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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post


    So when you want a 3 point specialist, you don't care if they shoot 30% or 36%?
    I see what you're getting at. Prior to this morning, I hadn't really considered it. That's not really a discussion of accuracy, though. That's volume.

    In general, I don't want a three-point specialist in the first place. But that's another conversation. Now, I like shooters that are versatile enough to step back and hit a three, but not a "specialist." When I think "three point specialist", I still think of Matt Bullard.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I would call dropping from 45% to 39% in 3p% a significant decline.
      Agreed

      Also the biggest decline , at least to me, is his positive attitude
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
        I was also adamat about the same thing. The I started to think "why should we help the Cavs? I understand (or think I do) the luxury tax implactions, but we would be basically giving them the only player in NBA history to be in the top 5 in rebounding and 3pts shooting , for cap space (assuming we would waive Big Z so he can resign with Cleveland)

        If this is all Cleveland is willing to give , then I say Bird is right to decline

        I dont want any of Clevelands draft picks we have enough mediocore talent on the roster and any of Clevelands picks will be bottom of first

        I say we either get Big Z and JJ Hickson for Murphy or we keep him until next year
        I understand and can even agree with some things, BUT don't sell short the pick. It can be used to draft a player, or it can be used as a trading chip. I don't see Hickson in the equation with the Pacers, but Leon Powe might be gotten. Again, if nothing else he could be used in a trade. I, like you, want the best deal possible, but at the same time I don't want to see the demand so unreasonable that it kills trading Murphy's albatross contract and Jimmy's crutch either.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post

          Also the biggest decline , at least to me, is his positive attitude

          Absolutely! Only a blind person hasn't noticed the change this year. Or one wearing blinders and is so stubborn they can't see the trees for the forest.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            What about this next year if they don't move Murphy now though.

            Let's say you are convinced Amare is fully recovered and deserves a full max contract. Stay with me, I'm trying to make a point. Phoenix does not think he is worth that, by any means, so they sign and trade him (I think he picks up his 17 million player option for next season) and the Pacers trade Murphy and Dunleavy (expirings) and a future #1 pick for him. Phoenix does it for the #1, Pacers do it for a multi time allstar who plays a position of need.

            Don't get caught up in whether you agree with the trade components or not. My point is this, can't you keep Murphy and still trade him for a player like Amare or Monte Ellis even who Golden State see as overpriced, but may be ready to rebuild. Even if you have to trade Dun and Murph for Magette and Ellis. I mean my point is those expirings still have tons of value, right.

            What about if a team is woefully over the cap next year and just need to shed salary.

            What if Rudy Gay is seen as wanting too much, couldn't you do the same deal with Memphis and sweeten it with a pick?

            Please don't respond to this by saying oh I'd never spend money on Amare or I'd never give up a 1st round pick. I'm talking concept here, execution can be debated later.

            My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan?

            Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.
            Preach it from the mountain top!!!!


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

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

              You aren't trading for a player, you are trading for a massive cash savings.

              To repeat what I've said elsewhere, let's say the lux is coming in so that we go $1m over.

              We pay $1m tax on that. We loose 4-5m in benefits paid to teams under the cap. We pay Troy his $12m. So trading him only for the 29th pick gets you maybe Booker or Poindexter, still a solid player and saves you 16-18m bucks.

              The space away from the lux tax means you can take a salary increase on another trade if need be without going over the tax.

              And if you buyout Z you likely get minor savings, maybe 500K perhaps.


              Or keep him and let him take the team to where? This isn't the NBA 3 years ago, this is the new, declining cap numbers NBA where every team values salary space MORE than talent.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                I understand and can even agree with some things, BUT don't sell short the pick. It can be used to draft a player, or it can be used as a trading chip. I don't see Hickson in the equation with the Pacers, but Leon Powe might be gotten. Again, if nothing else he could be used in a trade. I, like you, want the best deal possible, but at the same time I don't want to see the demand so unreasonable that it kills trading Murphy's albatross contract and Jimmy's crutch either.
                I really think the best that we can get is Powe+Z+$$$$.....the Cavs don't give up something that they don't really want to give up and we get a PF that maybe able to help us. Unfortunately, Powe is likely to be out until after the ASB.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  You aren't trading for a player, you are trading for a massive cash savings.

