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

Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

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

  • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

    Originally posted by owl View Post
    It could be coincidence but does anybody find it odd Jeff has not played at all recently?
    It could just be injury related but with the fact it has been reported Denver almost made a deal for a bigman I wonder.

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Chat.asp?CHAT_TOPICS_ID=712


    Justin in DENVER:
    FOSTER OR HAYWOOD... When does it happen, and who's the better fit???

    Eric Pincus:
    I hear the Nuggets prefer Foster but the Pacers have a lot of loyalty to Jeff - always have. The Wizards can't afford to be loyal to anyone right now. I'm not sure exactly how the numbers would work since Haywood is an expiring contract. Washington needs some sort of incentive.
    Great to hear
    Sittin on top of the world!

    Comment


    • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

      When was the last time Foster even played a game? Something smells with all this Foster talk. The guy has a bad back and hasn't even played one solid game this year. I don't get why anyone would even want him.

      Comment


      • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        Let's just put it this way: Larry Bird isn't the guy preventing those two trades from happening. If those other two teams agreed to that, those trades would've already happened.
        Hickson's not particularly impressive so I doubt he's the hold up. The more plausible scenario is that the Cavs simply aren't offering enough to land a 15/10 PF who's one of the league's best shooters and who comes with zero risk due to his short contract. Maybe if the trade deadline arrives and a better offer hasn't come along then Indy bites, but likely no sooner. As NBA expert Chad Ford said:
        Bill (Indy)

        Why don't the Cav's trade Z and Hickson to Indy for Murphy and then pick Z back up after the Pacers buy him out?

        Chad Ford (1:27 PM)

        Cavs can do that if Pacers waive. But there's a waiting period. I think Pacers will probably want more (and can command more) for Murphy that just Z and Hickson.

        Comment


        • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          Exactly! Wall is 6'4 and Price is 6'2, they could play together. Start both of them and then bring Rush in to spell both of them.
          Could? Could?

          You do know who the coach is, right?

          If you draft Wall he's your starting PF, not PG.

          Comment


          • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Brandon Jennings, Tyreke Evans, Stephen Curry, Jonny Flynn, Ricky Rubio, Jrue Holiday, Eric Maynor, and Jeff Teague, Darren Collison, and AJ Price-you've been put on notice.
            Teague and Holiday aren't there yet, both should have stayed another year in the NCAA. Collison has been a better team PG (finally) but has a lot to prove. Maynor is very limited, really with just the floater or the pass from the lane if the floater isn't there.

            But then you forgot Patty Mills who started out with an injury, so we'll call it a wash.

            I'm not yet sold on Lawson, similar reasons as Tyler. Both played for a poor defensive team and did their most damage in the transition rather than half court. I hate how high Lawson carries his dribble and keep waiting for that to get exploited.

            Maybe I misread him, but I definitely do not rank him higher than Price as a TEAM PG that creates new things in the halfcourt for other players. We'll see.

            My opinion is based on the last 2 years of college as much as it is the first 35 games this year.

            Comment


            • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
              This John Wall love affair has officially gone too far.

              I really like AJ Price's game. At the same time I am not that crazy that I think we wouldn't take Wall if we actually were number one overall. I think Price could be a good starting PG for us as long as we give him the chance. We need legitimate help in the front court. After we get past Hibbert and Hans... there is nobody to build around in the front court. I like McRoberts, but I am going to assume that he is not a buildable piece with the lack of playing time he has gotten. We still need another C/PF even counting McRoberts.

              I also really hate the PG's in this draft not named Wall. I think some of the wing players would be good, but I think you could do well with a couple of second round players to cover the wings. There is just sooooo much depth at PF/C in this draft we would be ignorant not to take advantage of that.
              Here's what these guys are just throwing out the door and why it's insulting for them to act like Wall is "obviously" the right choice.

              You trade Greg Oden and draft Noah AND Rudy Fernandez (or Young, Young, Bellinelli), maybe throw in Landry or Aaron Brooks too

              You trade Stromile Swift and draft Turkoglu and Magloire


              non-injury/bust
              You trade Elton Brand and draft Jason Terry AND Ron Artest (or AK47)

              You trade Iverson and draft Kobe AND Steve Nash

              You trade Derek Rose and draft Augustin (or Bayless, C Lee, Chamlers) AND B Lopez

              Rose for Westbrook AND Doug-Rob AND Kyle Weaver

              Lebron for Wade AND Perkins



              By draft location these are all realistic opportunities if everyone is sure the top guy is the "sure thing" just like Oden.

              The key is to be certain on your picks, and that includes the top guy. If you can't scout then you aren't going to build a team in the draft, period.

              Right now Wall hasn't failed. I love him as the top pick, but "once in a lifetime" when we've just see guys like Lebron and Durant and Rose and Chris Paul drafted? More like twice per draft. Wall is not going to be better than Lebron or Kobe or Durant or Rose. As good as, possibly. And some other player in this draft will likely be a superstar or close.

              Patterson? Favors? Possibly even a pick around 8-12.

              Is this another Beasley vs Rose where the Bulls made the "wrong choice" because they drafted by need?



              Would you trade David Robinson for BOTH Reggie and Mark Jackson?

              Comment


              • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                Hickson's not particularly impressive so I doubt he's the hold up. The more plausible scenario is that the Cavs simply aren't offering enough to land a 15/10 PF who's one of the league's best shooters and who comes with zero risk due to his short contract. Maybe if the trade deadline arrives and a better offer hasn't come along then Indy bites, but likely no sooner. As NBA expert Chad Ford said:
                Command more?

