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

Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

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

  • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

    As much as I LOVE DG, I would entertain a trade consisting of:

    DG+DC for Ellis+Wright.

    GS does this trade because they get a good starting SF, which opens up more PT for their 1st round pick Klay Thompson. They also get a reliable backup PG in case (when) Curry's ankles act up again.

    The Pacers do this trade because it allows us to get a premier one-on-one scorer (something we desperately lack). We move G.Hill to the starting 5, and the next thing you know, we have a more balanced starting 5 with a penetrator (Ellis) defensive minded players who can hit the 3 (GH/PG) a high post presence (West) and a Low post presence (Roy)

    Off the bench we have Price, Jones, Wright, Hans, and Foster/Aumundson. We STILL have the cap flexibility to go after Kaman if desired. He's an expiring contract, so if we don;t like what we see, we can let him go after the season. Foster, Amundson and Price are coming off the books at the end of the yr, so we maintain our cap flexibility to re-sign Roy and G.Hill and potentially one more FA.

    Comment


    • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      Jerry Stackhouse, 2000-01: 40.2 mpg, 35.2 USG%, 29.8 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 5.1 apg, 32 wins

      Antawn Jamison, 2000-01: 41.4 mpg, 27.9 USG%, 24.9 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 2.0 apg, 17 wins

      Ricky Davis, 2002-03: 39.6 mpg, 27.6 USG%, 20.6 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 5.5 apg, 17 wins

      Jalen Rose, 2002-03: 40.9 mpg, 27.4 USG%, 22.1 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 4.8 apg, 30 wins

      Monta Ellis, 2010-11: 40.3 mpg, 28.1 USG%, 24.1 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 5.6 apg, 36 wins
      Of all these players, only Monta shot over 45% during that year. Jamison shot 44% but that was much less than he had previously over his career. All the other guys were between 40% and 41.3%.

      Monta isn't in over his head shooting that much. He's still fairly efficient. The rest .... not so much.

      Comment


      • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

        http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...=172951&spln=1

        Peter Vecsey of the New York Post writes that there are "renewed rumblings" about the Warriors "possibly" landing Brook Lopez.
        Take this with an enormous grain of salt. Vecsey writes that it woudl be a multi-team deal involving Dwight Howard heading to New Jersey, while Lopez would move to Golden State and Monta Ellis would wind up in Orlando. There would have to be other pieces involved to make the money match up, but the Warriors are known to be in the market for a big man. Feb. 28 - 9:56 am et
        Last edited by The Sleeze; 02-28-2012, 04:02 PM.
        I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

        Comment


        • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

          If they want a star for Monta then they shouldn't have a problem with taking Tyler. Dude is probably the biggest star in NCAA history. I mean he has his own fan base.

          Comment


          • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

            Man, I know we all think they're overvaluing Ellis but you'd have to think they can do better than that.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

              I'd assume that Hedo would be going....and more assets going to Orlando. Monta+useless filler for Dwight just isn't good value for the Magic.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                From Hollinger's chat today:

                Milo (Berkeley)

                John, just what is Monta Ellis' trade value? As anyone who watches The Warriors can see the guys needs to be traded, awful defender, the exact kind of volume shooter they don't need right now, but I do wonder just who would take him, and what they'd be willing to offer. As a fan I just want to get the guys contract off the books, but what can we get back in a trade?
                John Hollinger (2:08 PM)

                They nearly got Andre Iguodala on draft day, which would have been a huge coup for Golden State and a disaster for the Sixers. The problem with Monta is that everybody except the Warriors knows he isn't a star, so it's difficult to concoct a trade that both sides would find fair.
                Oof. Harsh.

