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

Dunc’ed on Podcast with J. Michael

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

  • #16
    What's becoming clear is that Sabonis is the guy being positioned to be the odd man out.

    The problem is, his value on the open market seems limited. So, I think the prudent thing to do is to sign him to a reasonable (12-16m/year) contract and see how he develops.

    Fingers crossed that he fits alongside Myles... but worst case scenario, he becomes a trade piece for the future.

    Given the current trends in the NBA, I do not believe that Sabonis is a starting-level center, but he seems to think so... so this might become an issue.

    Comment


    • #17
      It is pretty obvious that Myles is the guy the team is hitching their wagon to. If it were me, I would try to sign Domas to a 4-60 contract, if it works out with Myles, then you have a decent contract on a decent starter, if it doesn’t, he still has positive value for a trade. No way you sign this guy to what some have suggested, he would be our albatross contract that doesn’t fit if things go south.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Isaac View Post

        Wrong year. This is referencing last year's draft when Memphis had the 4th pick and took Jaren Jackson Jr.
        Interesting. I thought there were clear rumors that the Pacers were looking to trade up this year and Myles and Domas were mentioned.
        Some thought it was to move up to get Bitadze??
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BillS View Post

          How does Conley get us a championship? Or Porter? Those aren't "win now" moves, those are "get players who have a history but are owed too much money for their current value" moves. Aren't those the "thing the franchise always does" that people object to?

          I maintain that if you can convince Herb that spending that much on a player gets us a championship, he'll do it. But if we could have (and have had) a knock-down drag-out argument here on PD about whether a player is the next step or is falling apart then there's no high confidence being sold to ownership either.

          If you're talking about rejecting the Turner for #4 that wasn't ownership, that was management.
          But what reason do you have to believe that? Give me one example of him doing that and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Its not like we havent been close. So hes had opportunities.

          It's never happened and it never will happen. There are no additions that fit that criteria. It's basically saying, if GIANNIS ANTEKOUMPO and KAWHI LEONARD ever want to team up in Indiana, I'll pay for them. Yeah, sure you would. But who else would you spend for to guarantee us a title? Nobody we could ever get, that's who. That's a pie in the sky man, and I dont buy it.

          Simon isn't a basketball person. He either doesnt trust the man hes hired, or he is unwilling to spend. Either way, it's not good.
          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

            But what reason do you have to believe that? Give me one example of him doing that and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Its not like we havent been close. So hes had opportunities.

            It's never happened and it never will happen. There are no additions that fit that criteria. It's basically saying, if GIANNIS ANTEKOUMPO and KAWHI LEONARD ever want to team up in Indiana, I'll pay for them. Yeah, sure you would. But who else would you spend for to guarantee us a title? Nobody we could ever get, that's who. That's a pie in the sky man, and I dont buy it.

            Simon isn't a basketball person. He either doesnt trust the man hes hired, or he is unwilling to spend. Either way, it's not good.
            Well, he went over the luxury tax for the teams in the 2000s, but I know people dismiss that and ignore it so they can say "it never happened."

            I have also not yet seen anyone specifically suggested who is more than a "we should try that and if it works out it would be great!" situation for throwing huge contracts at in trades. Which is a pretty crappy way to invest half your salary expenses (the salary plus the LT). "Hey, I'll overpay for this swampy land but if climate change causes it to dry up I'll be rich!"

            I mean, the very fact that the general consensus on these possible trades is "we dodged that bullet" should make it less of a blanket condemnation of stupid ownership than some want to make it.

            Most of the arguers don't have a solution that requires going into the LT - they just want us to live in the LT to show willing.
            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


            • #21
              It IS invalid completely invalid. The penalties have stiffened greatly since then thru the latest CBA. He is very much unwilling to do it under these circumstances.

              The Otto Porter trade is a prime example. He didnt pass on Otto because hes overpaid. He passed on Otto because he cant see us fielding a contending team, under our own self imposed financial constraints, with his salary on the books.

              The Raptors won last year while "overpaying" Marc Gasol and Serge Ibaka. So, if you're willing to take chances and spend, you can build a title team whether you overpay guys or not.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                It IS invalid completely invalid. The penalties have stiffened greatly since then thru the latest CBA. He is very much unwilling to do it under these circumstances.

                The Otto Porter trade is a prime example. He didnt pass on Otto because hes overpaid. He passed on Otto because he cant see us fielding a contending team, under our own self imposed financial constraints, with his salary on the books.

                The Raptors won last year while "overpaying" Marc Gasol and Serge Ibaka. So, if you're willing to take chances and spend, you can build a title team whether you overpay guys or not.
                The first part is completely true. The luxury tax is completely different, and there are lots of signs both explicitly through many different reporters, Larry Bird himself, and implicitly by the way Pacers GM's have tended to build their team over the last few years that would suggest the luxury tax is almost an impossibility at this point.

                The second part I disagree with more. The way the cap works, it is not good to overpay players until A) You have your team essentially assembled or B) have tons of draft capital/young players that can be used to trade for the rest of the team you need. Toronto for example was a great example of some of A and B before they started handing out those overpaid contracts. The Pacers might have had A before Oladipo was injured, but as soon as he was they needed to save that cap space for building core pieces.

