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

The Official PG Search Thread

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

  • #31
    Re: The Official PG Search Thread

    there are quite a few free agents like felton, farmar, lowry, etc whose home team is not likely to afford keeping them. this would make a s&t scenario unworkable. instead, we may need to lower our payroll (either by taking a smaller salary in trade, or by working with an under the cap team) to free up money to make a free agent offer.

    this is where the lack of a trade last season hurts us. if we have somehow managed to moved murphy for an expiring contract, we'd have fa money to swoop down on whichever pg gets left out in the cold in this summer's free agent frenzy. kind of like sessions last year.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Official PG Search Thread

      Also, IIRC, we are over the luxury tax as it is, so it's not like we have a ton of money to throw around at someone. Anything over the minimum is probably out of the question.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Official PG Search Thread

        Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
        Oh yea could we grab Bayless back from Portland.
        This is what I'm interested in. Wonder if they'd be interested in redoing the Rush/Bayless trade? Maybe Foster and Rush for Przybilla and Bayless. I think something could be worked out.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The Official PG Search Thread

          Not that it will solve our PG issues, regardless, I want to see who we bring in at point through the summer league. Maybe we'll see Earl Calloway again. Built like Maynor and is a great outside shooter, he probably deserves an NBA shot...(not that he'd make the team with our current configuration)
          "man, PG has been really good."

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Official PG Search Thread

            Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post


            This is what I'm interested in. Wonder if they'd be interested in redoing the Rush/Bayless trade? Maybe Foster and Rush for Przybilla and Bayless. I think something could be worked out.

            Seriously, why would Portland even be interested inthis deal? They have Roy at SG and just drafted Elliot Williams, so they don't need Rush. Not to mention Bayless can play SG too. Przybilla is better than an often injured and aging Foster. Portland has no motivation to make this trade.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Official PG Search Thread

              I want Earl Boykins. Discuss.
              Spoiler Spoiler:

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                Originally posted by DocHolliday View Post
                I want Earl Boykins. Discuss.
                Me too. I want to run him at PG, Ford at SG, Price at SF, Rush at PF and Granger at C.

                I will call this system....the High School!
                "man, PG has been really good."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                  Originally posted by DocHolliday View Post
                  I want Earl Boykins. Discuss.
                  I don't see how that solves any of our problems.
                  Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                    Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                    I don't see how that solves any of our problems.
                    He's a freak show. It'll sell tickets in a way that would make Bill Veeck proud. But seriously, I wouldn't mind him coming off the bench for a change of pace. He'd solve as many problems as any other middle of the road-quality PG would--like Raymond Felton or Steve Blake, meaning the Pacers would still need a legit starting PG.
                    Last edited by DocHolliday; 06-28-2010, 04:55 PM. Reason: I hereby downgrade this thread to "Unofficial"
                    Spoiler Spoiler:

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                      UFA's

                      1.Raymond Felton - I like Raymond, but I have never been super excited about his game. He would be an upgrade to what we have now, has experience at the position, but had some questionable play this past playoffs. He could be a long term solution.

                      2.Steve Blake - I always liked seeing him play for Portland. But he really doesn't excite me too much at the position. Hedoesn't seem long term solution. He is nice coming off the bench, not a long term solution, IMO.

                      RFA's

                      No body I am really interested in...

                      Trade PG's

                      1. Darren Collison - The sample of his play is small, but I watched him several time last year when he took over for Paul. And I loved the way he handled the pressure of the position and lead the Hornets. He is a playmaker and is only going to get better. I pick him #1 because of his cost and upside.

                      2. George Hill - I think George would be nice to trade for, his connection to the city and fans would be great. He is more of a scorer then a pass first guard, but I could see him developing his skills as a PG more. He has a nice upside. I just don't see the Spurs letting go of him without asking for too much. Long term solution.

                      3. Tony Parker - No need to explain why we would want Tony. His body of work speaks for it's self. I think we would have to give up too much to get him though, but it sure would be nice! Long term solution.

                      4. Chris Paul - Again, no need to explain why you would get Paul. We would have to give up too much to get him most likely. Long term solution indeed!

                      5. Monta Ellis - I put Monta on the list because it would be wild to see him play for the Pacers having watched him many times in person. He is a scoring guard more than anything. Can score at will at times, plays great defense on guards his size, gets a lot steals. I just don't see us having what GS would want. They most likely aren't taking back Murph & Dun. He is not going to be a pass first PG that is for sure.

                      6. Andre Miller - I would of loved to have him a few years ago. His career seems to be on the downside. Not a long term solution, he would be nice to have if we had a young PG that he could mentor a bit.

                      There are a few more guys that I would trade for, but don't have the time to get into. I think we will make something happen, I just hope they aim high and don't settle too much. I still think Collison is the guy, but love to see us get George Hill. I think Parker, Paul, and Monta are out of reach for us, but you never know...
                      Last edited by odeez; 06-28-2010, 05:53 PM.
                      Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                        I'm a little worried we're aiming for a player who will only temporarily fill the PG for a couple of years when we should be looking for a permenent solution - a PG for the future. I think we have pieces to get a good talent and don't have to settle for Watsons and Ollies etc. there's no point.

