Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

THE OFFICIAL 2019 OFF SEASON/TRADE RUMORS THREAD

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

  • #77
    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

    Let's see...take Kawhi off the list of potential FA targets.....take Jimmy Butler off the list of potential FA targets....take Kemba Walker off the list of potential FA targets (too expensive)....yep, it's starting to look like great times for the Pacers this summer.
    Jeremy Lin should be there by the time Pacers get to the clearance area.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #78
      Demar DeRozan could be available, he is the kind of guy Pacers should be looking for.

      Sabo plus picks might do it, Sabo is the perfect San Antonio guy.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #79
        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

        Who's everyone? Do you REALLY care that millionaires are losing a few millions off their salary? I can you understand your point for the everyday working Joe who already don't a "comparable" living wage in today's society unless they have a professional career....NBA players? I really don't care that much especially considering that they can earn additional millions outside of the NBA contract.
        If we're picking sides, give me labor 100% of the time. Even when they're millionaires. Capital/management in this case are all billionaires. Even in the battle of players vs. owners, the owners are in a completely different class than the players. NBA players are the 1%, but owners are the .0001%. The owners have a vehicle that increases in value every single year and often pass that vehicle on to their children (ala Robert to Jim Irsay and the eventual transition of Herbie to Steve Simon). I don't begrudge them that, but players have a limited amount of time to earn their admittedly life-changing salaries, but do not often pass 12 figures of wealth to their children. As previously mentioned, the players are entitled to their share of basketball-related revenues, so it's not like colluding to prevent the NBAPA from receiving market value salaries is helping ownership in the long run. While we're on the subject, market value is just that. The market determines that value of the player, aside from the very top and bottom level players who are kept from peak earnings (or kept from being paid a market determined rate on the rookie wage scale and veterans minimum deals). It's like when people complained about the Pacers signing Roy Hibbert to his 4-year/$58M offer sheet from Portland, but the market determined he was worth that amount. You can (and I do often) say that you would prefer the Pacers not sign certain players or contracts, like Russell Westbrook for 5 years/$205M. I would not want the Pacers to be on the hook for that amount for the player that Russ is, but that doesn't mean that I think he makes too much or that the contract isn't in-line with the value he generates for the team he plays for.

        Comment


        • #80
          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Demar DeRozan could be available, he is the kind of guy Pacers should be looking for.

          Sabo plus picks might do it, Sabo is the perfect San Antonio guy.
          Hmmmmm.....I'm feeling that actually. Sabonis would be THE perfect fit for Popp's system, and he has a good history with European players. Call me crazy, but I could see myself wanting Aldridge more for his locked in two years versus DeRozan's player option on the second year.

          Rubio
          Oldipo
          Bojan
          Aldridge
          Turner

          That could work....


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #81
            Is Charlotte nutty enough to lock up a quickly-approaching-30 Kemba Walker to a max?
            Last edited by Mr. Mass; 05-24-2019, 05:04 PM.

            Comment


            • #82
              Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post

              You really are as big an idiot as everyone says.
              WTF?
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #83
                Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post