                Comment


                • #23
                  In regards to Otto when it comes to how much the Pacers had to give up to get him.

                  If the cost is too much ( a 1st + Prospect + Expiring )? too much

                  If the cost was just about right ( future 1st round pick beyond 2020-2021 season + Expiring )? Sure, why not?

                  We need to get some context here before saying that it was a good idea for Simon to have passed on him or not.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    This makes me even happier with our off-season.

                    Brogdon can be everything that Mike Conley is, but the beautiful thing is he is 5yrs younger, $10mil less in salary & fits our timeline.
                    TJ Warren is pretty much the same player Otto Porter is & he comes in at about a third the price.

                    As for those 2 proposed trades I'm quite happy they didn't go ahead. If we traded Turner I almost guarantee we would've drafted Kevin Knox (no thanks) & part of me feels we were going to trade Sabonis in order to grab Bitadze as we had him quite high on our board, thinking he would be gone by 18.


                    Sabonis does look like he will be the odd man out if this rotation doesn't work, if we don't get a deal done (which is likely as there is so much unknown with Domantas) then I could see us moving him during the season or potentially doing something like we did with Milwaukee for Brogdon.
                    Atlanta & Boston could be in the market for a C.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BillS View Post

                      How does Conley get us a championship? Or Porter? Those aren't "win now" moves, those are "get players who have a history but are owed too much money for their current value" moves. Aren't those the "thing the franchise always does" that people object to?

                      I maintain that if you can convince Herb that spending that much on a player gets us a championship, he'll do it. But if we could have (and have had) a knock-down drag-out argument here on PD about whether a player is the next step or is falling apart then there's no high confidence being sold to ownership either.

                      If you're talking about rejecting the Turner for #4 that wasn't ownership, that was management.
                      We have an owner, who is not a basketball person, overruling his basketball people based on dollars. Nothing else you said really matters to my point.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bball View Post

                        We have an owner, who is not a basketball person, overruling his basketball people based on dollars. Nothing else you said really matters to my point.
                        I share your concern. But I honestly don’t think Herb is close enough to the details to make basketball decisions.

                        I suspect what’s happening is something more akin to:

                        Pritchard: “we’ve been offered what I think is a fair deal for Mike Conley... it’ll require Holiday and a first to get him”

                        Simon: “he’s over 10 million a year more expensive than Oladipo, our teams leader. Do you think we can contend if we trade for him”

                        McMillan: “he’s a great player, but I still think we are a few pieces away, and we don’t know what Victor will look like once he comes back”

                        Simon: “then let’s not make this kind of move until we are all in”

                        At least I hope so. This guy isn’t Mark Cuban or something.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          For me, Herb's stock goes up. He nixed the Conley deal, and a year later we get Brogdan, better for us in every way. He nixed the Porter deal, who really doesn't move the needle for us. He didn't nix Turner for the 4th---the one trade that sounds appealing to me. Apparently management nixed that one.

                          Herb may not have "a basketball mind" but his decisions show he has a better one than management.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Not going to lie, none of this fills me with much joy. Thank God our summer happened the way it did and way before I ever read any of this because the fact that our management was attempting to make some of these trades makes me want to vomit and the fact that our owner is so heavily involved in every trade decision does not thrill me either. Don't get me wrong I'm thrilled he veto'ed these particular trades but I think the idea that Herb is a hands off owner who follows the advice of his front office has really been dispelled over the past couple of seasons.

                            Good God, who and or what were they going to trade for Otto Porter? For that matter why were they not all in on Kelly Oubre who would have been twice the player at a fraction of the cost?

                            Oh well, I'm not going to gripe. We had about as perfect of an off season as you can have without getting a true blue chip player which we all know in free agency we are just never going to get.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Not going to lie, none of this fills me with much joy. Thank God our summer happened the way it did and way before I ever read any of this because the fact that our management was attempting to make some of these trades makes me want to vomit and the fact that our owner is so heavily involved in every trade decision does not thrill me either. Don't get me wrong I'm thrilled he veto'ed these particular trades but I think the idea that Herb is a hands off owner who follows the advice of his front office has really been dispelled over the past couple of seasons.

                              Good God, who and or what were they going to trade for Otto Porter? For that matter why were they not all in on Kelly Oubre who would have been twice the player at a fraction of the cost?

                              Oh well, I'm not going to gripe. We had about as perfect of an off season as you can have without getting a true blue chip player which we all know in free agency we are just never going to get.
                              I suspect Herb is only involved in trades that have cap-busting consequences, especially those with LT implications down the line. Both of these would have put us into the LT if we kept our remaining FAs.

                              ETA: And rejecting these two trades and being heavily involved in getting Brogden begins to dispel the notion that he knows nothing about basketball needs...
                              Last edited by BillS; 09-19-2019, 08:13 AM.
                              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


                              • #30
                                The scary part is that we've avoided disasters while lucking into good moves. We could've had Galinari, Jrue and Conley and wound up with Oladipo, Sabonis and Brogdon. We've also heard about Simon intervening quite a bit, including the Brogdon trade.

                                I think we're just getting a broader picture of what's happening behind the scenes than we have in the past. I appreciate that this information has come out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X