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

Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

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

  • #46
    Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

    Originally posted by Wage View Post
    I absolutely agree.

    However, I want all of you to remember just how infuriating the thought of trading Danny away for nothing but expirings feels. Then apply that same reasoning to our soon to be expiring contracts and realize we are not realistically trading them away for some other team's all-star.
    I agree for the most part, but there is a difference between a young player of Granger's caliber and an older guy on a team trying to make the official move torwards a rebuild.

    I'm not saying that will be the case, just pointing out there is a difference.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

      I agree that this could be interesting if we could have the possibility to sign 1-2 of the bigger name free agents next year. I am not holding my breath on Lebron, Kobe, Wade, but A high quality player or players that are vets but not too old. Add that to possibly getting another 1st round draft pick in it somehow to go along with our high draft pick and I would be very interested. I am a huge Danny fan, but no one is untradable.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        I agree for the most part, but there is a difference between a young player of Granger's caliber and an older guy on a team trying to make the official move torwards a rebuild.

        I'm not saying that will be the case, just pointing out there is a difference.
        But why would next year's Pacers want an older guy? We'd be in the midst of a rebuild ourselves and thus adding a fading player on a longer term deal would be counterproductive.
        SportsTwo.com

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.

          Now, I would normally think that everyone in the Pacers organization would consider this a non-starter. It accelerates the finances by the year, but leaves the team needing two players, instead of just somebody to pair with Danny.

          However, I have no idea how dire the financial straits are, so I can't say that this is an impossibility.

          However, I seriously doubt that a story like this gets broken by bleacher report.
          Totally agree. I mean there is a SLIGHT, TINY sense where this almost makes sense to the Pacers. Give to get, and what you get is massive financial relief. If the team can't handle another year and you have ZERO bites on Troy and Dun in any other manner, then you do it.

          But otherwise it's one more year only, and maybe not even a full one at that. Troy could still go this year for Big Z, and honestly that makes more sense as a deal for both teams.

          Perhaps the Pacers see TMac as both still able to play and a huge ticket bump this year. That POV would also give some reason to buy into this a bit. Then it's not just the savings next year, but also this year in increased ticket sales.


          If Troy and Dun had 2 more years after this season I'd buy this deal and consider it reasonable.

          To me the ONLY truth to the story is that the Rockets and Pacers talked about the TMac thing and Houston said "we'd only help you that much if we got Granger too" and the Pacers didn't laugh in their face, ie "considered it".

          This guy heard about it from the janitor, a sales rep, the bartender at Mo's, whatever, and has run with it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

            Originally posted by Wage View Post
            I absolutely agree.

            However, I want all of you to remember just how infuriating the thought of trading Danny away for nothing but expirings feels. Then apply that same reasoning to our soon to be expiring contracts and realize we are not realistically trading them away for some other team's all-star.
            I've never thought they were, and I'm pretty sure Count has made a similar case. I think he's even less bullish on the idea that they'll do anything other than just save the money when their deals end.

            I think they will move them for some tweak help next year, or for an expiring this year to help another team make a tweak.


            I don't think anyone that's viewed the Troy/Dun money as a pathway to an all-star is being reasonable at all. But no matter how much the reality of the numbers gets brought up, that kind of "wait till we get cap space" talk continues.

            Personally I hope they stay the hell away from the serious FA market. Bad money out in that area.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              The unfortunate thing is the guy has a point, Granger is our only bargaining chip and I maybe could even agree that now is the time to use it, but for T-mac, Cook and a "future pick" No way. Unles the Rockets have another team's high draft pick?

              And to think, many of you think Vecsey is a little wacky
              Um, the nuthouse is full of nuts. This means that if you go visit there's bound to be two standing next to each other, and one of them is bound to be at least a little bit nuttier than the other.

              Doesn't mean the saner guy actually is Napoleon.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                No. They really don't.

                They become more movable, but not much more valuable.
                But that's the same thing.

                If the value of Troy/Dun is "negative Granger" (you pay a team to take them by handing over Danny) and next year the value is "zero" (Danny no longer required), I'd say that quite an increase in value. Because they are going from deep in the red to neutral, you call it "movable", but it's still an increase in value.

                Think about how low this implies their value is btw, that you have to pay with RESIGNED all-star Granger just to get a team to take on their contracts for one year. Worse yet is you are taking on their TMac problem too, so you are paying with Granger and a dash of "no more TMac" just to get them to take Dun and Troy.

                Yeesh, is their market really that bad? I can't believe it is.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Totally agree. I mean there is a SLIGHT, TINY sense where this almost makes sense to the Pacers. Give to get, and what you get is massive financial relief.
                  What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

                    Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                    What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?
                    Maybe just being one of the few teams that can actually afford to give a big contract?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      ....Yeesh, is their market really that bad? I can't believe it is.
                      No, I don't think the market is that bad.

                      I don't think we have to give up that much. Who holds more leverage in this situation? I realize Tracy's expiring contract is a huge financial asset, but who's looking for the move? Which team wants to gain something for the loss of their star? Which team sent a player home while they actively trade?

                      We'd basically be leasing 2 quality players to Houston for one year. Then Murphy and Dunleavy are off the books. Outside of making the deal financially workable, I'd think we could give away Lorbek and a future 1st and still have this deal.