                If we're picking sides, give me labor 100% of the time. Even when they're millionaires. Capital/management in this case are all billionaires. Even in the battle of players vs. owners, the owners are in a completely different class than the players. NBA players are the 1%, but owners are the .0001%. The owners have a vehicle that increases in value every single year and often pass that vehicle on to their children (ala Robert to Jim Irsay and the eventual transition of Herbie to Steve Simon). I don't begrudge them that, but players have a limited amount of time to earn their admittedly life-changing salaries, but do not often pass 12 figures of wealth to their children. As previously mentioned, the players are entitled to their share of basketball-related revenues, so it's not like colluding to prevent the NBAPA from receiving market value salaries is helping ownership in the long run. While we're on the subject, market value is just that. The market determines that value of the player, aside from the very top and bottom level players who are kept from peak earnings (or kept from being paid a market determined rate on the rookie wage scale and veterans minimum deals). It's like when people complained about the Pacers signing Roy Hibbert to his 4-year/$58M offer sheet from Portland, but the market determined he was worth that amount. You can (and I do often) say that you would prefer the Pacers not sign certain players or contracts, like Russell Westbrook for 5 years/$205M. I would not want the Pacers to be on the hook for that amount for the player that Russ is, but that doesn't mean that I think he makes too much or that the contract isn't in-line with the value he generates for the team he plays for.
                No....the CBA says that they're "entitled" to certain amount of the revenue and there's a "max" that the individual player can get. Let's not confuse "max" to mean the same as "market value". Any good agent worth their weight in gold is going to make sure their client gets the "max", but a good GM is not going let their "max" player walk for nothing either. On the other hand...having a "max" player hinders building a great team around that "max" player, ESPECIALLY if that max player is not worth max money. Market value would allow Jordan to offer Kemba something much lower than the max while not worrying about other teams swooping in to grab the player.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • #84
                  Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post

                  You really are as big an idiot as everyone says.
                  Okay...so what's the con for not trying then? Historically speaking, Popp has been able to maximize the potential for most of his European players.
                  Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 05-24-2019, 04:44 PM.


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #85
                    Also looking to help Bucks and take Bledsoe (1st D team) from their hands so they have space to do whatever they need to do, maybe grab a pick as well
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #86
                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                      No....the CBA says that they're "entitled" to certain amount of the revenue and there's a "max" that the individual player can get. Let's not confuse "max" to mean the same as "market value". Any good agent worth their weight in gold is going to make sure their client gets the "max", but a good GM is not going let their "max" player walk for nothing either. On the other hand...having a "max" player hinders building a great team around that "max" player, ESPECIALLY if that max player is not worth max money. Market value would allow Jordan to offer Kemba something much lower than the max while not worrying about other teams swooping in to grab the player.
                      The agreement the league operates under was negotiated by the primary parties involved, the players (as represented by the NBAPA) and the owners (as represented by the NBA). One party can't "get" something which the other party doesn't agree to. The CBA is the document that controls the issue of player compensation as a percentage of basketball revenue. The only way an individual maximum differs from market value is the very top echelon of players who generate far more revenue for their clubs than $40-50M per year. There is no argument to back up the statement that players who are offered a max contract are not worth max money. They are, by definition worth it by virtue if one (or more, if an open bidding process were allowed for KD, Kawhi and some of the other premier free agents they would likely receive max offers from all 30 clubs, assuming they all had that amount of cap space) club offering them that contract. The market determines their value. Your Kemba example is the polar opposite of market value. In this example, the ability of MJ or the ownership group in Charlotte to offer Kemba less than another club while simultaneously forcing that player to accept the smaller of the two offers is an example of artificial price control. Obviously there's a somewhat regulated market at play, between the rookie wage scale, the individual maximum and veterans' minimum agreements, but your Kemba proposal is the 100% polar opposite of a free market system. The closest thing to a pure free market system within the current structure of the CBA would be to eliminate the individual max while enforcing a salary cap. That would also prevent star clustering like we've seen in Miami and Golden State. If Kevin Durant (or Steph Curry's) services were available on the open market, it's not likely any single team could secure the services of a second, let alone a third player of the caliber of Steph, Klay and KD or Bron, Wade and Chris Bosh. Same story with rookies entering the league as free agents, instead of through an amateur draft. Teams would negotiate contracts for the player's services and players would be able to choose between multiple offers prioritizing their individual preferences (raw dollars, dollars per annum, location, talent surrounding them) in the same way that medical school grads do. This would be an issue for the vast majority of the player's association members who would feel the squeeze as the NBA's middle class money pool dried up between the top veterans and highly touted rookies, so we'll likely never see it but that is the closest thing to a free market that could likely exist in basketball.

