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

2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

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

  • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    I agree on Felton. Lesser paid Augustin would be okay but not a major upgrade. To me the deal is about the mild upgrade from Rush to Henderson; IMO of course since Henderson couldn't get PT for Brown all year.

    I think you could get a guy just as good this year or next in the draft or even just with whatever trades come up as teams needs to work salary issues.

    I'm not against getting some guys, but I don't think the team needs to act in desperation to solve any one given thing. Go with the market flow and get the guys you can get cheap now and then worry about the holes when you can actually view the roster as only having 1-2 holes rather than a canyon.
    I agree 100%.

    I haven't see a lot of Felton but from what I have seen I never walked away thinking "Man I wish he was the Pacer's starting PG."

    I hope that Bird is smart enough to not panic on getting a point guard in here. He might have made a mistake by taking Tyler over Ty Lawson or Darren Collison last year (this might not end up being the case though) but even if that ends up being true that doesn't mean you try to make up for it the next summer by getting anyone who you feel is an upgrade for you and overpaying to do so.

    Comment


    • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I know that this would be considered "petty" when it comes to this draft and what it means for the Team on a "long-term" basis....but if we traded out of this draft by doing some trade like:

      #10 + Murphy + Foster ===> KMart+Lawson

      or

      #10 + Foster + Solo ===> JR Smith+Lawson

      I would be pretty disappointed. I know that we'd be getting a solid PG prospect but I'd somewhat disappointed because I was really looking forward to drafting a Player and see him develope. I know....we're getting a real PG in return that's just one year removed....I was just hoping that getting a Rookie drafted would add some excitement to this slow offseason.

      I guess that I'd just hope that we have some plan to get back late into the 1st round.

      BTW.....if any of the above options is available to us to get Lawson...I could totally see Bird doing this just to get his hands on Lawson. My preference would be getting back KMart+Lawson....even if we weren't able to get back any future draft picks.
      Rumor only linked Lawson and 10.... it was another poster trying to get Kmart for some odd reason...
      "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

      Comment


      • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

        I think the best trade may be the with the Twolves... would give us a short term solution at PG till we could sign or draft a better one... and we could add 2 more young pieces...

        As teams have shown more nice young building pieces you gather the easier it is to trade for a quality piece...
        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

        Comment


        • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

          Not really a draft rumor, but a co-worker of mine ran into Chris Garnett (played briefly at WV and looks like he's been playing overseas) over the weekend and said he had a tryout with the Pacers this week. He's 30 years old, 6'11 / 250 and looks like he meets JOB's requirement of shooting well from the outside. I couldn't find any recent stats but I did find this:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txmHe...eature=related

          Comment


          • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
            Rumor only linked Lawson and 10.... it was another poster trying to get Kmart for some odd reason...
            I'd be perfectly fine with Lawson for #10.

            But I admit that it would be nice to get Kenyon Martin in return for Murphy+Foster. He would be a good pairing with Hibbert. As I understand it, KMart was often used by George Karl to guard Kobe. I think he'd be quick enough to guard Stretch Forwards.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

              Originally posted by AG77 View Post
              Not really a draft rumor, but a co-worker of mine ran into Chris Garnett (played briefly at WV and looks like he's been playing overseas) over the weekend and said he had a tryout with the Pacers this week. He's 30 years old, 6'11 / 250 and looks like he meets JOB's requirement of shooting well from the outside. I couldn't find any recent stats but I did find this:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txmHe...eature=related
              Thanks for the info....but are you sure that he wasn't just brought in to be a "warm body" in workouts with other prospects?
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                That would be unfortunate, not because Ty is not a good player, but because he could have been the pick last year and now we would be trading our #10 for him.
                Yes, but now we get him after a year's worth of evaluation. A guy who has spent a year in the league and shown his strengths and weaknesses against NBA competition is worth a lot more than the same player coming out of college.

