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

  • #76
    Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I guarantee a player taken 10th of later in the 2010 draft will be within 2 seasons better than any player on the pacers roster besides Granger. Problem is he might not be drafted by the Pacers. Pacers need to pick that player
    Aren't you kind of advocating quantity with this post then?

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

      This isn't a scenario where quality and quantity are exclusively traded.

      The quality drop off from 10 to say 12 or 16 is negligible. The quantity upgrade where we get two first round talents that are marginally worse "talents", but we just doubled the chances that "our #10 pick" pans out. I don't rate Ed Davis any higher than Kevin Seraphin or Daniel Orton or Patrick Patterson. I would love to have Eric Bledsoe and Seraphin over Ed Davis. We just took a chance at filling two positions of need while trading a higher pick of a player we don't even like. This draft plateaus for about 30 picks after about pick 7/8. Why not get a couple and see if one of them becomes a legit starter for you.

      Didn't you guys chastise Bird last year for NOT trading back to still get his guy? The hypocrisy monster seems to have woken up. You wanted to trade back with the Bulls because we wanted to draft Hansborough. Instead Bird went with his guy at 13. I would rather he stick to his evaluations of talent and make sound decisions on players than make trades based on arbitrary valuations by mock drafts. Plus, we don't have a clue what is available to the Pacers in the way of trades.

      This draft is the deepest draft I can remember. Why wouldn't we be looking to add picks in such a deep draft? It isn't like there is a solid 10 guys then a huge drop off. For us to get over the hump of that drop off we would have to give up way too much to move up that far. I would love it if Bird traded back to get more assets, even if it is with the intentions of trading them.
      "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


      • #78
        Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

        Originally posted by Thingfish View Post

        Granger for the #2... it is something similar to what we have done before (JBender), which didn't really work out so well... but this time it might. As much as I love Danny, this team is going nowhere and I am all for shaking things up.
        The difference being that we know a heck of a lot more about Turner than we did about Bender. Turner's scouting report is much better than the one game flashy high school all star exhibition that was the entire file on Bender.

        Man, I still HATE that Davis/Bender trade!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

          Originally posted by ChristianDudley View Post
          is this Alex Kennedy guy a reliable person to take this type of information from, though?? I know I've never heard of him, so I'm not sure if he would really know anything or if he's just making it up as he goes along basically...
          He works for Hoopsworld, right? In my mind, that would take away any chance at being credible.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

            I think we need to chase that second pick from Philly.

            I agree that this draft is deep, but to take advantage of that, we need to be confident in our drafting and being able to find steals (e.g. the Spurs). I also think a huge factor with us and whoever we draft/trade for involves our coach and direction of the team. I’m not trying to bash anyone, but if JOB won’t be our coach after this year, I hope his influence and system does not affect the type of player we go after. If he IS the coach beyond that, then we need to stick to drafting players that can flourish.

            I know most teams would want a player like Turner and it would take a lot to get him, but I really think we need to get some hope for this team. Free agency is not going to be good to us. It’s a long shot, but I’ll have my fingers crossed for it. And as always, I’ll be cheering whoever we bring to the team.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

              Methinks that the Spurs want Rush because they know he would be the perfect fit as a young Bowen-type.

              I'd be interested in Rush for the #20 (Bledsoe). Spurs have two options on a couple guys we could decline.

              Spurs get take make another run with their big 3 and we get a young stud PG.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                Originally posted by Rupert Stilinski View Post
                Aren't you kind of advocating quantity with this post then?
                No, I think he is still advocating quality, he is just acknowledging that finding that special player is a difficult process.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                  Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                  The difference being that we know a heck of a lot more about Turner than we did about Bender. Turner's scouting report is much better than the one game flashy high school all star exhibition that was the entire file on Bender.

                  Man, I still HATE that Davis/Bender trade!

                  the Pacers were an aging team with a solid infrastructure but a shortage of "star" power. They gave up a redundant piece (we still had DD) that wanted to start to try to get a 'star' type.
                  We might have hated the way it turned out, but there was nothing wrong with that trade.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                    Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
                    Methinks that the Spurs want Rush because they know he would be the perfect fit as a young Bowen-type.

