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

Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

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

  • #16
    Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

    If the deal is J.R. for Brewer and Bogans, George Karl would probably smile ceaselessly for 15 straight games if this deal happened.

    I believe I would too.
    Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      There is no reason for Denver to do this deal. Weird how the trade is "players the Bulls want the least" for "player that fits the Bulls' needs at the 2."
      Yeah, but Smith would be a wonderful acquisition for the Bulls. Could make them a title contender. He's exactly the type of piece that they need to add to that starting unit.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        Why would Denver want this deal?
        Not sure thats just the deal that is in place, I heard. Im guessing Denver wont be able to or wont want to pay Smith the money he will be asking for as he is an expiring contract, and want to get some kind of value for him. Besides Smith has had off court issues his whole career and isn't exaclty a good team guy in the locker room or on the court. Before the season, Ronnie Brewer was slated to be the Bulls starting SG but injuries happened and Bogans beat him out for that job.

        The past two weeks Brewer has logged solid minutes and has been pretty productive. (Last 8 games he has averaged 22.8 Min with 7 Pts, 3.5 Reb, 2.5 Stl, 2 Ast while shooting .538%.) Not bad. He's only 25 and 6'7'' for SG is excellent size, just last year he was starting for the Jazz and putting up pretty good numbers. Brewer is the same age as Smith but Smith has played 2 more NBA seasons than Brewer. I like the trade for the Bulls cause it gives them another offensive weapon but its equally as good for Denver as Bogans gives them an excellent vetern defender and 3 point threat and Brewer is still a solid young player.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          There is no reason for Denver to do this deal. Weird how the trade is "players the Bulls want the least" for "player that fits the Bulls' needs at the 2."
          The Nuggets would do it purely for financial reasons.

          They are over the LT threshold...that's why they do it. Smith makes $6.7 mil this season...which translates into $13.4 mil in LT.

          This will become more important especially WHEN Melo is traded.

          The Bulls have $56 mil in committed Salary in 2010-2011. Are they able to absorb most of that without sending any salary back?

          This brings up an important point....are there any Teams that are left that are under the SalaryCap and/or have TPEs that could absorb Salary without sending back anything?


          When Melo is traded....I can see some 3rd Party Teams become involved to absorb some salaries and some assets while sending back nothing.
          Last edited by CableKC; 12-15-2010, 02:35 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post

            This brings up an important point....are there any Teams that are left that are under the SalaryCap and/or have TPEs that could absorb Salary without sending back anything?
            Wolves and Kings still have around 14 mil of cap, Cleveland has LeBron's exception. Also Cleveland and Clips with 5-6 mil cap each. Hornets, Rockets, Mavericks, Suns and Jazz all have a number of exceptions for up to 6 mil. I'm not sure if Bosh's exception was used on Stojakovic trade by Toronto, I believe they still have most of it left.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

              Originally posted by ballism View Post
              Wolves and Kings still have around 14 mil of cap, Cleveland has LeBron's exception. Also Cleveland and Clips with 5-6 mil cap each. Hornets, Rockets, Mavericks, Suns and Jazz all have a number of exceptions for up to 6 mil. I'm not sure if Bosh's exception was used on Stojakovic trade by Toronto, I believe they still have most of it left.
              My guess is that these Teams will be heavily involved in trades before the deadline....especially the eventually Melo Trade.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                The same reason I've repeated on here about why Dahntay Jones started when he was in Denver. JR Smith is a headcase, has a low basketball IQ, and takes wild shots that are unnecessary.

                He shouldn't be a starter on a decent team.

                He's still worth more than Brewer and Bogans, and I expect the Nuggets to get more for Smith.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                  Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                  Not sure thats just the deal that is in place, I heard. Im guessing Denver wont be able to or wont want to pay Smith the money he will be asking for as he is an expiring contract, and want to get some kind of value for him. Besides Smith has had off court issues his whole career and isn't exaclty a good team guy in the locker room or on the court. Before the season, Ronnie Brewer was slated to be the Bulls starting SG but injuries happened and Bogans beat him out for that job.

                  The past two weeks Brewer has logged solid minutes and has been pretty productive. (Last 8 games he has averaged 22.8 Min with 7 Pts, 3.5 Reb, 2.5 Stl, 2 Ast while shooting .538%.) Not bad. He's only 25 and 6'7'' for SG is excellent size, just last year he was starting for the Jazz and putting up pretty good numbers. Brewer is the same age as Smith but Smith has played 2 more NBA seasons than Brewer. I like the trade for the Bulls cause it gives them another offensive weapon but its equally as good for Denver as Bogans gives them an excellent vetern defender and 3 point threat and Brewer is still a solid young player.


                  I wanted Brewer the year he was drafted, but the Jazz got him. I've always kept tabs on his play. He started out slow for the Bulls this year, but has picked up his game of late.

