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

Pacers asking too much for Murph

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

  • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
    However the money aspect in this case is just camouflage for most people wanting to make a bad deal because they want Murphy gone. That's why I say look at the deal without the money!
    Not in my case. I want Murphy traded because he's the most tradeable of the Big4 Contracts ( which is depressing ) and his departure would have the biggest financial impact on the Team next year.

    I admit that I think that if he was moved it would significantly the athleticism of the Frontcourt ( only cuz JO'B would have no choice but to play someone that is more athletic then Murphy is ).....but my greater concern are the financial implications of keeping any of the Big4 Contracts. In this case, I'd rather do a salary Dump of Murphy's contract now so that we have greater flexibility to improve the mediocre Team we have next season.

    I agree, if there was a trade of Murphy that I knew was way better then ( what amounts to ) an Expiring Contract and Powe ( and/or ) a late 1st round draft pick....I'd definitely consider it. But since there isn't ( at least that we are aware ) and I have a preference to move Murphy's contract now....instead of later.....I'll live with any deal we could possibly get from Cleveland.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

      Originally posted by owl View Post
      This is what I was saying awhile back in this thread. I wondered if anyone cared about such
      things.
      If we were on the cusp of being a Playoff bound Team this year or next year......I would care. If we were trading a impact Player that would be on the Team at the start of the 2011-2012 season....then I would likely care.

      Based off of what I have seen of Murphy and what he is capable of doing and ( most notably ) what he isn't capable of doing.....I think that Murphy could help them...but I don't think that he is going to impact the Cavs as much as Sheed did when he was traded to the Pistons. On top of that....Murphy will help them for 2 seasons.

      Since Murphy will likely be relegated to a Matt Bonner/Brian Scalabrine role by the start of the 2011-2012 season ( when we really have to consider such a move ) either on the Cavs or on some other Team and we are not a likely Playoff bound Team this season as well as next season....I don't care as much about the impact of trading him to a team in the same division. We're talking about Murphy here.....we're not talking about trading Granger.
      Last edited by CableKC; 02-05-2010, 02:46 PM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Excellent point, Seth. Excellent point.

        I don't think the Cavs are balking at giving away the pick. Hickson seems to be the sticking point.
        Not only am I hoping that the Wizards are asking for Hickson ( and sticks to it ), I really hope that Bird and the Owners want more then that. I'd be ecstatic with Z+Pick...but since I'm a pessimist and don't think that we will realistically go anywhere this ( and next ) season....unlike Peck....I'd be happy with a straight Salary Dump.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

          BIG Z


          What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.
          This should be stickied somewhere so people realize exactly what an expiring contract by itself is worth.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

            That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


            Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

            I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

            BIG Z


            What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

            So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


            Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

            The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.
            Actually I'm not missing the picture. I just think the Pacers front office is doing a good job!

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              Actually I'm not missing the picture. I just think the Pacers front office is doing a good job!
              They should hold out for as much as they can for Murphy, but ultimately if the Cavs don't throw in extra stuff, they need to trade Murphy for Big Z straight up and take the $12M savings.

              Because as Naptown Seth correctly pointed out, Big Z right now is very explicitly showing you that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much.

              If you save up Troy Murphy for next season's trade deadline, you'll find out that the type of offers you'll get for him will look a lot like..................Troy Murphy, just with an additional year on their contract.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

                That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


                Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

                I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

                BIG Z


                What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

                So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


                Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

                The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.
                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                They should hold out for as much as they can for Murphy, but ultimately if the Cavs don't throw in extra stuff, they need to trade Murphy for Big Z straight up and take the $12M savings.

                Because as Naptown Seth correctly pointed out, Big Z right now is very explicitly showing you that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much.

                If you save up Troy Murphy for next season's trade deadline, you'll find out that the type of offers you'll get for him will look a lot like..................Troy Murphy, just with an additional year on their contract.
                I just disagree. I like how Bird and Morway are playing it. I don't see wanting to get under the tax a year and a half from now as a reason to make a bad trade with a division rival now. And I bet that's how they see it.

                We have time, They know what's going on behind the scenes. If they trade Murphy for cap relief, I'll buy it. Otherwise no.

                And as for Naptown Seth pointing out that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much. The counter argument to that is it would be getting Cleveland what they want.

                I just disagree with you guys. I think it's better to wait unless you get a good offer.

