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

Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

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

  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

    Originally posted by Really? View Post
    I know this is kind of a negative approach, but I don't like being the team that is making the playoffs but not contending, and I feel that is all Kaman will get us, to old, and not enough potential to help in the long run.
    I would not be surprised if the Simons are okay with this. It's about putting a product out there that gets the local fanbase back and making $$$. I don't like it...but I can see them thinking this way.

    This...or the Simons and KP/DW believe in the whole "get more bang for your buck" approach to improving the roster.
    Last edited by CableKC; 07-03-2012, 04:36 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Just to add to this then the Pacers could go after Milsap next summer or trade for him using Tyler and whatever else to the Jazz. The Pacers could then extend him for David West money and have 0 drop off from the PF position and probably becomes more athletic and better defensively.
      I'm okay with Hibbert leaving IF IT MEANS that we can make additional moves that actually improves the Team. If we sit on the $3 to 4 Mil in Capsavings going with Kaman instead of Hibbert, I will be disappointed with the Team...cuz it tells me what the Team and the Owners wants to do with this Team.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Yeah. The only way Roy isn't signing the offer sheet is if Indiana makes it worth Portland's while to agree to a S&T.

        I know that sounds totally backwards, but that's why there aren't a whole lot of RFA S&Ts. The signing team has all the leverage.

        You might be thinking "they can threaten to match the offer," but that's an empty bluff. Simply by making the phone call to offer a trade, Indiana would have played their hand.
        Not only backwards, it's wrong. The signing team has NO leverage, they can only sit back and wait to see if the offer is matched. If it's matched then they're back where they started, without a shiny new center that they felt was worth a max contract.

        Pritchard doesn't tip anything by making that call. He's simply weighing matching verses the best alternative he can find and offering Portland a chance to tip the scale toward the alternative.

        If Portland wants to be sure they get Hibbert than they can tip the scale toward the alternative. How much they have to tip the scale depends on how attractive the alternative is. Portland probably won't know how attractive the alternative (e.g. Gordon or Kaman/Mayo) is to the Pacers. And if Portland believes Indiana won't match then they can roll the dice and decline to tip the scale.

        Some free agents receive offers that are so outrageous that there's no consideration of matching. Some free agents have so much talent that there's no question but that any offer will be matched. But I don't think Hibbert falls into either of those two categories. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. But at this point matching, not matching, S&T are all possibilities.

        Comment


        • It's not wrong.

          Both teams know Indiana is not going to get remotely fair value for hibbert in a Sign and trade. Teams do not go from inquiring about one to matching the offer sheet. If Indiana had any intention of matching it, they would just match it and not negotiate their way into a losing deal.

          Portland does not gain anything if Indiana matches the offer sheet, but they dont lose anything either. They aren't under any pressure here to give up valued assets.

          Again, there is a good reason why sign and trades are always totally lopsided in favor of the acquiring team.
          Last edited by Kstat; 07-03-2012, 05:04 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

            Wake up, guys. It's not as if our management team just fell off the turnip truck. Do you really honestly think that they'd let our RFA, who we've invested years of effort into, just walk away without a valid reason or a strategy?

            Why is it that you all feel as if you've thought so much more critically about the circumstance then they have? You're missing tons of information, and outside of meeting up with Chris Kaman, there's nothing in the conversations on the board outside of naive speculation.

            Pritchard and Walsh aren't total idiots, you know. If Hibbert doesn't get re-signed, there's a valid reason why. 2-3 million extra per year does not sink the Pacers ship. It's certainly not going to come down to the principle of Hibbert being "overpaid".

            It gets old having to rummage through all of the posts that suggest otherwise. It's simple, common sense.

            Comment


            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              It's not wrong.

              Both teams know Indiana is not going to get remotely fair value for hibbert in a Sign and trade. Teams do not go from inquiring about one to matching the offer sheet. If Indiana had any intention of matching it, they would just match it and not negotiate their way into a losing deal.

