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 DGPR View Post
    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 guess you can look at it this way...Bird must have liked Hansbrough better than Lawson. So apparently that means it is just like if we had Lawson currently, we'd be trying to trade for Hansbrough right now. The same thing can be said in both scenarios is how I see it. Bird should have tried his best to get 2 DP's last year from Chicago when he had his chance, but things sort of changed once Henderson/T-Will went before Chicago wanted them to.

    Comment


    • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

      Originally posted by DGPR View Post
      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.
      Maybe, but the other question is "Where would Tyler go in this class of PF's?" Tyler measured well & his stock went up during workouts l/y, where as a player like Udoh (who everyone here likes) who measured shorter then expected & has dropped after workouts. IMO I think Tyler is kinda like P.Patterson t/y - a safe pick, not a star but a good bet to be a good player for a long time. Everyone would seems good getting Patterson, so whats the difference?
      As for Ty, he played OK in workouts l/y, but size was a concern & his speed/ quickness was not considered as eliete as people hoped, & he lasted to the bottom 1/3 of the draft. If we get Ty w/ #10 t/y (I'm not sold, but don't hate it), we have the luxery of having seen him against NBA talent for 1 yr. & we still have our solid PF.
      Also lets remember, Larry tried to get back into late rd. 1, but he could not make a deal. It's not like we did not want Ty, we just missed out on getting both. If not for Tylers health issue, I doubt this is as 1-sided as it appears now.
      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

      Comment


      • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

        Originally posted by DGPR View Post
        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.
        No way. The merits of last years pick you can argue, but it's an illogical argument to argue since we liked him we should have taken him last year. It's illogical due to the fact we liked someone better that was available.

        Each year you do what you think is your best move. You don't make your second best move.

        Comment


        • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

          I kind of wish Bird would have drafted Jrue. Also, I am not sure I like Lawson for the 10.
          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

          Comment


          • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            No way. The merits of last years pick you can argue, but it's an illogical argument to argue since we liked him we should have taken him last year. It's illogical due to the fact we liked someone better that was available.

            Each year you do what you think is your best move. You don't make your second best move.
            "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

            Comment


            • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

              Lawson is not a starting point right now! He is perfect as a change of pace backup playing 17-22 min a game against 2nd team points but we need a starting point guard. Lawson is not a big an upgrade form Ford and I am not sure Lawson has that much more he can improve. I think we can get a better player at 10 and see this as a very risky move. Collison is a starting caliber point guard now and would be a better move for the pacers. I am not sure we an get him if we are not willing to take a large salary back and that makes no sense to me unless you are going to sell the team or do some profit taking.

              Comment


              • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                Why on earth would Denver give up Lawson? Billups isn't getting any younger..

                Comment


                • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                  I'd be good with us getting Lawson or Collison, especially compared to some of the PGs that have been in rumors. I was on the Lawson bandwagon last year, and DC was a lot better than I thought. I thought he'd be a good backup to get late if we could, but he appears to be more than that. It'd be interesting to see if Ty could be a long term starter (I still prefer bigger PGs). His elite speed may make him a good starter, I know he provided great energy for Denver off the bench. He thought he was coming here and we tried hard to get him here with another pick. So it wouldn't shock me, though I'd be a bit surprised if there wasn't more to it. Shame they don't have the 25 still.

                  I wonder if Nene would be available? Seems like he'd be a good athletic 4/5 for us. They always were interested in Foster who would give them cap relief for 2011 to resign Melo and maybe get another star to go with him? And I think I remember that we were interested in Nene a few years ago. Ford/Foster/10 for Lawson/Nene/future 1st maybe?