                    I'd be interested in Rush for the #20 (Bledsoe). Spurs have two options on a couple guys we could decline.

                    Spurs get take make another run with their big 3 and we get a young stud PG.
                    No way. Rush has shown he has game at this level. Bledsoe has not. You're "hoping" that Bledsoe is a stud pg.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                      Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                      No way. Rush has shown he has game at this level. Bledsoe has not. You're "hoping" that Bledsoe is a stud pg.
                      So Rush for Bledsoe at #20 and their 1st rounder next year?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                        Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                        the Pacers were an aging team with a solid infrastructure but a shortage of "star" power. They gave up a redundant piece (we still had DD) that wanted to start to try to get a 'star' type.
                        We might have hated the way it turned out, but there was nothing wrong with that trade.
                        AD might have soon gotten the chance to start had they not traded him. It was obvious Smit's feet were getting worse and worse, opening the door for Tony to start alongside Dale.

                        Trading an established play like that for a one-game-wonder (McDonald's) like Bender will ALWAYS be a trade with a lot wrong to it, in my book. It was goodbye solid player, hello Mr. Deer-in-the-headlights. I don't care how high he could jump, Bender never had a clue how to play the game.

                        And remember, the trade was not for the pick, it was for the draft rights to Bender.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                          people need to realize when we made that deal, the deal was initially in hopes of landing lamar odom. odom obviously went right before that pick so we took bender, whom i honestly believe would have been a big time player for us had he not had his knee issues. but the pacers sights were set on odom.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                            Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                            This isn't a scenario where quality and quantity are exclusively traded.

                            The quality drop off from 10 to say 12 or 16 is negligible. The quantity upgrade where we get two first round talents that are marginally worse "talents", but we just doubled the chances that "our #10 pick" pans out. I don't rate Ed Davis any higher than Kevin Seraphin or Daniel Orton or Patrick Patterson. I would love to have Eric Bledsoe and Seraphin over Ed Davis. We just took a chance at filling two positions of need while trading a higher pick of a player we don't even like. This draft plateaus for about 30 picks after about pick 7/8. Why not get a couple and see if one of them becomes a legit starter for you.

                            Didn't you guys chastise Bird last year for NOT trading back to still get his guy? The hypocrisy monster seems to have woken up. You wanted to trade back with the Bulls because we wanted to draft Hansborough. Instead Bird went with his guy at 13. I would rather he stick to his evaluations of talent and make sound decisions on players than make trades based on arbitrary valuations by mock drafts. Plus, we don't have a clue what is available to the Pacers in the way of trades.

                            This draft is the deepest draft I can remember. Why wouldn't we be looking to add picks in such a deep draft? It isn't like there is a solid 10 guys then a huge drop off. For us to get over the hump of that drop off we would have to give up way too much to move up that far. I would love it if Bird traded back to get more assets, even if it is with the intentions of trading them.
                            100% agree. This is where I am with this draft. Beyond the 7th pick where Players like Wall/Turner/Favors/Cousins/Johnson/Aminu/Monroe will likely be picked......outside of Udoh ( the only Player that I would hope the Pacers pick at 10 and not trade down ).....there seems to be as good of a chance that anyone picked from that point forward in the late teens will have as good of a chance of "panning out with a decent to solid NBA Career" as someone picked in the early teens. The key is that the Pacers FO has to do their homework to scout and pick out the best Players.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                              PG2 and Cable-

                              Really agree with you guys statements regarding the depth of this draft.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                                Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                                No way. Rush has shown he has game at this level. Bledsoe has not. You're "hoping" that Bledsoe is a stud pg.
                                The guy was mocked as top 3 in next years draft and had to play off guard most of this year for the sake of Wall. I think Bledsoe's upside is greater than Rush's.

                                Guy can shoot, play defense, and from what I saw this past season, will not have a problem running the point... Bledsoe: next Chauncey Billups, but more pass-first coming out of college.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X