                The failure rate for draft picks is huge. One of the main reasons potential picks are difficult to evaluate is because they played against varying degrees of competition, and because the style of an NBA game is very different than the style of a college or European game. I think watching a player in the NBA for a year is a huge value, and if he succeeds even partially like Lawson did, I think he's worth a lot more than a draft pick.

                Funny thing is, I don't even think Lawson's all the great. I think he's a solid point with good pace and decision-making, but a little undersized at the defensive end. Still, I would do #10 for Ty straight up, no questions asked, thank you very much.
                2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                Comment


                • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                  Just did a little recon on a couple Nuggets boards. All members who had commented unanimously disliked the idea of a 10 for Lawson swap, which makes me want the trade more.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    this goes back again to the draft last year, if you wanted him that bad(lawson) why not take him last year with the 13pick? so now you are giving up a 10th pick for him?


                    By the way I still like the Tyler pick
                    Exactly, and worse if you could actually turn 10 into 16 and 23 where you get Armon Johnson who looks better than Lawson.

                    Take Holiday last year like several of us wanted and then you don't even have this worry.

                    By the way I still hate the Tyler pick.

                    (hey, it really really PO'd me and that bitterness is going to last a long time...Tyler at 28th, great, go Tyler, you can do it, its about the pick not the guy)

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Thanks for the info....but are you sure that he wasn't just brought in to be a "warm body" in workouts with other prospects?
                      He could be a warm body for workouts, a summer league player, Samaki Walker 2.0, or a cheap body in case we need a big due to trade or injury - I have no idea. He did specifically say he was "having a tryout and a meeting with JOB and Bird" though. He sounded like he at least had a chance.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                        Sounds like somebody we'd get for Summer League.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                          just tweeted Mike Wells about any trade rumors involving the Pacers he's hearing, and he told me he's writing up the blog about it all right now, just so everybody knows...if he gets it done soon I'll post it up for all to see here.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                            I feel a #10 pick is too much for Lawson. I'd rather have a number of players in this draft than can play PG that wouldn't cost the #10.

                            If the Pacers made that trade, they have to match Lawson's salary of 1.4 mil. The Pacer who has a salary like that would be Solo which is no big loss. I'd have to have a Denver future 1st pick as well in the deal which would amount to a late 1st round pick. If they want to move down bad enough, they'll make that deal.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                              Originally posted by ChristianDudley View Post
                              just tweeted Mike Wells about any trade rumors involving the Pacers he's hearing, and he told me he's writing up the blog about it all right now, just so everybody knows...if he gets it done soon I'll post it up for all to see here.
                              Here it is - kinda what has already been said...

                              http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/



                              Originally posted by Mike_Wells
                              THE `BURBS - Here's an interesting item Chad Ford wrote in his blog Monday.

                              "A number of NBA sources are telling me that the Denver Nuggets are in the hunt for a Top 10 pick. Nuggets GM Mark Warkentein has been calling around trying to gauge interest in teams selling the pick. According to sources Warkentein is offering Ty Lawson for the pick."

                              The Pacers are interested in Lawson, according to a source.

                              The Pacers are willing to give up their pick - No. 10 - in next week's draft to get player that will help them immediately.

                              The Pacers wouldn't be searching for a point guard if they had taken Lawson instead of Tyler Hansbrough last year. Lawson, who was the Pacers' second option, averaged 8.3 points and 3.1 assists last season.

                              Lawson, Jrue Holiday, Jeff Teague, Darren Collison and Eric Maynor were all still available when the Pacers picked at No. 13.

                              Speaking of Collison, the Pacers have reached out to New Orleans about the former UCLA point guard.

                              ********************

                              Devin Ebanks (West Virginia), Paul George (Fresno St.), Keaton Grant (Purdue), Xavier Henry (Kansas), Landon Milbourne (Maryland) and Andy Rautins (Syracuse) will workout for the Pacers on Tuesday.
                              "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                              (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                                Can't say I'd be too upset if we traded the #10 for Lawson but if we really liked him we should have drafted him last year. That pretty much goes without saying really.

                                "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X