we might keep the 23rd pick. Markieff would be a nice fit next to Sabonis.


              If the Pacers make this trade I will question their sanity.
              I don't think Bogdanovic or Young would have to be thrown in with the trade. Washington doesn't want those players it wants to be rid of Porter's contract. They are more likely to want the 23rd pick or the 14th pick if we make the Faried deal. So, Sabonis, and the 14th is a great deal for the Pacers.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                I don't think Bogdanovic or Young would have to be thrown in with the trade. Washington doesn't want those players it wants to be rid of Porter's contract. They are more likely to want the 23rd pick or the 14th pick if we make the Faried deal. So, Sabonis, and the 14th is a great deal for the Pacers.
                That'd drive our cap-space so dam high to keep Young and Bogdanovic as well as get Faried, way too much dead money. Remember Bogdanovic's contract isn't guaranteed so can be bought out for $1.5mil if they prefer cap room to having him as their starting SF or 6th man if they go with Oubre.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                  The Spurs are not a contending team any longer. LaMarkus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Bertrans was not drafted by the Spurs, Leonard was not drafted by the Spurs, Matt Costello was not drafted by the Spurs, Bryn Forbes was not drafted by the Spurs, Patty Mills was not drafted by the Spurs, Rudy Gay was not drafted by the Spurs, Danny Green was not drafted by the Spurs, Darrun Hilliard was not drafted by the Spurs, Joffrey Lauvergne was not drafted by the Spurs, Brandon Paul was not drafted by the Spurs. The players the Spurs did draft were Kyle Anderson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, Derrick White, DeJounte Murray and I think that is all. This is hardly a team that was built through the draft.

                  The Warriors: Jordan Bell was not drafted by the Warriors, Quinn Cook was not drafted by the Warriors, Durant was not drafted by the Warriors, Andre Iguodala was not drafted by the Warriors, Shaun Livingston was not drafted by the Warriors, Patrick McCaw was not drafted by the Warriors, Javale McGee was not drafted by the Warriors, Zaza Pachulia was not drafted by the Warriors, David West was not drafted by the Warriors and Nick young was not drafted by the Warriors. Chris Boucher was drafted by the Warriors, Steph Curry was drafted by the Warriors, Draymond Green was drafted by the Warriors, Damien Jones was drafted by the Warriors, Kevon Looney was drafted by the Warriors and Klay Thompson was drafted by the Warriors. Once again not exactly a team built through the draft.

                  So, I was not making up crap and painting a false narrative, you were the one doing that.
                  Yea I do not have time to spare for you. We will just have to disagree. The warriors won titles without Durant and yes they did do some trades but the best bet for small markets is to obtain the talent through the draft. I think KP will not waste draft capital and team payroll on a guy like Porter and for that I am thankful. I think it is quiet possible Pritchard is going back to a trade that was there for the taking at the trade deadline which is probably with Denver. I doubt the Wizards will punt on Porter since teams rarely sign a guy and then the following year trade him especially if he isn't the problem for the team.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    Porter Jr. for Bogdanovic, Sabonis + Young (Whether he opts-in) - Given the cap relief and the likely fact we just gave Washington 2 of 3 of their starting front-court who play well together we might keep the 23rd pick. Markieff would be a nice fit next to Sabonis.


                    If the Pacers make this trade I will question their sanity.
                    I love Porter, he is the player I want the most, but I do not do this trade. I would take him if Washington feels like they need to get rid of him, but I am not paying market value in the trade for the opportunity to pay that salary, which is not terrible, but not a bargain. I would do Jefferson, Bojan, and 23, that is it.

                    If if I was Washington, I would probably trade Beal for a King’s ransom, use a piece of that to get someone to take Gottat or Ian, then sign Cousins. Go with a Wall, Cousins, Porter big3. But that is just me.

                    Comment


                    • The reason the Wizards would even trade Porter is because they are screwed on the cap. We wouldn't give up 3 starting-quality players for him. When you have a team over the barrel you take advantage of it. It's what contenders do to get their final pieces for a run.