              Portland does nit gain anything if Indiana matches the offer sheet, but they dint lose anything either. They aren't under any pressure here to give up valued assets.
              No one ever said anything about Indiana getting fair value from Portland in an S&T. Where did that come from?

              But I agree that Indiana wouldn't "negotiate their way into a losing deal". That would be silly.

              Comment


              • A sign and trade IS a losing deal. It's a last resort meant to at least get some table scraps instead if nothing at all.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                  If Able's numbers for Hibbert's Portland offer are correct:

                  http://pgb.me/pacercap

                  They almost fully line up with this metric:

                  http://www.totalplayervalue.com/most...12-reg-season/

                  Per the TPV metric, Hibbert is worth around 12.2 million.

                  The "crowd" here at PD pegged his value right around the same number.

                  Put his raise schedule at 4.5% and you're looking at his offer on the table.

                  Hard for me to believe that the FO is wringing it's hands on that front. If anything, there's a better player option for the $ that they're targeting, and it certainly isn't Chris Kaman.

                  More likely, the plan is to try to squeeze another player in inside of the Bird exception window and of course resign Hibbert, as they've always made clear they intend to prioritize.
                  Last edited by docpaul; 07-03-2012, 05:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Again, there is a good reason why sign and trades are always totally lopsided in favor of the acquiring team.
                    Almost always.

                    When the Magic wanted to sign Glen Davis, the Celtics informed them they would match, but would do a S&T for Bass. That helped the Celtics a lot, if only for one year. You are right, generally the S&T is the last-minute salvage effort, but there are rare exceptions.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Orlando was looking to trade bass at the time anyway. It's no different than Atlanta giving up diaw to Phoenix or Orlando giving Ben Wallace to Detroit. None of them were considered to have much value at the time of the deal, even though they worked out in the end.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 07-03-2012, 05:17 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                        Hard for me to believe that the FO is wringing it's hands on that front. If anything, there's a better player option for the $ that they're targeting, and it certainly isn't Chris Kaman.
                        Go after Kaman at $10 mil and add the saved $2 to 3 mil in SalaryCap per season to the "rumored" $10 mil offer that KP/DW pitched to Nash and you have a renewed $12 mil offer ( on par with what the Raptors are offering ) that you can make to Nash. KP/DW can then re-pitch that the Pacers can give him the same amount of $$$ while giving him a much better chance to get further in the Playoffs.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 07-03-2012, 05:18 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          A sign and trade IS a losing deal. It's a last resort meant to at least get some table scraps instead if nothing at all.
                          I honestly don't believe that at all. Pacers have the trump, not Portland. If Portland wants him bad enough to throw the that offer at Roy and talk the talk with Roy, then Portland will come off Meyers Leonard, a 1st rnd pick and possibly more. You are way under valuing Roy Hibbert. He is top 10 and maybe top 5 center in the league. You think that the Pacers don't know this? Think they are going to set pat and not throw Portland a bone.

                          Some of you guys really under value our players...just like Danny. He is one of the best Small Forwards ( don't include PF's and SG's, just true 6'8 small forwards) in the league. Just look at free agency last year and this year at the small forwards available. There is nothing out there compared to Danny, so why give him up so easy. Paul freakin George is crap right now to Danny.
                          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                          Comment


                          • If the pacers valued Roy that much... They would match the damn offer sheet and not bother asking for a sign and trade. Your logic is faulty.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              If the pacers valued Roy that much... They would match the damn offer sheet and not bother asking for a sign and trade. Your logic is faulty.
                              LOL, your logic is faulty, Pacers have over a week to test the waters. Pacers will play their trump when it is time...Patience Dear Watson!
                              Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                              Comment


                              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                                Kstat is not undervaluing Roy here... He is just saying that the Blazers don't have to give up anything, and the Pacers angle is that they want to get something out of this, and if the Blazers want to ditch some salary or whatever they give it to us. Like Luke Babbitt or something.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X