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

Kevin Pritchard

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
    Why do I feel like a rule was broken, lol? If he "signed" with us, then how did we end up sending picks in a "trade" when he couldn't be traded for a while?
    You are allowed to sign and trade at the same time if the player and both clubs agree.

    As you said in your next post, he never officially signed with Indiana. He negotiated the terms of the deal with the Pacers, then the Pacers and Bucks negotiated the trade, then Brogdan signed with the Bucks and immediately was traded to the Pacers.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by dal9 View Post

      it's collusion because it has the purpose and effect of artificially reducing player salaries.
      That is not how collusion works. Collusion is when two or more parties agree to not pay more than a certain amount to a third party without the third parties involvment. This was an agreement between all 3 parties.

      Comment


      • #93
        I have no idea whose twitter this is, but I found the audio of Windhorst on the Woj pod talking about Herb Simon...Windhorst starts 53 seconds in.

        I am hoping we sent a first rounder not out of respect for the Bucks, but because another team, like the Sixers or someone, was also trying to sign Brogdon. This would mean that Brogdon would want to play for team X and not only the Pacers, which I could totally see happening. It must be a stressful negotiation with the agent for a contract value and with the Bucks for compensation with all the bluffing going around.

        Maybe Mel Simon knew there were other offers out there and he was trying to take the high road and create goodwill in order to have the Bucks deal with us instead of Team X. Something along the lines of you'd rather do business with someone you like then an a**hole. I want to listen to the Windhorst podcast tomorrow at some point and hear what else he knows.

        Also, I just learned how to embed a tweet!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by sopgy View Post
          I have no idea whose twitter this is, but I found the audio of Windhorst on the Woj pod talking about Herb Simon...Windhorst starts 53 seconds in.

          I am hoping we sent a first rounder not out of respect for the Bucks, but because another team, like the Sixers or someone, was also trying to sign Brogdon. This would mean that Brogdon would want to play for team X and not only the Pacers, which I could totally see happening. It must be a stressful negotiation with the agent for a contract value and with the Bucks for compensation with all the bluffing going around.

          Maybe Mel Simon knew there were other offers out there and he was trying to take the high road and create goodwill in order to have the Bucks deal with us instead of Team X. Something along the lines of you'd rather do business with someone you like then an a**hole. I want to listen to the Windhorst podcast tomorrow at some point and hear what else he knows.

          Also, I just learned how to embed a tweet!

          Sigh.... it is not the Bucks decision where he went. He was a FREE AGENT!! The only thing the Bucks could do was match an offer sheet. Brogdon wanted to come here. The Pacers wanted Brogdon to come here. The picks were so the Bucks would give consent to Brogdon coming here. Where are all of these conspiracy theories coming from? Is it really that hard to believe that a decent free agent would choose Indy?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

            I hate it when people are mocked.
            That's the digest draw.

            Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #96
              If Brogdon wanted to go to a team without cap space then he needed the Bucks to do a sign and trade. That was definitely an option. This would increase his market price because his market would increase from ~7 teams with cap space to potentially every team.

              Maybe Team X was over the cap and they were willing to give him $80mil/4years and they would send the Bucks whatever was needed to legally make the sign and trade work. Maybe this was Philadelphia and Brogdon really wanted to play there. Then KP hears this and we offer him $85/4. Now what I don't know is if the Bucks were going to match.

              Not sure what the conspiracy theory is, many teams had a say where UFAs and RFAs go...just look at the Jimmy Butler deal to Miami.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                Is it really that hard to believe that a decent free agent would choose Indy?
                Of course. Much easier to assume KP and Simon are complete idiots who hate the idea of having a championship team and that they have broken rules through ignorance and fallen into a vat of chocolate purely by accident.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                  Sigh.... it is not the Bucks decision where he went. He was a FREE AGENT!! The only thing the Bucks could do was match an offer sheet. Brogdon wanted to come here. The Pacers wanted Brogdon to come here. The picks were so the Bucks would give consent to Brogdon coming here. Where are all of these conspiracy theories coming from? Is it really that hard to believe that a decent free agent would choose Indy?
                  Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                  Sigh.... it is not the Bucks decision where he went. He was a FREE AGENT!! The only thing the Bucks could do was match an offer sheet. Brogdon wanted to come here. The Pacers wanted Brogdon to come here. The picks were so the Bucks would give consent to Brogdon coming here. Where are all of these conspiracy theories coming from? Is it really that hard to believe that a decent free agent would choose Indy?
                  I'm pretty sure no one is looking for a conspiracy theory. Personally, I'm just trying to understand how the deal went down where Indiana gave up picks, and the Bucks were allowed to trade him before the December date. To my knowledge, a team just can't give away their picks.


                  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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post



                    I'm pretty sure no one is looking for a conspiracy theory. Personally, I'm just trying to understand how the deal went down where Indiana gave up picks, and the Bucks were allowed to trade him before the December date. To my knowledge, a team just can't give away their picks.
                    When did a sign and trade become illegal? Sign and trade happens all the time, and the difference between it and re-signing and THEN trading is the gap of time between the signing and the attempted trade. If you do not trade immediately then you are subject to the moratorium. If you trade in essentially the same transaction (a three-way, if you will) then it is legal.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post



                      I'm pretty sure no one is looking for a conspiracy theory. Personally, I'm just trying to understand how the deal went down where Indiana gave up picks, and the Bucks were allowed to trade him before the December date. To my knowledge, a team just can't give away their picks.
                      From Larry Coon's excellent NBA collective bargaining agreement FAQ (http://www.cbafaq.com) 92. Can a free agent be signed and immediately traded?