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                    There's no way the Pacers should trade the 10th just for Lawson. That would be in essence trying to make-up for the mistake of last year, while, wasting a pick this year. A PG and draft picks is the best option for the Pacers.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                      Originally posted by will567 View Post
                      Lawson is not a starting point right now! He is perfect as a change of pace backup playing 17-22 min a game against 2nd team points but we need a starting point guard. Lawson is not a big an upgrade form Ford and I am not sure Lawson has that much more he can improve. I think we can get a better player at 10 and see this as a very risky move. Collison is a starting caliber point guard now and would be a better move for the pacers. I am not sure we an get him if we are not willing to take a large salary back and that makes no sense to me unless you are going to sell the team or do some profit taking.
                      It's a small sample....but when Lawson was the Starting PG in 8 games, he played 31.5 minutes and averaged 17ppg/5.9apg with 56.7 FG%. OF course, playing behind Billups his #s and minutes are going to be limited.

                      I know that Collison did much better, but his asking price is way more then we can afford.

                      Seriously, I can see Lawson for #10+Solo be a fallback plan based off of what else transpires between now and the Draft.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                        Originally posted by Granville View Post
                        Of the rumors about the 10th pick, would you rather trade it for Eric Gordon or Ty Lawson?



                        Wow.. you know , that would be a really hard decision to have to make if I were Larry .. if offered by Clips or the Nugs..

                        On one hand , in Lawson .. You get a guy you wanted last year , and you get a P.G. whom very well could be a long-term answer at the pg position.

                        Not to mention the FAMILIARITY that Lawson would have with Hansbrough .. I think those 2 would instantly make each-other better..and in time those 2 together would make everyone else on the team better and develop great on-court chemistry...

                        I like Lawson quite a bit, and personally feel if given the reins, he could handle the job. And who knows, he could end up being Al-Star capable if given that chance.. .. Hard saying... but the potential is definitely there IMHO..
                        His rookie season, he played an avg of 20.2 mpg... scoring 8.3 ppg ,
                        3.1/1.3 Assist/Turnover ratio .. 1.9 rebounds per game .. .70 steals per game..






                        THEN on the other hand , in Eric Gordon you have a NICE, young S.G. whom has a very good knack for scoring, getting in the paint , and earning a trip to the charity stripe (222-299 ft made in 09/10 season)... Not to mention Eric Gordon is a home grown player from North Central High School in Indianapolis. That , coupled with his sophomore season... averaging 36 mpg , 16.9 points per game , 3.0 assists ,
                        1.1 steals , 2.6 rebounds ..
                        He really needs to work on improving his assist/turnover ratio.. As he averaged 2.3 per game...
                        Common mistakes for young players to make.. I think over time, and with hard work during the off-season, this can be substantially improved.




                        .
                        Last edited by Kemo; 06-15-2010, 03:24 AM.
                        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                          I will be very disgusted if we trade the 10th pick for Ty Lawson.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                            Originally posted by will567 View Post
                            Lawson is not a starting point right now! He is perfect as a change of pace backup playing 17-22 min a game against 2nd team points but we need a starting point guard. Lawson is not a big an upgrade form Ford and I am not sure Lawson has that much more he can improve. I think we can get a better player at 10 and see this as a very risky move. Collison is a starting caliber point guard now and would be a better move for the pacers. I am not sure we an get him if we are not willing to take a large salary back and that makes no sense to me unless you are going to sell the team or do some profit taking.
                            I have the same concern about both Lawson and Collison. True, Collison had a good stint starting with positive results, so I give him the advantage there. Still, the asking price there will be high for DC and both of these guys are diminuitive in stature...not a complete deal breaker, but I'd like more physicality.

                            When you say we can get better at 10, who are some guys you'd see as better than Lawson?

                            Also, it would be really cool to have a series on the various PGs referenced in Pacer trade rumors. Those posters who feel they've seen enough of multiple players might offer a mini scouting report and their take as to which ones would fit well, why, and what the pragmatics of the deals are. Of course, I don't consider myself informed enough to contribute to that enterprise, but if any do, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                              Snippet from Milwaukee's beat writer:

                              A rumor that surfaced at the pre-draft camp continues to percolate: San Antonio, which is picking 20th, is trying to acquire Indiana‘s pick, the 10th overall. The Spurs are believed to be interested in North Carolina forward Ed Davis
                              http://www.journaltimes.com/sports/a...cc4c03286.html

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                                Wonder what the Spurs are willing to give back? Hill and Blair would be the only players I could see us being intrigued by.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X