                Comment


                • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  John Hollinger (2:08 PM)

                  The problem with Monta is that everybody except the Warriors and several members of Pacers Digest knows he isn't a star
                  Fixed for accuracy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                    Wasn't that Hollinger who said he thought Danny Granger was a terrible player?

                    p.s. he might not have said it exactly like that but it was close.

                    edit: never mind it wasn't Hollinger... I forget who said that.

                    edit 2: It was Simmons. Either way you get the point.
                    Last edited by CJ Jones; 02-28-2012, 06:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                      Looking at the likely pieces in this "rumor"....this is what we have:

                      Orlando

                      Orlando sends out : Dwight ( $18.09 mil ) + Hedo + ( $11.016 mil )
                      Orlando receives : Monta ( $11 mil ) + ???? ( Players that have a total of AT LEAST $12.5 mil )
                      Outbound Salary : $29.106 mil
                      Minimal Inbound Salary that the Magic can take in : roughly $23.5mil

                      NOTE - Assuming that all the Magic send out is Dwight+Hedo, the Magic MUST receive Player(s) that total ( AT LEAST ) $12.5 mil in 2011-2012 Salary to make the trade work

                      *************************************
                      NJ
                      Nets send out: Brook ( $3.077 mil ) + Okur ( $10.89 mil ) + ???? ( Players that have a total of AT LEAST $10.54 mil )
                      Nets receive : Dwight ( $18.09 mil ) + Hedo + ( $11.016 mil )
                      Likely Outbound Salary : $23.5 mil
                      Likely Inbound Salary that the Nets will take in : $29.106 mil

                      NOTE - Assuming that the Nets take in both Dwight+Hedo AND they do not make any other trades to clear 2011-2012 Salary, the Nets MUST send out Player(s) that total ( AT LEAST ) $9.533mil in 2011-2012 Salary to make the trade work.

                      *************************************

                      GSW

                      GSW sends out : Monta ( $11 mil in 2011-2013 ) + ???? ( likely useless but Expiring filler )
                      GSW receives : Brook ( $3.076 mil ) + ???? ( Players that have a total of AT LEAST $5.925 mil )
                      Likely Outbound Salary - AT LEAST $11 mil
                      Likely inbound Salary - Roughly but AT LEAST $9 mil in 2011-2012 Salary.

                      NOTE - Assuming that the Warriors take in Brook and another Player, the Warriors MUST take on a Player(s) that total ( AT LEAST ) $5.925mil in 2011-2012 Salary to make the trade work.

                      *************************************

                      The question then becomes....what are the "missing Players" that would have to be included in order to make this Deal work. Although some of my calculations can be off....it's likely that the Nets would have to contact Teams under the Cap ( such as the Kings, Pacers and Cavs ) to make some additional trades to get some Trade Exceptions so that they can better absorb Dwight and Hedo's contracts.

                      Either way, I'd assume that the Nets and Magic have Bird's # on speed dial. I'm hoping that Bird's first response is, "What's in it for the Pacers?" with a likely asking price of a 1st round pick and no Contracts that would adversely affect the Team's ability to go after FAs in the offseason while fitting in to our needs.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 02-28-2012, 06:05 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                        Fixed for accuracy.
                        So being better than Collison makes someone a star?

                        There are a lot of stars in the NBA apparently.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                          No one said Monta's a star right now. He certainly has the abilities to be one though IMO.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                            Hollinger actually doesn't make any sense, in my case if I think a players is garbage I wouldn't think that he could fit or help anywhere, why in the F is he posting this?



                            Umar (Philadelphia)


                            Watching the Magic play it's very obvious they don't have a single player who can get his own shot. Why not go after Monta - his defensive shortcoming can be covered up by Howard. The current cast isn't getting it done and Bynum/Lopez aren't taking the Magic out of the first round.

                            John Hollinger (2:48 PM)


                            One of the few scenarios for Monta that I think might genuinely make sense. Only problem is what would Orlando send back -- they'd basically have to be willing to accept expirings and low-ceiling prospects (Ie Justin Harper, Daniel Orton). Also, the Monta-Howard tandem would only exist for about 45 days.

                            stanley (utah)


                            does monta ellis for all jefferson make sense for both teams?

                            John Hollinger (2:57 PM)


                            I could easily talk myself into that, yes, although I think Utah would want a couple more trinkets coming back to even things out.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Hollinger actually doesn't make any sense, in my case if I think a players is garbage I wouldn't think that he could fit or help anywhere, why in the F is he posting this?
                              He never said Monta was garbage. Just that he's not a star.

                              Edit: I was honestly more surprised with the fan's question than Hollinger's answer. Just want his contract off the books? Seems harsh.
                              Last edited by cdash; 02-28-2012, 07:05 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Report: Warriors demanding star for Ellis

                                Personally, I hope that Orlando does the trade. They would be handing us the 3rd seed on a silver platter.


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X