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

3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

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

  • #31
    Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

    Originally posted by Psyren View Post
    Posey is good for this team. He just needs to have significantly less minutes, and play the 3 instead of the 4, as long as the 3 he's guarding isn't particularly fast. I don't mind him at the 4, if his minutes get drastically more minimal.

    I do like Posey. But I'd rather see Tyler. Yes, Tyler is young and will make his mistakes. But how else do players learn? Let us at least see what Tyler can do. JOB can't shelter Tyler from ever making mistakes simply by not playing him.
    No, he doesn't need to be playing the 3. Ever. First off, he isn't a SF anymore. I know, I'm beating the hell out of this dead horse with that, but as long as people keeping saying it I will keep correcting it. Second, who would he take minutes from at the 3? Our wing rotation is solid with Danny, Brandon, and Mike. I see no need to mess with that.

    What I will agree on is that I want to see Posey's minutes go down and I do want to see Tyler.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

      Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
      I'll give anybody 2:1 odds that Sharapova and Vujacic are divorced by June.


      "I don't want no Okie from Muskogee [New Joyzee]."


      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

        Ok, I know T'Will did something to upset the Nets, but could someone elaborate on just what the awful offense was that got T'Will into the doghouse in NJ?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          Ok, I know T'Will did something to upset the Nets, but could someone elaborate on just what the awful offense was that got T'Will into the doghouse in NJ?
          He was late to practice and to games on regular basis.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Why the Lakers need another big that can't shoot the three?
            Joe Smith would fill the same need that PJ Brown filled when he joined the Celtics a few years back.....provide some veteran depth to the Frontcourt. My guess is that they are hedging their bets that Bynum won't be 100% healthy....which is a safe thing to assume.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
              When you get in Avery Johnson's dog house, it looks like you're in big trouble.
              At least he's consistent. Murphy's been there since day 1 and he hasn't gotten out. You have to know that the Nets are just holding onto his huge 12+ mil Expiring Contract in the hopes of using him to try to get Melo.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                No, he doesn't need to be playing the 3. Ever. First off, he isn't a SF anymore. I know, I'm beating the hell out of this dead horse with that, but as long as people keeping saying it I will keep correcting it. Second, who would he take minutes from at the 3? Our wing rotation is solid with Danny, Brandon, and Mike. I see no need to mess with that.

                What I will agree on is that I want to see Posey's minutes go down and I do want to see Tyler.
                Just to continue to remain Off-Topic....if Posey isn't really a 3 anymore and clearly not well suited to be a 4 ( at least against most 4s ), then what is he?

                A 3.5 that can be used in specific situations ( slow SF/PF that can't really post up )?

                I mean...what would be the best way to use him?
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                  I watched Williams playing in the D-League a couple of times this year, he really has some huge shot-selection issues. Other than that, he can be a baller. Needs to smart up. Houston is a good place for him to be. He'll need to be more of a team player if he wants to gain Adelman's trust and get on the floor.

                  Not really sure what Houston is going to do with him. I hope they don't try him at the SF. The size advantage is very important for his game, especially defensively but also on offense.

                  Houston needs to trade move one of Kevin Martin and Aaron Brooks if they are going with Lee and Williams as their other perimeter players. If they move Martin, Williams can play his natural position. If they move Brooks, they can try Williams as a big PG or make him a 6th man a la Manu Ginobili.

                  All this assuming he gets his working habits straight.
                  ---

                  The Lakers save a lot of money with this deal. $7 million. I think that was their main incentive. Joe Smith is a deep reserve at this point of his career.

                  ---
                  I don't like this deal for the Nets. They need to get someone to make the personnel decisions and "demote" Avery Johnson to head-coach.

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  Just to continue to remain Off-Topic....if Posey isn't really a 3 anymore and clearly not well suited to be a 4 ( at least against most 4s ), then what is he?

                  A 3.5 that can be used in specific situations ( slow SF/PF that can't really post up )?

