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

ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt. Update post #159 - looks like he is going to the Hornets

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

  • #76
    Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

    I'm really waiting to hear what's going on with this.

    I won't mind if he chooses us or someone else, I'm just interested to see mostly if he chooses Golden State. I'm not sure why he'd ever go and play for Nelson.
    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

      I think that we have better options then him tyler will be back and i think pick and pop with magnum rolle will work really well he is automatic from 17 ft ad rebounds really well and blocks shot he need at least 20 mins a night and Amundson would prevent that we need to stick to buliding ths young core

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

        Originally posted by bulldog View Post
        He's not exactly a young'un, having been born in '82, but he could definitely be part of our long term plan. If you have concerns about PT for our younger players, I think a much better option is to trade Foster while he still has some semblance of trade value (although that window may have already passed). And while Hansborough brings some of the same skills to the table, we really don't know what his future health status will be. When you factor in Foster's age and Tyler's health, our short-to-medium term frontcourt is really open.

        And if he's signed for a couple million per year, that makes absolutely no difference for our future ability to pay Horford, or any other FA. That's chump change by NBA standards. I would never want us to get into a Brian Cardinal or Scalabrine situation, where a hustle role player is overrated and overpayed. But because his market seems to be so poor for him right now, he's potentially a solid pick-up for a team wiling to throw a little bit of money his way.

        At the end of the day, every FA signing is about cost relative to production. But I see an opportunity to get good value from a guy whose price is low right now because Phoenix took the odd step of overreacting to Amare leaving by brining in Turkoglu, Warrick, and Frye to all play that position, and the summer of LeBron created a weird situation where teams used up or are holding their cap space to sign big-time all-stars, not add talent around the margins. Not to mention no one wants to add role players right before the new CBA, which might make for better contracts. But this reluctance has, in my opinion, created a situation where Lou might be underpaid.

        I guess that's just a guess, I'm obviously not in the room with the agents as the contracts are discussed. It just seems that way to me from the outside.
        Part of my reasoning is for development and evaluation of our young frontcourt but less for lack of capspace for the 2011-2012 offseason for Horford.

        I'm thinking it maybe better for the long-term if we evaluated whether Magnum and McRoberts could fill the same role as Amundson. If they can, then we can get the same result with less of an impact on the SalaryCap. Part of it also is that I feel that Hansbrough can ( hopefully ) do many of the same things that Amundson can do.

        As mentioned above...pretty much by most of us...you can never have too many energy/hustle/tough frontcourt Players that can do what Amundson/Hansbrough/Foster does...so I won't really complain. I just look at it as an effective but inefficient use of our limited resources.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Money and need. The ownership is pretty cheap, and they just gave contracts to Channing Frye and Hakim Warrick, who play the same position. They also have last year's #14 pick, Earl Clark at the position.

          Amundson brings nice energy, hustle guy, and that's about it. I mean, this is a guy who has played only 87 more minutes in his four-year career than Danny did in his 62 games last season...and he's four months older.

          He wouldn't be a bad pickup, depending on dollars and years, but it's not hard to see every big man on the Pacers - with the possible exception of Solo - being better players than him.
          Quoted for truth.

          Couldn't have said it better.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

            Originally posted by bulldog View Post
            Because it's August, most of the teams with cap space have made their moves already and his home team has openly stated that they have no plans to re-sign him.

            I think you could get him for 3 yrs. $5 mil or something barely above minimum like that.
            Ah, okay. I thought you meant something else. For players like Amundson, teams running out of cap space isn't a very relevant factor. There are still plenty of teams with the MLE/LLE/TPE and that's enough to sign him. He's the best big still in the market, so I think there's still plenty of market for him.

            I think he'll be a bit more expensive than that though. He's a very good 4th big with the ability to become a solid 3rd big once he works on his defense. He's very athletic and mobile + good rebounder + great screen setting ability + an extraordinary work rate.

            Phoenix made a mistake by letting him go. He's a better player than Warrick.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              Phoenix made a mistake by letting him go.
              I agree with this.

              Originally posted by cordobes
              He's a better player than Warrick.
              I also agree with this, but it's not a very high hurdle.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                I've made my preferences known... namely attempting to swing a trade for Thompson, followed up by an attempted signing next summer of West, Horton or Landry.

                Ignoring that, let's consider a signing of Amundson and what that would mean. I don't agree with those that state it would eat into the available cap space for next summer. What we would pay Amundson would have virtually no impact on that at all.

                However, we currently have 15 players under contract and it is well known that the Pacers would like to sign Rolle. So signing Rolle and Amundson would mean that TWO players currently under contract have to go, unless the Pacers swing a trade first to reduce numbers. It certainly looks as though Lance could be one of these two casualties, but considering the first glimpse they've had at his talents, there is no way that the Pacers would be willing to cut him loose until the situation and confirmed facts force them to do so.

                So, if a trade is not made to reduce numbers, are there players that you would be willing to cut to provide a place on the roster for Amundson? SJones is an obvious choice. But who beyond that? And, if there is no one beyond SJones that you would cut, and you believe that we keep Lance until we are forced to cut him loose, then it comes down to one simple question. Would you rather have Amundson or Rolle?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                  I'd cut Lance & try to work a sign & trade for Amundson

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                    I'd cut Lance & try to work a sign & trade for Amundson
                    If you would be willing to attempt a sign and trade for Amundson, are there other players that you would be willing to attempt to trade for ahead of "settling" for Amundson?

                    Out of players that might be available, where would you put Amundson in your pecking order?

                    And, once he became a member our team, where would you put him in the depth chart of bigs?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                      Amundson is the only guy on my list & I think it would be far from settling if we could bring him in.

                      I would prefer to start Amundson & have him split time with Hansbrough. If Tyler can't go then McRoberts gets some minutes & Granger swings over to the 4 for awhile as well.

                      With Tyler's health still an issue & Foster in the final year of his deal, most likely his last as a Pacer, I think we need to add quality players when we can. Next summer both Foster & McRoberts could be gone. If you want to bring in a Horford or West as our elusive player X then we should have the money still available & roster space.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                        What I remember abour Lou is he always seems to get rebounds against us. I remember driving to work last season listenting to a pacers suns game and I swear that guy grabbed every rebound possible. So just based on the fact that if we sign him he can't do that against us I'm all for it. It may be flawed logic but it is 4 am
                        Doing the twitter thing JonnyB83
                        Also JonnyB83 on facebook....we should be friends!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                          Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                          I'd cut Lance & try to work a sign & trade for Amundson

                          thats crazy Amundson is not ver good lance= star we canr cut lance b4 oct19 thats his court date no point to cut him till we find out the verdict and posey says he has leader ship and helps the younger guys in his interviews so proveit with lance lance

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            Wow.
                            Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                              Originally posted by USF View Post
                              Wow.
                              if you just watch lance play you'll see he has size and crazy handles passes well too many turnovers ok might not be a star but he can really help the pacers scoring and with defense in a few years he could develope into one lou is not good compared to other 4s he is undersized and posey would be just as effective at the 4 so wait for a trade 4 a legit 4 or just go with tyler and rolle and mcbob

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: ESPN: Warriors, Hornets, Pacers in Amundson hunt

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                if you just watch lance play you'll see he has size and crazy handles passes well too many turnovers ok might not be a star but he can really help the pacers scoring and with defense in a few years he could develope into one lou is not good compared to other 4s he is undersized and posey would be just as effective at the 4 so wait for a trade 4 a legit 4 or just go with tyler and rolle and mcbob
                                I was saying wow to your font size. It was huge.
                                Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X