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

Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

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

  • #46
    Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This is not accurate in the least. He is more of a physical body-up defender than most, and he will struggle against quicker PGs. He would instantly be the best defensive PG on the Pacers roster, because he is an NBA-average defender. He is an above average passer and not a great perimeter shooter.

    He would not be the answer, but he might be the bridge to the answer and help us escape the lottery for an change. But we don't seem to have what they want in return, so I'm not sure that it matters.
    I've rarely seen that level of physicality from him. He should use his bigger body to his advantage but he rarely does, I'd like to see him bodying up a lot more. I liked Sessions defensive potential when he started playing in 07/08 (very good size, not really quick but not terribly slow either, stays in good stance, puts up some effort), but he never displayed good defensive performances. With the Bucks, Skiles would play him alongside Ridnour a fair amount of minutes and would leave Sessions defending the less potent opponent guard trying to hide him. In my view Sessions lacks a great deal of awareness and focus - makes too many mistakes, especially when left off the ball or when they run him through screens. Very slow recovering to his position and very frequently out of place. A confused player on the defensive end, a player who ends up making things easy for the other team.

    As for him being an answer, it's tough to say. The Bucks didn't feel he was the answer as a backup and apparently the Wolves are now sharing the same view. There's still hope, but he needs to play. In the past, I've always felt that Sessions was the kind of player who played better with more minutes, that less minutes conducts to less feel, less rhythm, a more inconsistent game. Maybe the Pacers can be an answer for Sessions and he responds by expanding his game - Kahn's rationale last off-season, I think. Somewhat risky assumption, not worth the gamble unless you feel he can, in the worst case scenario, be a good backup playing 15 mpg or so.

    I think a D. Jones+S. Jones for R. Sessions+ R. Hollins swap could do the deal (saves the Wolves $2.3 millions this year, $3M in the next 2 seasons) but it'd put Indiana over the lux. tax, doubtful they do that without another deal aligned.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

      Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post

      Justin, I know you love Sessions.

      Love no, like yes. I also liked Blake, and Ridnour, but they aren't available now. Sessions is available, on the market. I LOVE Chris Paul, but he's not going to be wearing a Pacers uni. I just feel Sessions has a great possibility as a PG, whether it's with the Pacers or elsewhere. I will watch how he does where ever he goes just like I have since he was at Milwaukee. I have done the same with Blake over the years. I wanted Jack for 3 years b4 he became a Pacer, and I kept tabs on him in Toronto last year as I will this season.

      Basically, I have just shown why I feel Sessions would be a good acquision for he Pacers. I'd like Hinrich too, but the Pacers aren't going to get him either. Too many people are looking at a 2 -3 year contract saying that is too long. I've pointed out the inevitable lockout is wiping a year off those contracts. That changes how they look.

      I have been pointing out you can't count on an injured 1 season player and a rookie who has only played PG in summer league as who can be counted on to be the PG for next season. More or less I've just been countering others points of views and trying to show a different perspective. The chances of my changing their mind is slim to next to none, but hopefully I can show them a different perspective to their view to look at.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

        I agree with you Justin.

        I'd like to see the Pacers get Sessions. A lot of people on here are wishing we could get Collison (who I also like), but are forgetting Sessions had a very similar break-out year in Milwaukee as Collison had this year.

        I like Sessions because he's a pass-first PG. That would really help Hibbert's continued improvement (if OB lets him). Also, being that he's not a great long-range shooter, it's one less guy that OB can have launching 3-balls.

        I'm not saying Sessions would definitely be our long-term starter, but I do think he has the ability to be one. I don't see him as a stop-gap PG, but as a guy who has good potential and has proven he's a quality player at the NBA level.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          What's the problem, you afraid Sessions might succeed and Price and Stephenson won't be able to be "the answer" to the Pacers PG situation? Who says Price is going to come back and be able to pick right up where he left off last year, or Stephenson can pick up the aspects of being able to be a contributing PG this season? You and others are pinning your hopes on an injured 1st year player and a rookie who has never played PG other in a few "summer league " games. You'd rather have another 1 year stop gap in Rafer or Diener! I've seen enough of those the last 5 years. I'd rather go for a young established player who could be a good starting PG for the next 2-3 season at less than half of Ford's salary.

          I have to laugh at the idea of Sessions' contract as an albatross. Comparing his 4 mil contract to Tinsley's contract as albatross is ridiculous. Two thirds of the posters on this board think Foster's contract isn't an albatross, and he's being paid 2.6 mil more next year than Sessions would after only playing 20 or so game last season!

          I have pointed out 3-4 times about the lockout will neutralize longer contracts of Hinrich, Sessions, etc. The lockout is an uninevitable fact, accept it. You think Herb Simon hasn't taken that fact into consideration in his decisions concerning the Pacers? I have to laugh at the idea of who is going to be a FA next year when a lockout is coming. What difference does it make when the 012-013 season will be in a lockout? Until a new CBA is hammered out, those FA can't be signed anyway! July 1, 2011 the CBA expires. FA can't be signed for a week or so after that, and a lockout will be underway.

          I don't feel the Pacers have a snowballs chance in heck of getting Sessions, but I sure wish Bird could get Sessions. Sorry, but the prospects of Rafer, Travis, etc just don't thrill me, nor watching a rookie and 1 season injured player as starting PG.
          Okay JT, I get it....you're rather excited about this particular topic.