                And I still think what is diving this with most posters is just wanting to get rid of Murphy.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  I just disagree with you guys. I think it's better to wait unless you get a good offer.
                  Sure. But I'd consider Z, Powe, and this year's first to be a good offer.

                  And I still think what is driving this with most posters is just wanting to get rid of Murphy.
                  Yeah, I can agree with that. It's true for me, at least.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

                    That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


                    Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

                    I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

                    BIG Z


                    What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

                    So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


                    Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

                    The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.
                    You make a lot of fair points, but your forgetting something...

                    The Cavs are beggers right now, not choosers. No team in the NBA wants to help the Cavs keep LeBron, so for them to get better, they are going to have to overpay for anyone. The only reason I don't care about helping the Cavs get better is because I believe LeBron will stay in Cleveland regardless if they win or not. So if we can get them to overpay for Murphy, I'm all for it - at least we get something too.

                    If your going to bring up that, you may as well also bring up the Pau Gasol case where he was acquired for close to nothing outside of expirings and poor prospects(Gasol became good but wasn't considered an elite prospect at the time).

                    I don't think we'll get the value some think we will get here, I'm just saying our situation is very different from Clevelands.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                      make a deal by espn, they talk about Murphy here

                      http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4891694
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                        I think this is a great starting point. Remember we are not the desperate ones here. Start high and get a fair deal.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          I just disagree. I like how Bird and Morway are playing it. I don't see wanting to get under the tax a year and a half from now as a reason to make a bad trade with a division rival now. And I bet that's how they see it.

                          We have time, They know what's going on behind the scenes. If they trade Murphy for cap relief, I'll buy it. Otherwise no.

                          And as for Naptown Seth pointing out that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much. The counter argument to that is it would be getting Cleveland what they want.

                          I just disagree with you guys. I think it's better to wait unless you get a good offer.

                          And I still think what is diving this with most posters is just wanting to get rid of Murphy.
                          The Pacers right now should be concerned with their own situation and not how much or how little they're helping Cleveland.

                          Yes, I agree that you should wait it out for a better offer, but if none comes, then I'd trade him straight up for Z and take the $12M savings (or more, depending on the luxury tax) next year.

                          It has more to do than with just getting rid of Murphy. With Murphy on the payroll, using the MLE is out of the question (it'd put you clear into luxury tax territory, which Bird has clearly stated the ownership doesn't want to pay). Clear Murphy off the books and you can all of a sudden use the MLE.

                          I think this is a great starting point. Remember we are not the desperate ones here. Start high and get a fair deal.
                          No, you're not the desperate ones. You're the ones with the owners who wouldn't hesitate to save $12M if they got a chance to do it.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                            Originally posted by d_c View Post
                            Clear Murphy off the books and you can all of a sudden use the MLE.

                            No, you're not the desperate ones. You're the ones with the owners who wouldn't hesitate to save $12M if they got a chance to do it.
                            This has always been a bad argument! Tell me how the owner is saving $12m if you then use the MLE?


                            Yeah I'm just harassing your side now.

                            I've already said I disagree several times. Your side can say what you will, or repeat your points again and again, I think trading Murphy for just Z's expiring is a bad deal.

                            If Pacers management makes that deal I'll think they decided you guys side of the argument was the best way to go. However, I'll bet anyone on here a piece of well chewed gum that they don't.*


                            * I don't gamble.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post

                              The Cavs are beggers right now, not choosers.
                              I still have a problem labeling the team with the best record in the league as beggars. They certainly haven't been on their knees so far.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                                I've already said I disagree several times. Your side can say what you will, or repeat your points again and again, I think trading Murphy for just Z's expiring is a bad deal.

                                If Pacers management makes that deal I'll think they decided you guys side of the argument was the best way to go. However, I'll bet anyone on here a piece of well chewed gum that they don't.*


                                * I don't gamble.
                                So what exactly is the purpose of keeping Murphy if he he has the equivalent trade value one year from now that Ilgauskas has now? That's the point Naptown Seth brought up and I think it's a valid point.

                                If you keep Murphy for at least up to this summer (as opposed to trading him for an expiring Z), then you had better get a pretty good deal for him. If you're unable to find any deal, then you just made your owner spend $12M to keep Murphy next season for no reason other than to say that you didn't help the Cavs.

                                I'd be more interested in helping your own franchise than to take pride in not helping anyone else. If you can help your owner by saving him money and giving yourself more options to make other moves, then you do it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X