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

Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

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

  • #16
    Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

    Never mind. I looked at the shamsports site and I got 2009/2010 confused with 2008/2009 (this year is no longer listed). Yeah, I think you could get him from Denver if you offered them your trade exception. They'd do it.

    Just don't know for sure if the Pacers want to spend $2.1M on Balkman

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

      When does this off-season starts to get interesting for us again ? I can''t wait o know the final results of finishing our roster.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

        I will drive to OKC, punch any and all persons required as hard as possible, Kanditazer when necessary, drug/poison (non-lethal), photograph for blackmail purposes and any other similar dirty deed required to make the acquisition of KYLE WEAVER happen before next season.

        Personally I prefer administering some groin smashes with a cricket bat, but whatever. The key here is whatever it takes to get defensive ace Weaver on the team. He's a brilliant wing defender than plays a solid team oriented game on offense.



        Of course he falls under the No F'ing Way range of OKC letting him go IMO. Once they moved him into the rotation that was the end of that, he never left and he didn't disappoint. Just like C Lee. Needed to steal both those guys before their teams figured it out.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-05-2009, 02:37 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          I will drive to OKC, punch any and all persons required as hard as possible, Kanditazer when necessary, drug/poison (non-lethal), photograph for blackmail purposes and any other similar dirty deed required to make the acquisition of KYLE WEAVER happen before next season.

          Personally I prefer administering some groin smashes with a cricket bat, but whatever. The key here is whatever it takes to get defensive ace Weaver on the team. He's a brilliant wing defender than plays a solid team oriented game on offense.



          Of course he falls under the No F'ing Way range of OKC letting him go IMO. Once they moved him into the rotation that was the end of that, he never left and he didn't disappoint. Just like C Lee. Needed to steal both those guys before their teams figured it out.
          I mean, if you're going to OKC to steal Weaver you may as well grab Durant and Westbrook as well. Why not Green and Harden while you're at it. That'd be great, thanks.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

            Originally posted by Pacemaker View Post
            When does this off-season starts to get interesting for us again ? I can''t wait o know the final results of finishing our roster.
            Theoretically? Any time starting late this week. Realistically? Probably not for a few months.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

              Balkman looks like he could be a good bench player from what I've seen. He looks like a pretty good defender and plays the game with a lot of energy, something that any bench could use. It'll be interesting to see if Denver keeps him around for insurance purposes in case they lose Jones or Kleiza. It makes sense if the Pacers are interested in Jones, that they'd be interested in Balkman, whose kind of the same type of player (good defender, raw offensively).

              I saw this from draftexpress from June 2006:

              Balkman’s game is not much unlike current NBA player Trevor Ariza’s. They have the same knack for rebounding, the same long and athletic physical attributes, the same energy on the floor, and the same raw perimeter game. Ariza is a better ball-handler than Balkman, and has recently developed a larger semblance of a mid-range jumper, but otherwise, Balkman could play a very similar role for an NBA team that Ariza does, providing energy in the passing lanes and on the break while contributing some slashing and rebounding offensively.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                Getting him with a TE would also give Denver more money, and theoretically that might make it easier (along with the extra swingman spot open) to re-sign Kleiza.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                  So someone get the number to Denver's GM and get this deal going.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                    Put me down as also being in the Balkman camp.


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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                      I'd be open to the Balkman deal, but using a trade exception means increasing payroll.

                      Am I missing something or is there a reason to suggest that this cash-strapped franchise is really open to doing that?
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                        we need to fill out the roster anyway with cheap deals. using the trade exception for that purpose makes sense.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                          I'd be open to the Balkman deal, but using a trade exception means increasing payroll.

                          Am I missing something or is there a reason to suggest that this cash-strapped franchise is really open to doing that?
                          Well, they can either spend the money on Balkman, or spend a similar amount of money on some swingman free agent. One way or another, they're likely going to be spending around $2m on a swingman. I suppose they could use $1m each on two super-cheap singmen, though.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                            Afflalo's dad is friends with my landlord. I chatted with him not too long ago, and he was hopeful that Arron would get out of Detroit because of the tenured guys ahead of him. Sounds like he just wants to go somewhere to show that he can play. Be happy to have him on our team.