                        Also, if there's any chance of getting Chris Paul to the Pacers- you take it and make your escape, laughing manicly. There's almost no price I'm not willing to pay for a guy like him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                          I have always loved Steve Blake's game. He is my choice for the PG of the future. He is so underrated, I don't think he will cost too much. Cheaper than JJack I think.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                            Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                            It's my understanding we have 12 players under contract.

                            1. Danny Granger
                            2. Troy Murphy
                            3. Mike Dunleavy
                            4. Jeff Foster
                            5. Brandon Rush
                            6. Roy Hibbert
                            7. Dahntay Jones
                            8. Solomon Jones
                            9. Josh McRoberts
                            10. T.J. Ford
                            11. Tyler Hansbrough
                            12. A.J. Price

                            The number goes to 13 w/ Paul George. That leaves two spots for the second rounders & free agents. The Pacers have to at least sign one point guard (likely more). I doubt they sign an unrestricted free agent prior to trading 2 for 1 to get a point. I'll assume Lance Stephenson will make the roster since they claim to have wanted to get into the 1st round for him (I'm fully aware of James White). They also spent money on Magnus Rolle which makes you think they want to keep him as well. And now you have a full roster

                            So I'd spend more time searching for S&T scenarios or trade scenarios.


                            I like Randy Foye but have no idea what his going rate would be. The Wiz no longer need his services.
                            A couple of thoughts on this:

                            1) Our "starting PG" clearly isn't our starting PG, so you can practically assume that our practical starting point is 11 roster seats... Ford will be out of here, one way or the other.

                            2) Paul George is an automatic 12, as he gets a guaranteed contract.

                            3) Here's our salary structure per Shamsports:

                            Indiana Pacers
                            Player 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 Total
                            Troy Murphy $11,047,619 $11,968,253 N/A N/A N/A N/A $23,015,872
                            Danny Granger $10,130,500 $11,173,202 $12,215,904 $13,258,606 $14,221,788 N/A $61,000,000
                            Mike Dunleavy $9,780,992 $10,561,984 N/A N/A N/A N/A $20,342,976
                            T.J. Ford $8,500,000 $8,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $17,000,000
                            Jeff Foster $6,077,500 $6,655,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $12,732,500
                            Jamaal Tinsley * $5,240,816 $5,459,183 N/A N/A N/A N/A $10,699,999
                            Earl Watson $2,800,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2,800,000
                            Dahntay Jones $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,900,000 N/A N/A $10,600,000
                            Brandon Rush $1,934,160 $2,069,040 $2,956,658 $4,089,058 N/A N/A $6,959,858
                            Tyler Hansbrough $1,859,160 $1,998,600 $2,138,040 $3,055,259 $4,225,423 N/A $9,039,059
                            Solomon Jones $1,620,000 $1,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,120,000
                            Roy Hibbert $1,575,360 $1,685,280 $2,588,590 $3,655,089 N/A N/A $5,849,230
                            Travis Diener * $1,516,177 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,516,177
                            Josh McRoberts $825,497 $885,120 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,710,617
                            Luther Head $825,497 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $825,497
                            A.J. Price $457,588 $762,195 $884,293 $1,105,366 N/A N/A $2,104,076
                            Total salaries $66,690,866 $65,717,857 $23,483,485 $19,213,865 $14,221,788 $0 $189,315,861
                            Total w/o options $66,690,866 $65,717,857 $15,800,197 $13,258,606 $14,221,788 $0


                            I think it's useful to look at this for a few reasons... I think if we are to believe that they offered $3 million to OKC to trade up for Rolle, I think it makes Solomon Jones *much* more expendable than Rolle. So he's 13, if so.

                            My guess is that Bird is high on Stephenson (from what we've read) and will give him a partially guaranteed 700-800k contract with a couple years of team options ala AJ Price. So he's likely 14, unless he really screws up this summer.

                            That gets us to this "roster", at a minimum:

                            1. Danny Granger
                            2. Troy Murphy
                            3. Mike Dunleavy
                            4. Jeff Foster
                            5. Brandon Rush
                            6. Roy Hibbert
                            7. Dahntay Jones
                            8. Josh McRoberts
                            9. Tyler Hansbrough
                            10. A.J. Price
                            11: Solomon Jones
                            12: Paul George
                            13: Magnum Rolle
                            14: Lance Stephenson

                            If you cut or trade Solomon Jones, I think you could get down to 13, which allows for a modicum of flexibility.

                            So there's room to potentially sign a summer leaguer like Marcus Williams or Thomas Heurtel if either radically surprises everyone.

                            Otherwise, we can expect a 1 for 1 or a 2 for 2 trade.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                              Here is the guy we need to



                              Last edited by vnzla81; 06-28-2010, 09:27 PM.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                                Why didn't Hinrich make the list?
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X