                  I mean...what would be the best way to use him?
                  Yeah, a 3.5 is a good way of describing that kind of player. He's well suited to be a backup 4. He was the backup 4 for a championship team, he was used to finish games in the NBA Finals as the 4. He can't be used there full-time because of the lack of rebounding and unfavourable matchups though.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Just to continue to remain Off-Topic....if Posey isn't really a 3 anymore and clearly not well suited to be a 4 ( at least against most 4s ), then what is he?

                    A 3.5 that can be used in specific situations ( slow SF/PF that can't really post up )?

                    I mean...what would be the best way to use him?
                    I think he is good as a backup 4. The problem is when you start playing him starter's minutes--he can't do it. You will have serious matchup problems with that, as cordobes alluded to. If he is playing 18-22 mpg, matchup problems wouldn't be as much of an issue.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                      Williams demolished the NBDL in his three-games there, averaging a triple-double:

                      Game 1: 16 points, 15 rebounds, 13 assists
                      Game 2: 32 points, 10 rebounds, 12 assists
                      Game 3: 36 points, 9 rebounds, 7 assists
                      Average: 28 points, 11.3 rebounds, 10.7 assists

                      He's got the all-around skill-level to be an Andre Iguodala-like player if he can get (and keep) his head straight.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                        Call me nuts, but don't be surprised if Phil squeezes some production out of Smith. He could easily be much more valuable come playoff time than Sasha'd ever be.
                        Agreed. Look at it from Joe Smith's side too. This is a great trade for him even if he only gets the Robert Parrish-with-the-Bulls-garbage minutes.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                          TWill the player is great. NJ didn't use him at Point Forward enough, especially last year.

                          But even the fan of his game that I am has to admit that someone's going to need to get his head on straight. The stories on him are more that he's quirky and flakey, though he does like the game. So insisting on coming to practice late is an issue.

                          OTOH he's got all the markings of a kid that gets a bit older and starts to take his job a bit more seriously, especially if put into the right situation. Maybe Houston will be a good influence. I'd like to think Battier would but I wonder how pro-active he is about those types of issues.

                          TWill remains a solid, smart defender and a brilliant passer specializing in court vision.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                            Seth, you are right on my man, as always! The guy just has feel. It is easy to see. The issues in New Jersey I have to partly attribute to a stibborn coach at this point. Avery Johnson is a bit of a hard *** at 5' 7" (and a half). I don't hate a kid for playing with a mean streak. Let's see if Rick Adelman's passing offense will suit him better, which I think it will. The kid has feel and passing is inherent. The Pacers have a similar mindset, but that's a whole other problem. I think, in the right situation, this kid could thrive. Backup minutes are about right to see what he can do. That Rockets roster has a LOT of talent. Where is their direction?
                            "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


                            • #44
                              Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                              I think, in the right situation, this kid could thrive. Backup minutes are about right to see what he can do. That Rockets roster has a LOT of talent. Where is their direction?
                              Yeah, they are a little confusing to me. Look at their depth at the 2 and 3:
                              Shane Battier (1/$7.3M)
                              Chase Budinger (3/$2.6M)
                              Courtney Lee (3/$3.5M)
                              Kevin Martin (3/$34M)
                              Terrence Williams (4/$7.7M)
                              Which of those contracts really sticks out? Next season they are going to have a nice chunk of cap space, assuming Yao is done (they'll have only $40.2M in committed salaries before re-signing Aaron Brooks/Battier/Hayes, if they decide to). That would mean that they are in a great position to either reload with a free agent center (Marc Gasol?) or rebuild by unloading K-Mart's contract (and who ISN'T looking for a starting 2 guard right now?). But for as unlucky as the Rockets appear to be... they could really help themselves this coming offseason.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: 3 team trade: Terrence Williams to the Rockets

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                OTOH he's got all the markings of a kid that gets a bit older and starts to take his job a bit more seriously, especially if put into the right situation.
                                Just curious: What markings are you referring to with him?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X