                            I'm intrigued to see how our front office fills out the roster this year. Watching other teams make exciting moves makes for a long wait.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                              Again, I like the way TBird thinks. However, there's one problem with the list of names he has provided: the majority are Guards. So, unless Bird/Morray intend on pulling a power-play, ala, T-Wolves style, and use PGs/SGs as bargaining chips, I doubt TPTB will go after most of the players listed. Furthermore, I suspect Bird/Morray will seek to fill out the roster at those positions of "need" rather than do many trades in the hopes of placing themselves in a better bargaining position. To do that, we need to know where the needs are. To that, here's where I see the roster now, 1-day before Summer League play:

                              C - Hibbert, Foster
                              PF - Murphy, McRoberts, Hansbrough
                              SF - Granger, Dunleavy
                              PG - Ford, Jack, Diener, Price, Tinsley
                              SG - Rush

                              It's clear to see that from the above the Pacer need another SG, SF and C. IMO, filling the wholes in each of these positions should be their priorities starting w/SF, C and PG in that order

                              It's a given that the first thing Bird/Morray will attempt to do is re-sign Jack. Next, they will likely wait and see what happens with Quis. The two are key issues they must tackle first before they're able to truly move forward with any more moves. If they're able to bring these two players back, they'd be able to fill the BU-SF position w/Quis and have a viable 6th Man in reserve until Dunleavy completes his rehab, as well as cement their PG rotation (although something tells me they'll try to use Ford as trade bait since he's inked for $1.3M this year an $1M for next year (player option), below what Tinsley is due over the same 2-year period.) If not, they'd have to find backups at both positions.

                              TBird lists two potential SF acquisitions, Nicolas Batum and Julie Wright. Both are under guaranteed contracts for at least one more year w/their respective teams, but things get alittle sticky w/both from there.

                              Batum is secured for next year and has two single year team options for 2011 and 2012, respectively. He becomes a restricted free agent in 2013. In total, he's slated to make approx. $7.4M thru 2013. Wright is also secured for next year, has a team option for 2011 and becomes a restricted free agent in 2012. In total, he's slated to make approx. $8.8M thru 2012. The obvious problem with attempting to swing either is they stand to make a decent piece of change over the next 3-4 years. Unless the Pacers are able to finally dumb Tinsley's salary or trade Ford because he is the only other player the Pacers have under a short-term contract who they can bargain with, I seriously doubt they'd be able to net either.

                              I think Patrick O'Bryant is the only Center TBird mentions, but even acquiring him could be trickly. Although the Raptors do have depth at this position, they don't have enough experiece Centers. O'Bryant is the backup to Bargnani. He's a RFA this year and there isn't any news out of Tornato (that I could find anyway) where they picked up his team option yet. Still, the Pacers aren't really hurting in that area; they could always use Murphy at Center if they really had to go that route.

                              And that leaves us with how to fill the backup SG void. Again, if the Pacers are able to bring Jack back, they could use in much as they did last year as a combo-Guard, but that all depends on what happens w/Ford. Of course, the other side of this equation is if Diener would also be willing to play some at SG because odds are if Jack does return and Ford is traded, Jack would become the starting PG and Diener his backup. Or JOB could use A.J. Price at BU-PG and use Diener primarily as a BU-SG. Point here is JOB has options if Jack doesn't return, but they're not very ideal. Regardless of which way TPTB go, any move they makes starts with Jack, Quis and Ford. Once their futures w/the Pacers are settled, Bird/Morray can start making more educated moves from there. (Of course, Tinsley's future is also part of the equation, but since they've made up their minds [for now at least] not to buy him out and his arbitration hearing is still in-progress, they really can't wait around until the dust settles on his situation before moving forward. Still, if they're able to move his salary off the books, that would open up their options considerable.)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                                Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                                I mean, if you're going to OKC to steal Weaver you may as well grab Durant and Westbrook as well. Why not Green and Harden while you're at it. That'd be great, thanks.


                                Can't push my luck.



                                But you guys for Balkman I don't think really watched Weaver up to this point. I'm assuming a majority of people here didn't happen to watch much Wash St 2 years ago, and that was a season where the Pac 10 was loaded. You had Bayless/Budinger, Love/Westbrook/Collison/Moute, Mayo/DeRozen, Lopez/Lopez...Weaver was on the court against a lot of talented teams and was extremely impressive.

                                As I said, the issue probably is that OKC wants to keep him. But if for whatever reason they feel financial pressure pending for the rest of that roster, I would love to see the Pacers sweep in and nab him.



                                I haven't kept up on Walker's return from injury but he'd be another interesting guy if he's recovered. He's not Weaver but if healthy he's a clear NBA caliber player. At times he was better than BEasy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X