          I do not think that Sessions is the answer at the PG spot nor should we tie up $3.5 to 4.5 mil on a PG that is IMHO better suited to be a backup PG when we have ( what I think ) is a much cheaper backup PG option on the books with some upside....just like you think that Sessions could be a better answer at PG then what we have had in a long time.

          I know I'm not going to convince you that Sessions isn't the answer just like you'll probably guess that you won't be able to convince me that he can be the answer to our long-term PG needs. I'm going to leave this as one of those topics that we can agree to disagree upon.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

            Ford's career assist rate (assists per possession) is higher than Sessions'. Ford's assist rate in Indiana was higher than Sessions' in Minnesota too. Sessions just shoots less than Ford, but it's not a big difference there.

            They're very similar players playmaking-wise in the sense they tend to over-dribble, keep the ball on their hands until they create a play and find someone to dish the ball to. None of them is a ball-mover, a dynamic passer. Sessions is now better than Ford getting inside and forcing the defense to collapse on him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

              What is the average NBA salary for players not on a rookie contract? Overall the average NBA salary is about 6 million, IIRC, so without the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year guys I am guessing it would be maybe 7 million.

              So 3.5M for a starter is a steal, and 3.5M for a solid backup who is in the rotation would also be a discount.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

                We're gonna need more shooters at PG if we wind up getting him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

                  Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                  Ford's career assist rate (assists per possession) is higher than Sessions'. Ford's assist rate in Indiana was higher than Sessions' in Minnesota too. Sessions just shoots less than Ford, but it's not a big difference there.

                  They're very similar players playmaking-wise in the sense they tend to over-dribble, keep the ball on their hands until they create a play and find someone to dish the ball to. None of them is a ball-mover, a dynamic passer. Sessions is now better than Ford getting inside and forcing the defense to collapse on him.
                  The difference to me is this:
                  1. Session is making 5 million less.
                  2. Ford is no longer wanted.
                  3. Ford thinks he is a starter when production wise he isn't.
                  4. Ford has injury concerns
                  5. Session is still young and could improve his game.
                  6. Session could be a very good backup "if" he doesn't work out as the starter. In addition to this he isn't considered a locker room problem right now as a backup.

                  IMO AJ and Lance are 2 years away from being a reliable options as either starters or backup pgs. If we plug in Sessions then I could see us atleast bridging the gap for our backup pg role.

                  All that being said I won't be mad if we just go for a stop gap pg as long as he isn't worse than Watson.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

                    At this point, I could care less if the Pacers traded for Sessions or not. I like the dude's game, but if the Pacers were to trade for Sessions, I feel this team could manage to get into the playoffs. I really don't want this team to make it to the playoffs on the slight chance that JOB gets a new contract.

                    Session's contract is nice and if he plays up to expectations, he could be used as trade bait should the Pacers not feel he is in their long term plans.

                    Just give the ball to Lance.

                    I'm just hoping our expirings will look very good before the trade deadline. Expirings for picks would be very nice.
                    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Cavs lead charge for Sessions, but Pacers inquire about him as well

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Is this overall statement that our Expiring Contracts aren't valuable true of ALL seasons?

                      or

                      Is this overall statement that our Expiring Contracts aren't valuable only true of this particular offseason?

                      The reason I ask is that there was an unprecedented push by at least a Quarter of the NBA Teams to clear significant Salary from their books. I'm not disagreeing with you that RIGHT NOW there doesn't appear to be too many suitors for our Expiring contracts.....but when there are plenty of Teams out there that still has a decent amount of Capspace....you're right...out Expiring Contracts don't look that appealing. But what we see of this offseason is a clear anomoly compared to previous seasons. Let's see what happens later as we get closer to the Trade Deadline.

                      Honestly, given that I want to ensure that Lance, Paul and Magnum get as many minutes as possible....I don't mind if we sit and do nothing. Adding more Players to our roster only takes minutes away from them.
                      Im of the mind that no team will give away core pieces for expiring players unless there are dir financial reasons to do so. Other than New Orleans there doesnt seem to be any team that fits that picture.............possibly the Hawks at some point with their ownership situation.

                      New Orleans has came out and said they are still committed to winning..........and if they want to keep Chris Pauil than they have to keep that pledge.

                      If that does change however we could be in the best position to take advantage of it because we can also take back Okafor as well. Teams like Nj , NY and Chicago may all be able to as well but they all have flaws in terms of putting together attractive packages.

                      Think about this scenario in mid January.

                      Indiana 14th place in Eastern Conference. New Orleans hovering around .500 in 10th place in West.

                      Paul getting angry.

                      We could package Hibbert,, Rush, a likely top 5 pick in the 2011 draft, Murphy and Dunleavy for Paul and Okafor.

                      We can likely make this deal without either Hibbert or Hansbrough as well.

                      Chicago cant come close to this package and neither can the Knicks or Orlando or just about anyone else.

                      Maybe Minnesota could and possibly Portland depending on what the Hornets wanted.

                      Thats why Larry's patience is really smart right now. We arent winning anything next year anyway.................let the season begin to play out and have the additional leverag of a potential top 5 pick to add with our expirings and then you have a very marketable package of assets to use to acquire a second franchise player to pair with Granger.

                      Who likes this rotation:

                      Okafor Foster Jones
                      Hansbrough McBob Rolle
                      Granger Jones
                      George Stephenson
                      Paul Price

                      By the way.............we'd still have about $12-15mm in cap space left with that roster as well if my quick math is right.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X