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

What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

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

  • #61
    Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
    1. There's not a Rondo-type PG in this draft.

    2. As a Boiler fan, I feel the need to point out that Carl Landry is twice the offensive player that anyone else on the list is, but I wouldn't put him in the same energy/rebounding/defensive category. My hunch is that Landry is like a really smart version of Ike.

    1.) I'd see Westbrook and Rose as that Rondo type and much more than that in Rose's case. Westbrook held Mayo to what 4 pts and 10 turnovers. Maybe not by himself, but he has the makings of a shut down point. I'd be for an existing player in this role as well. I know people mention Jarret Jack and Lowry as possibilities, I'm not sure I'm sold, though.

    2.) I was hesitant to put Landry too for your reason, but because even though he's an energy/physical/rebounding/defensive type, he's not on the level of Verajo and Noah, yet, imo. And those two seem much bigger. I guess the point is with Landry is you can get a guy in the second round, if your smart or lucky or both.
    Last edited by Speed; 04-23-2008, 10:06 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

      This thread is interesting, and there are a lot of good ideas in it.

      Practically, though, the decision tree still has too many branches. It isn't really possible to say what is "realistic" and what isn't. We have to wait until the playoffs and the draft seeding. Only after we know who is in the draft and which teams will pick in what order can the possibilities be whittled down to a small enough number to consider.

      Until then, we should all dream big, I guess.
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

        Originally posted by Speed View Post
        1.) I'd see Westbrook and Rose as that Rondo type and much more than that in Rose's case. Westbrook held Mayo to what 4 pts and 10 turnovers. Maybe not by himself, but he has the makings of a shut down point. I'd be for an existing player in this role as well. I know people mention Jarret Jack and Lowry as possibilities, I'm not sure I'm sold, though.

        2.) I was hesitant to put Landry too for your reason, but because even though he's an energy/physical/rebounding/defensive type, he's not on the level of Verajo and Noah, yet, imo. And those two seem much bigger. I guess the point is with Landry is you can get a guy in the second round, if your smart or lucky or both.
        Westbrook could be the one exception. The main difference between he and Rondo is that Rondo actually played PG in college. Westbrook has big question marks as a PG because we've never seen him play the position. I like Westbrook a lot and will be very dissapointed if he's there at #11 and we don't take him. What I'd do if we got him would be to pretty much hand him all of Quis' minutes. All that being said, I think Westbrook probably has just as many PG skills right now as Flip Murray does.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
          Westbrook could be the one exception. The main difference between he and Rondo is that Rondo actually played PG in college. Westbrook has big question marks as a PG because we've never seen him play the position. I like Westbrook a lot and will be very dissapointed if he's there at #11 and we don't take him. What I'd do if we got him would be to pretty much hand him all of Quis' minutes. All that being said, I think Westbrook probably has just as many PG skills right now as Flip Murray does.
          Agreed, I'm really hoping for Westbrook now, but I'm thinking after he does some workouts he'll be gone pretty early. He'll jump through the roof and do some awesome windmill dunks and it'll be a done deal. I guess the guy is an amazing athelete and that'll translate in a workout, big time.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

            What I would really like to see from this team is direction. What direction are we heading?

            Do we go with the younger guys, allowing them to play more and see where the future is headed?

            Do we stick with the vets that we have and attempt to be a legit playoff team in the East?


            If we go with the youth movement, we need to trade some of our older guys for picks or young guys on other teams and make sure Ike, Williams, Harrison and Granger all see the floor together.

            If we try to compete we need to trade for an All-Star caliber player and keep JO.

            And I couldn't agree more with JOB's assessment of needing more toughness.
            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

              Originally posted by Speed View Post
              Agreed, I'm really hoping for Westbrook now, but I'm thinking after he does some workouts he'll be gone pretty early. He'll jump through the roof and do some awesome windmill dunks and it'll be a done deal. I guess the guy is an amazing athelete and that'll translate in a workout, big time.
              I also am hoping for Westbrook.

              The good thing is this is a very deep draft on guards that are clearly better prospects than him, IMO. You have Rose, Bayless, Gordon, and Mayo. I think what it will come down to is if teams want a big like say Kevin Love or Darrell Arthur or do they want to take a chance on Westbrook?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                The Spurs are really lucky. They won the David Robinson lottery. Then the one year when they were totally ravaged by injuries and fell out of the playoffs in the Robinson era, they won the Tim duncan lotto. Of course they weren;'t on the short end of the ping pong balls.