                      Comment


                      • so if (when) Lebron leaves Cleveland and they gotta blow it up, make a run at Love? doubt it'd take a lot.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                          so if (when) Lebron leaves Cleveland and they gotta blow it up, make a run at Love? doubt it'd take a lot.
                          I suggested this before, but many here poo-poo'd the idea. I'm fine with that, but it all comes down to cost. If it costs Expiring+23, sure. He's priced at $24+ mil a year for the next 2 seasons. I'd do it as long as he's considered the 2nd scoring option on the Team. I think that one of the main reasons why he seems ineffective on the Cavs is because he's often an afterthought in the offense. Of course playing next to Lebron does that. But I think that he'd be far more effective and have a greater impact on the Team if he's more involved in the offense ( closer to how he was used in Minny ).
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I suggested this before, but many here poo-poo'd the idea. I'm fine with that, but it all comes down to cost. If it costs Expiring+23, sure. He's priced at $24+ mil a year for the next 2 seasons. I'd do it as long as he's considered the 2nd scoring option on the Team. I think that one of the main reasons why he seems ineffective on the Cavs is because he's often an afterthought in the offense. Of course playing next to Lebron does that. But I think that he'd be far more effective and have a greater impact on the Team if he's more involved in the offense ( closer to how he was used in Minny ).
                            only thing that kinda scares me off is the escalating nagging injuries and the concussions. but he fills plenty of needs, it's a lot of money yeah but it's short term, and there aren't a lot of destinations at this point that would want him and/or offer what we could. don't wanna lose Thad but if he opts out pretty sure Al + 23 + Leaf works cap wise. DC/Vic/Bogie/Love/Myles with Sabonis, CoJo, and Lance is probably the 2 seed.

                            Comment


                            • Love is interesting in that he is an upgrade in talent and is a short-term commitment. It would allow the Pacers flexibility to sign Turner next off season & then Sabonis the following off season (when Love's contract expires) if they felt the value was there.

                              Problem I have is that it becomes "The Move" and I'm pretty sure it is not enough to get past either Boston or Philly. May blow up on the organization but think patience is the answer and the move needs to include a high pick or young player that keeps the cap flexibility alive and allows the team to add other key pieces vs. filling in with over the hill stars or JR Smith type role players. That is unless Simon is willing to spend extended time in the luxury tax.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                                Love is interesting in that he is an upgrade in talent and is a short-term commitment. It would allow the Pacers flexibility to sign Turner next off season & then Sabonis the following off season (when Love's contract expires) if they felt the value was there.

                                Problem I have is that it becomes "The Move" and I'm pretty sure it is not enough to get past either Boston or Philly. May blow up on the organization but think patience is the answer and the move needs to include a high pick or young player that keeps the cap flexibility alive and allows the team to add other key pieces vs. filling in with over the hill stars or JR Smith type role players. That is unless Simon is willing to spend extended time in the luxury tax.....
                                I feel ya, but what are the other options for "The Move" y'know. 2019 FA class isn't good, so just straight up signing a guy isn't an outlet to pursue for me. Nothing we do short of tanking is going to be enough to be better on paper than Boston or Philly for a good long while. So we're in solid shape as we stand right now, we've got to spend/trade into our cap space this summer or next, Love is going to be available and the only guy I'd want to spend FA money on is Kemba Walker but he'll be a full on FA obviously and can pick his spot.

                                When you're already solid, and you're the Pacers, you build from what ya got not some idealistic view of what ya wanna have or what anybody else is doing. I really think making a run at Love is The Move that's right. no it's not good enough win a title but it's short term enough to not handicap us and let the chips fall and hell maybe Kyrie's knee never gets right again, maybe Philly keeps imploding on themselves, maybe LeBron stops being LeBron, and holy **** the Pacers are in the Finals for the 2nd time in our NBA history.

                                I might be underestimating the return Love could fetch but I think it's a really do-able scenario.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X