                      The sign-and-trade rule allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes. Under this rule the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract stipulating that the contract is null and void if the trade to the specific team is not completed within 48 hours. A sign-and-trade is treated like a single, atomic transaction, and not two separate transactions between which one party can change its mind -- if the trade is not completed, then the signing is invalidated.

                      To qualify for a sign-and-trade, all of the following must be true:
                      • The player must re-sign with his prior team -- a team cannot include another team's free agent in a sign-and-trade.
                      • The player must finish the preceding season with that team (deals are no longer allowed that sign-and-trade players who are out of the league, such as the sign-and-trade that sent Keith Van Horn from Dallas to New Jersey as part of the Jason Kidd trade in 2008).
                      • The player cannot be a restricted free agent who has signed an offer sheet with another team (see question number 42).
                      • The team receiving the player cannot be above the "Apron" (see question number 20) at the conclusion of the trade1, 2. A team above the Apron can receive a player in a sign-and-trade if the trade reduces the team's payroll and the team finishes the trade below the Apron.
                      • The team cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade if they have used the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception (see question number 25) that season.1
                      • The trade must be completed prior to the first game of the regular season (sign-and-trades are not allowed once the season begins).
                      • The player cannot be signed using the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, the Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, or any exception that cannot be used to offer a three-year contract (see question number 25).

                      Malcolm Brogdon and Milwaukee had a tentative agreement to a 4 year/$85M contract, while the Pacers and Bucks had a simultaneous agreement to trade Brogdon in to the Pacers cap space for the return of a lottery-protected (through 2026) 1st round pick and 2 (as yet unspecified) 2nd round picks. Brogdon agreed to the contract with Milwaukee knowing that his final destination was Indiana. Takes three to tango on sign-and-trades.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BillS View Post

                        When did a sign and trade become illegal? Sign and trade happens all the time, and the difference between it and re-signing and THEN trading is the gap of time between the signing and the attempted trade. If you do not trade immediately then you are subject to the moratorium. If you trade in essentially the same transaction (a three-way, if you will) then it is legal.
                        Gotcha...that's the part that I wasn't understanding. The thread kinda threw me off, because some people were upset about giving up the picks like Indiana could have taken Brogdon with no resistance. It was basically what I thought it was in the first place. Sign and trade, and Indiana threw in the picks to secure the deal.


                        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


                        • Originally posted by sopgy View Post
                          If Brogdon wanted to go to a team without cap space then he needed the Bucks to do a sign and trade. That was definitely an option. This would increase his market price because his market would increase from ~7 teams with cap space to potentially every team.

                          Maybe Team X was over the cap and they were willing to give him $80mil/4years and they would send the Bucks whatever was needed to legally make the sign and trade work. Maybe this was Philadelphia and Brogdon really wanted to play there. Then KP hears this and we offer him $85/4. Now what I don't know is if the Bucks were going to match.

                          Not sure what the conspiracy theory is, many teams had a say where UFAs and RFAs go...just look at the Jimmy Butler deal to Miami.
                          When is KP's press conference? I would like to hear him speak about how he decided to choose Brogdon. Philly could have outbid us on Brogdon. I'm wondering if he just preferred to play in Indy or if the asking price was just to high, or if they preferred Horford over him. Either way I'm glad we got him.

                          It should be pretty clear to everyone that the pics were just an incentive for the Bucks to not match the offer.

                          Comment


                          • Interesting from Windhorst and Woj. After the deal fell through with Bojan and the Pacers decided to go after Brogdon, Herb Simon called the Bucks owners and said lets work out a deal - we don't make offers to restricted free agents.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                              Gotcha...that's the part that I wasn't understanding. The thread kinda threw me off, because some people were upset about giving up the picks like Indiana could have taken Brogdon with no resistance. It was basically what I thought it was in the first place. Sign and trade, and Indiana threw in the picks to secure the deal.
                              Brogdan was an important piece to a championship team. People believe (I think somewhat correctly) that the only reason they let him go is a financial one, that they wanted to avoid the luxury tax this year because they know they are going into it when Giannis re-signs.

                              If that's true, then the picks likely didn't matter. They were very unlikely to match the contract anyway. That's why some people are frustrated they threw some assets that could have been used for a big trade down the line into a trade that likely didn't need them.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                                Brogdan was an important piece to a championship team. People believe (I think somewhat correctly) that the only reason they let him go is a financial one, that they wanted to avoid the luxury tax this year because they know they are going into it when Giannis re-signs.

                                If that's true, then the picks likely didn't matter. They were very unlikely to match the contract anyway. That's why some people are frustrated they threw some assets that could have been used for a big trade down the line into a trade that likely didn't need them.
                                IF THAT'S TRUE - but no one knows. Except around here, the truth is always whatever reflects worst on the Pacers. Had we just gone ahead and bid and lost it, we'd have been excoriated for not paying more or for not trading a draft pick instead of bidding. Had we offered a stupid high amount and won we'd have been excoriated for not bidding just enough to beat the amount everyone knows was the max the Bucks would pay or for not doing a trade with a draft pick in order to save some cap space.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X