                      Quick, someone hack and delete Daryl Morey's data.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?
                        If you have money, you can sign someone. Just for kicks, suppose they managed to pull a 3 way trade:
                        Tmac, Lowry, Cook to Pacers
                        Granger, Ford, Big Z to Rockets
                        Murphy to Cavs

                        We push through this year with
                        1- Lowry, Watson, Price
                        2- TMac, Head, Rush
                        3- Dunleavy, D. Jones
                        4- Tyler, McRoberts, Cook
                        5- Hibbert, Solo, Foster

                        (I'd be optimistic about moving Foster for expirings also, but we'll assume the worst)

                        Under that scenario, we'd have about $20M in cap space this summer. Suppose we spend $4ish to keep Lowry, perhaps less, and $8ish on Rudy gay, who basically replaces Granger for a bit less. We add our first rounder at another $3M or so.

                        That leaves us with:
                        1- Lowry, Price
                        2- Gay, Rush
                        3- Dunleavy, D. Jones
                        4- Tyler, McRoberts
                        5- Hibbert, Solo, Foster
                        + a high lottery pick

                        Total cost = $49M.

                        Now compare that to where we're headed now. Currently, we're projecting to be at $65M in salary next year so if we add in the cost of our first rounder, we're at about $68M. The luxury tax is supposedly going to be around $64M, so we're projecting to be about $4M over. So in addition to paying that much salary, we fork over another $4M to the league, and we don't get tax (and possibly escrow) distribtions from the league amounting to another $3-5M.

                        So if we conservatively add it up, making this sort of deal would save:
                        $19M in salary the Pacers wouldn't have to pay
                        + $4M in luxury tax payments they wouldn't have to make
                        + $3M in tax and escrow payments they'd get from the league.
                        = $26M freaking dollars.

                        That's a huge savings. It dwarfs the amounts they're negotiating on with the CIB for example. Add in the $6.7M we could probably save by dropping Foster for expirings, and we're talking about a $33M turnaround.

                        That's the kind of thing that would not only turn the team a profit, but it'd set a much more solid stage for keeping them here long run.

                        And at the end of the day, would that $49M team really be any worse than what we're expecting? It seems like it's very young, but at least we're not waiting around another year to start the rebuilding.
                        Last edited by MikeDC; 01-07-2010, 12:48 AM. Reason: Forgot TMac in the lineup
                        SportsTwo.com

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                          What about McGrady? You forgot to include him for the remainder of the season, MikeDC.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird

                            Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                            That's the kind of thing that would not only turn the team a profit, but it'd set a much more solid stage for keeping them here long run.
                            You can't turn a profit without fans. They would lose 80% of the fan base with a Granger for cap relief trade.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                              What about McGrady? You forgot to include him for the remainder of the season, MikeDC.
                              Oops! Yup. If he's actually healthy enough to play, and everyone else gets healthy, I daresay the post-trade team wouldn't be any worse than the pre-trade team. And it's possible it could scrap into a playoff berth, though I wouldn't bet on it.

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                              You can't turn a profit without fans. They would lose 80% of the fan base with a Granger for cap relief trade.
                              Well, a healthy TMac will sell some seats, especially if they win some down the stretch.

                              Beyond that, I think you overestimate the loss of fan base and underestimate the intelligence of hard core fans.

                              First, hard core fans are all that remains anyway these days. Every time I've ever been to CFH, it's half-empty. There is no buzz whatsoever about this team and lots of folks that were fans and could be again are already sitting out on the Pacers.

                              Second, I think fans in general and especially the hard core guys that are crazy enough to still be following this team are generally a smart bunch. They're smart enough to understand that this team needs to be rebuilt and that something has got to give in order to do that.

                              It's true that folks are going to second-guess those decisions, especially if the Pacers botch their draft picks and free agency. But that's true regardless. If the Pacers make good selections in those areas, they'd be fine. They have a much better chance, I think, of weathering 6 months of fan ire and apathy than they do 18 months of it (they're getting it now and they'll get it through next year without changes) but at $30M in additional expense.
                              SportsTwo.com

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                                Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                                Oops! Yup. If he's actually healthy enough to play, and everyone else gets healthy, I daresay the post-trade team wouldn't be any worse than the pre-trade team. And it's possible it could scrap into a playoff berth, though I wouldn't bet on it.



                                Well, a healthy TMac will sell some seats, especially if they win some down the stretch.

                                Beyond that, I think you overestimate the loss of fan base and underestimate the intelligence of hard core fans.

                                First, hard core fans are all that remains anyway these days. Every time I've ever been to CFH, it's half-empty. There is no buzz whatsoever about this team and lots of folks that were fans and could be again are already sitting out on the Pacers.

                                Second, I think fans in general and especially the hard core guys that are crazy enough to still be following this team are generally a smart bunch. They're smart enough to understand that this team needs to be rebuilt and that something has got to give in order to do that.

                                It's true that folks are going to second-guess those decisions, especially if the Pacers botch their draft picks and free agency. But that's true regardless. If the Pacers make good selections in those areas, they'd be fine. They have a much better chance, I think, of weathering 6 months of fan ire and apathy than they do 18 months of it (they're getting it now and they'll get it through next year without changes) but at $30M in additional expense.
                                Trading away a young All-Star for nothing but cap relief does nothing for a rebuild. All it does, is show that the organization cares nothing about winning and just wants to save money. Teams that sell their best players are never going to be competitive.

                                We would be the league farm, draft a player, make him an All-Star, then trade them for cap relief. Worst. Strategy. Ever.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X