                      Comment


                      • #87
                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Also looking to help Bucks and take Bledsoe (1st D team) from their hands so they have space to do whatever they need to do, maybe grab a pick as well
                        If the Pacers are going to help the Bucks out of a jam, I'd rather have Malcolm Brogdon than Bledsoe. And give me Mirotic, while we're at it. Brogdon, Vic, Bogdanovic, Mirotic and Turner is a pretty nasty starting 5. Backed with Sabonis, Leaf, Dougie, #18 and Aaron Holiday. Pretty formidable squad and within the realm of possibility for the Pacers. You could always swap out the 18th pick for Edmond Sumner if you're a proponent of his.

                        Comment


                        • #88
                          Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post

                          If the Pacers are going to help the Bucks out of a jam, I'd rather have Malcolm Brogdon than Bledsoe. And give me Mirotic, while we're at it. Brogdon, Vic, Bogdanovic, Mirotic and Turner is a pretty nasty starting 5. Backed with Sabonis, Leaf, Dougie, #18 and Aaron Holiday. Pretty formidable squad and within the realm of possibility for the Pacers. You could always swap out the 18th pick for Edmond Sumner if you're a proponent of his.
                          Brogdon is restricted I donít see that happening
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #89
                            Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post

                            The agreement the league operates under was negotiated by the primary parties involved, the players (as represented by the NBAPA) and the owners (as represented by the NBA). One party can't "get" something which the other party doesn't agree to. The CBA is the document that controls the issue of player compensation as a percentage of basketball revenue. The only way an individual maximum differs from market value is the very top echelon of players who generate far more revenue for their clubs than $40-50M per year. There is no argument to back up the statement that players who are offered a max contract are not worth max money. They are, by definition worth it by virtue if one (or more, if an open bidding process were allowed for KD, Kawhi and some of the other premier free agents they would likely receive max offers from all 30 clubs, assuming they all had that amount of cap space) club offering them that contract. The market determines their value. Your Kemba example is the polar opposite of market value. In this example, the ability of MJ or the ownership group in Charlotte to offer Kemba less than another club while simultaneously forcing that player to accept the smaller of the two offers is an example of artificial price control. Obviously there's a somewhat regulated market at play, between the rookie wage scale, the individual maximum and veterans' minimum agreements, but your Kemba proposal is the 100% polar opposite of a free market system. The closest thing to a pure free market system within the current structure of the CBA would be to eliminate the individual max while enforcing a salary cap. That would also prevent star clustering like we've seen in Miami and Golden State. If Kevin Durant (or Steph Curry's) services were available on the open market, it's not likely any single team could secure the services of a second, let alone a third player of the caliber of Steph, Klay and KD or Bron, Wade and Chris Bosh. Same story with rookies entering the league as free agents, instead of through an amateur draft. Teams would negotiate contracts for the player's services and players would be able to choose between multiple offers prioritizing their individual preferences (raw dollars, dollars per annum, location, talent surrounding them) in the same way that medical school grads do. This would be an issue for the vast majority of the player's association members who would feel the squeeze as the NBA's middle class money pool dried up between the top veterans and highly touted rookies, so we'll likely never see it but that is the closest thing to a free market that could likely exist in basketball.
                            I understand how the CBA works. My argument is that I don't like how it seems that teams can't negotiate a smaller contract for players that are not worth the max. Players "qualify" for the max by being voted in and these votes are made by the media. Do you really think the Golden State warriors are upset that Thompson didn't qualify? A player's "max" worth is not determined by measurable metrics. The illusion that there's a market value for these players is caused by by the fact that some team will pay it. However, that shouldn't mean that team wanted to, but talent is talent.

                            Real talk, I will be livid if the Pacers sign Kemba Walker to the max contract. Kemba Walker and Victor Oladipo is not enough to win a championship, then we're right back to having the same conversation about Pacers always content with just being in the playoffs.

                            Personally, I thought the new CBA was a bad deal for the owners, but it is what it is.
                            Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 05-24-2019, 07:41 PM.


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • #90
                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                              WTF?
                              im like 90% sure this is just the facts back again

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X