                  To repeat what I've said elsewhere, let's say the lux is coming in so that we go $1m over.

                  We pay $1m tax on that. We loose 4-5m in benefits paid to teams under the cap. We pay Troy his $12m. So trading him only for the 29th pick gets you maybe Booker or Poindexter, still a solid player and saves you 16-18m bucks.

                  The space away from the lux tax means you can take a salary increase on another trade if need be without going over the tax.

                  And if you buyout Z you likely get minor savings, maybe 500K perhaps.

                  Or keep him and let him take the team to where? This isn't the NBA 3 years ago, this is the new, declining cap numbers NBA where every team values salary space MORE than talent.
                  Preach it from the mountain top!!!!

                  It's not always about what we get in return......it's also about what we don't have to pay in the end.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                    I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

                    The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

                    As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                      It appears that Cleveland still has hopes on getting him, but since Bird actually told Cleveland a deal, they're denying the trade. Washington never actually denied any rumors containing Jamison so it leaves Cleveland with the idea to still get him. Cleveland has many other options that can work. They're looking at Igudala.

                      I think Bird wants him here and would want him to return if he can be brought back for a cheaper contract. That is if Tyler still isn't the go-to PF yet.
                      For some reason, I don't see Iguadola as that great a fit in Cleveland, especially if they're needing another player to space the floor. His game seems redundant (of course on a much smaller scale) with LBJ.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                        Originally posted by Wage View Post
                        I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

                        The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

                        As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.
                        Because the NBA is more than just what players you like or don't like. The NBA is a business and money has more to do with the league than players and teams. That is why we consider salary cap perspective when talking about the decisions of the Pacers (a company) or other teams. If I told you that you were on the hook for $16M next year, would you not do what you could to avoid having to pay such a massive bill? Of course you would. Even if you wipe your a*s with $100 bills.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                          Originally posted by d_c View Post
                          Murphy is hardly the last piece to a playoff team, much less a championship one.

                          Look at the borderline 8th/9th seeds in either conference jockeying for the final playoff spot.

                          Ask yourself this: Would you say that adding Murphy to any one of those teams all of sudden pushes that team over the top to "secure" that playoff spot or make them the favorite to get it? I just don't get the sense that Troy would all of a sudden be the difference maker. I never have.
                          This is the difference between a championship squad and a team struggling to make the playoffs. We're looking for the missing ingredient. Cleveland is looking for a missing garnish. Murphy's not a difference maker that ensures Cleveland wins the title. He just adds an element that might make it a bit easier to do so with what he provides.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Preach it from the mountain top!!!!

                            It's not always about what we get in return......it's also about what we don't have to pay in the end.
                            Getting under the cap also helps with trades next year, wouldn't it? Because we'd be able to absorb a higher salaried impact player, even if the salaries aren't an exact match. Is that correct?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                              Originally posted by Wage View Post
                              I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

                              The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

                              As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.
                              You're right....we have no clue what the Owners are directing Bird to do with those Contracts....for all we know....they could be telling Bird to get the most out of a trade for any of the Big 4 regardless of the Financial impact to the Team.

                              I'd really wish this were the case.....but the reality is that the Pacers aren't the same as the Lakers where they could afford to pay a lot of $$$ for going over the LT based off of the sale of Kobe Bryant Jerseys along. Given the financial woes of PS&E over the last couple of seasons, dwindling Revenues and fanbase.....it's not out of the realm of possibility that the financial impact to the Team of any trade is not a major concern for the Owners.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                                Would Bird be more optimistic about moving Mike if a team offered as oppose to Troy which we see is happening now?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X