                I thought the Mavs were the team that was tied with Orlando for that ping pong ball that got Shaq.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  I think its if they get a top 2, then I've seen 3-8 all different on who people project. If the Pacers don't get top 2, I'm thinking its not going to be that helpful to move up, unless they really like one or two players.
                  I could see Chicago liking Westbrook and scaring the Pacers of not getting a PG in the lottery.

                  Plan B would be Speights for me.

                  Interesting that a lot of chatter at the last trade deadline was with NJ, who picks right a head of us. I'd love to see the Pacers get that pick, but I know it would require taking on Carter, which I would pass on. Can't think of a three way on where to send him too. Denver?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                    Hang onto JO unless you get a good offer, his value will only go up the closer his contract gets to finishing.

                    Extend Granger.

                    Deal Marquis, Foster or Ike packaged with Murphy or Tinsley to shed some salary.

                    Pick the best non-SF available at 11, move up if you can get a PG who could help us.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      All I ask is that Tinsley is not on the team next season.

                      That is it
                      I agree, it's not necessary to trade JO. If we received a good player in return and maybe an expiring and pick I would do it. We have about 6 players we can depend on night in and night out. We need 8 minimum. It will be "another" interesting summer. I like where we sit going in. We have many ways to make this team better. I think its possible that JO may end up in Dallas. Not sure if Cuban wants 3 players making 20M a year.
                      "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                      Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                        Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                        We'll have 8 balls in the hopper so it's a .8% shot. Pretty damn
                        slim odds. I wonder what the highest pre-Lottery, ranked team
                        under the current format that secured a spot in the top-3 ?
                        If I'm not mistaken, there's not a certain number of team balls in the hopper anymore.

                        If I remember correctly there's numbered balls, and all teams receive a list of combinations. They dump in balls 1-14 I believe, and then they assign teams a number of combinations, and if your combo is selected out of the 4 balls drawn, you win the lottery

                        So every team will have combinations, with the worst teams getting the most combinations.

                        So the hopper could come out:
                        2-6-10-8
                        1-14-11-13
                        12-3-7-9

                        They do it a pick at a time, and if your team holds that combo you get the pick, and of course once your team gets a pick, your other combos are eliminated.

                        So it's actually a better chance for those teams with smaller odds, and it showed last year with Memphis, Boston, and the Bucks not getting a top 3 pick.


                        As for my expectations, I want a PG either in the draft or via trade. I don't care if it's Rose, Bayless, Westbrook, Augustin... they are all an upgrade to me.

                        If the Front Office likes a big better, then take a big, but you then have to make a move for a PG, and the best way to do that is for teams with multiple ones.

                        Toronto: Calderon, Ford
                        Seattle: Watson, Ridnour
                        Chicago: Hinrich, Duhon
                        Portland: Blake, Jack, Sergio
                        Memphis: Conley, Lowry, Crittendon

                        Either way it's nice to know that we'll have some options and will actually have a chance to make a 1st round selection no matter what. That's a bargaining chip itself.
                        Let's not forget that Ray Allen was obtained for the #5 pick and fillers and as was Jason Richardson for #9 last year
                        Not to mention players like Zach Randolph being taken on (granted it was Isiah)
                        And you also have late steals with teams like Portland trading in late to get Rudy Fernandez and Petteri Koponen (I wanted them both on the Pacers as well)

                        So who knows what may happen? I'm getting pumped just thinking about it

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          And you also have late steals with teams like Portland trading in late to get Rudy Fernandez and Petteri Koponen (I wanted them both on the Pacers as well)
                          Portland didn't trade to get Phx's pick which got them Fernandez.

                          They gave Phx $3 million in cold hard cash.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                            Originally posted by d_c View Post
                            Portland didn't trade to get Phx's pick which got them Fernandez.

                            They gave Phx $3 million in cold hard cash.
                            That's right! Oh well, either way..... they appear to be nice moves

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: What are your ideal, yet realistic, offseason results for the Pacers?

                              westbrook, speights, courtney lee, and george hill

                              westbrook at #11

                              trade for portland's #13 - Dunleavey and Daniels for #13, Frye, LaFrentz - draft speights

                              trade for houston's #25 - Foster and #41 for Bobby Jackson and #25 - draft lee

                              sign hill who goes undrafted.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X