                  Everyone sees how good this deal is for the Bulls, but where is the advantage of trading a good player like Smith. Smith is an expiring contract at 6.7 with Denver at 13 mil over the LT. The Nuggets can cut 6.7 off what they will owe in LT by keeping Smith whereas they will end up paying mil in LT by taking back contracts. I just don't see the advantage for Denver to make a trade with the Bulls unless there is a lot more coming from the Bulls that will offset Denver paying 6.7 mil in LT. Ronnie Brewer and Bogans aren't worth paying 6.7 mil in LT. In 58 games, Smith will be an expiring saving ownership 6.7 mil. I just don't 6.7 mil advantage to trading Smith to the Bulls.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                    Originally posted by Hibbert View Post
                    Not sure thats just the deal that is in place, I heard. Im guessing Denver wont be able to or wont want to pay Smith the money he will be asking for as he is an expiring contract, and want to get some kind of value for him. Besides Smith has had off court issues his whole career and isn't exaclty a good team guy in the locker room or on the court. Before the season, Ronnie Brewer was slated to be the Bulls starting SG but injuries happened and Bogans beat him out for that job.

                    The past two weeks Brewer has logged solid minutes and has been pretty productive. (Last 8 games he has averaged 22.8 Min with 7 Pts, 3.5 Reb, 2.5 Stl, 2 Ast while shooting .538%.) Not bad. He's only 25 and 6'7'' for SG is excellent size, just last year he was starting for the Jazz and putting up pretty good numbers. Brewer is the same age as Smith but Smith has played 2 more NBA seasons than Brewer. I like the trade for the Bulls cause it gives them another offensive weapon but its equally as good for Denver as Bogans gives them an excellent vetern defender and 3 point threat and Brewer is still a solid young player.


                    I wanted Brewer the year he was drafted, but the Jazz got him. I've always kept tabs on his play. He started out slow for the Bulls this year, but has picked up his game of late.

                    Everyone sees how good this deal is for the Bulls, but where is the advantage of trading a good player like Smith. Smith is an expiring contract at 6.7 with Denver at 13 mil over the LT. The Nuggets can cut 6.7 off what they will owe in LT by keeping Smith whereas they will end up paying mil in LT by taking back contracts. I just don't see the advantage for Denver to make a trade with the Bulls unless there is a lot more coming from the Bulls that will offset Denver paying 6.7 mil in LT. Ronnie Brewer and Bogans aren't worth paying 6.7 mil in LT. In 58 games, Smith will be an expiring saving ownership 6.7 mil. I just don't 6.7 mil advantage to trading Smith to the Bulls.

                    Not to mention both Brewer and Bogans have contracts for 1-2 years more. Thus more mil in cost to make the trade.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                      Originally posted by ballism View Post
                      Wolves and Kings still have around 14 mil of cap, Cleveland has LeBron's exception. Also Cleveland and Clips with 5-6 mil cap each. Hornets, Rockets, Mavericks, Suns and Jazz all have a number of exceptions for up to 6 mil. I'm not sure if Bosh's exception was used on Stojakovic trade by Toronto, I believe they still have most of it left.

                      Don't forget the Pacers have a 3.8 mil TE as well.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                        Well if i understood well, the question was about 6 mil+ exceptions / cap vacancies - as in, big enough to absorb JR straight up. I had no intention to mention every team with exception / cap there.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                          I somewhat doubt that the Nuggets would give him away for nothing. It's possible I suppose with today's financial climate but I think that despite his obvious shortcomings, he can absolutely dominate on offense on occasion and I think there's a huge market for that, even today. I'd expect that the Nuggets will try to get some kind of compensation for him, or they'll possibly just let him expire.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                            Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                            I somewhat doubt that the Nuggets would give him away for nothing. It's possible I suppose with today's financial climate but I think that despite his obvious shortcomings, he can absolutely dominate on offense on occasion and I think there's a huge market for that, even today. I'd expect that the Nuggets will try to get some kind of compensation for him, or they'll possibly just let him expire.
                            I think they will.... What did they get when they gave away Marcus camby?? When camby was a more important piece to the team.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                              I agree, giving him away for nothing would hurt. They should at least push for a rotation guy on a rookie deal. That said, if Denver takes the Nets deal for Melo and lands Favors, I wouldn't want JR anywhere near Favors. Even if JR is maturing, get rid of all question marks and develop Favors, Lawson and whoever else you get.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Bulls and Nuggets discussing J.R Smith deal

                                Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                                I'd love to pick up Taj Gibson as our long-term solution at the four
                                I really don't see Gibson as a long-term solution for a good team. We have a couple of below average PFs already. Guys like Gibson, Hill, etc. don't strike me as a solution.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X