                If any way on Gods green earth that is true and Bord DOESNT move Murphy that will severly hurt my loyalty
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment


                • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  Hickson's not particularly impressive so I doubt he's the hold up. The more plausible scenario is that the Cavs simply aren't offering enough to land a 15/10 PF who's one of the league's best shooters and who comes with zero risk due to his short contract. Maybe if the trade deadline arrives and a better offer hasn't come along then Indy bites, but likely no sooner. As NBA expert Chad Ford said:
                  I honestly don't think anyone is desperate to land Troy Murphy. At a reasonable price, sure. But nobody is giving up anything that they feel is a key component or prospect to their team.

                  Troy is a nice role player, but on a contending team, his salary next season is going to run that team up into luxury tax territory (assuming they give back the Pacers an expiring deal).

                  I think if the Cavs offered just Ilguaskas, the Pacers should jump all over that. It would alleviate a lot of potential payroll problems next season.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    I honestly don't think anyone is desperate to land Troy Murphy. At a reasonable price, sure. But nobody is giving up anything that they feel is a key component or prospect to their team.

                    Troy is a nice role player, but on a contending team, his salary next season is going to run that team up into luxury tax territory (assuming they give back the Pacers an expiring deal).

                    I think if the Cavs offered just Ilguaskas, the Pacers should jump all over that. It would alleviate a lot of potential payroll problems next season.

                    Exactly!
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                      Seth, those trades may have been historically possible, but they are hardly probable. Its hard enough to get those types of players in the top 5, much less from 10-15.

                      As for Lawson, even if he is just awful in the half court, he still is the best in transition, takes care of the ball (despite your phantom dribbling concerns) and is shooting at an absurd % for a 1 from inside and outside the arc. He's done it off the bench and as a starter against starters, in the West. If you can get him for Foster, do it now before the Nuggets sober up.

                      Its sad that you just write off an entire Championship team's worth of players because you don't like Carolina basketball (stylistically, if not the program itself).

                      Comment


                      • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        Cough cough, ok. Personally, I don't think you have much to worry about the Pacers getting the #1 pick, b/c if the Pacers didn't have bad luck they wouldn't have any luck at all. I'm not counting on Wall, but 4-7 pick.
                        Nope...The Pistons are busy loosing at a rate we cant match...
                        http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
                        "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          T.J. Ford and Kenyon Martin could be added to any potential deal to get salaries to work. They both have two years remaining. Of course trading Martin may defeat the whole purpose of the deal for Denver.
                          Nooooooo...Say no to KMart. Larry wouldn't have him. Interesting idea though.
                          Last edited by DaveP63; 01-12-2010, 07:19 PM.
                          http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
                          "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

                          Comment


                          • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                            some thoughts on just how much denver "loves" foster. last year, they offered linas kleiza (who they didn't re-sign) and a protected first round pick from charlotte (which hasn't been redeemed yet). expecting them to give up a future rotation player in lawson for foster seems a bit much to expect.

                            by the way, i think it was mentioned earlier that had we taken the denver trade last year, we would have lawson this year. this turns out to be right. denver ended up using the protected charlotte pick to obtain lawson from the twolves, who drafted him at #20. had we done the denver trade, we could have made the same deal with the twolves.

                            so does that mean denver should still be willing to move lawson for foster? heck no. the pick has already beaten the odds, so to speak, in that it has returned a rotation player (at worst) in lawson. lawson right now is a lot more valuable than a protected future pick, unless of course you're on a long term rebuilding plan like the twolves are.

                            so yeah, denver would love to get foster. but not while giving up anything meaningful. with a third team involving jr smith (who the nuggets have supposedly shopped for a while) - possibly. giving up lawson - not likely.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              by the way, i think it was mentioned earlier that had we taken the denver trade last year, we would have lawson this year. this turns out to be right. denver ended up using the protected charlotte pick to obtain lawson from the twolves, who drafted him at #20. had we done the denver trade, we could have made the same deal with the twolves.
                              Ouch.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Denver "loves" Jeff Foster

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Here's what these guys are just throwing out the door and why it's insulting for them to act like Wall is "obviously" the right choice.

                                You trade Greg Oden and draft Noah AND Rudy Fernandez (or Young, Young, Bellinelli), maybe throw in Landry or Aaron Brooks too

                                You trade Stromile Swift and draft Turkoglu and Magloire


                                non-injury/bust
                                You trade Elton Brand and draft Jason Terry AND Ron Artest (or AK47)

                                You trade Iverson and draft Kobe AND Steve Nash

                                You trade Derek Rose and draft Augustin (or Bayless, C Lee, Chamlers) AND B Lopez

                                Rose for Westbrook AND Doug-Rob AND Kyle Weaver

                                Lebron for Wade AND Perkins



                                By draft location these are all realistic opportunities if everyone is sure the top guy is the "sure thing" just like Oden.

                                The key is to be certain on your picks, and that includes the top guy. If you can't scout then you aren't going to build a team in the draft, period.

                                Right now Wall hasn't failed. I love him as the top pick, but "once in a lifetime" when we've just see guys like Lebron and Durant and Rose and Chris Paul drafted? More like twice per draft. Wall is not going to be better than Lebron or Kobe or Durant or Rose. As good as, possibly. And some other player in this draft will likely be a superstar or close.

                                Patterson? Favors? Possibly even a pick around 8-12.

                                Is this another Beasley vs Rose where the Bulls made the "wrong choice" because they drafted by need?



                                Would you trade David Robinson for BOTH Reggie and Mark Jackson?
                                Yes, it's really easy to go back in past drafts and trade the top pick for two slam dunk guys a little further down. The fact of the matter is you can draft in the 20s all the time if you pick the perfect guy each go-around, and therein lies the trick. Personally, I don't trust Bird (or most GMs, really) to make two picks there. I'd rather go for the slam dunk guy at the top. That's just me though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X