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

Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

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

  • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    I'd rather Pierce have the ball than Johnson honestly.
    Agreed. Nets need to flip him for a spot-up shooter or some other type of complimentary role. If I were them, I'd try to flip him into Tony Allen.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      And he also plays a completely different style than Ray. PP isn't just a spot up shooter, or someone you run off of screens. That's a complimentary type role, IMHO. PP is at his best when he has the ball in his hands and he can go to work.

      Putting the ball in his hands takes it away from DWill, and Johnson. I think PP and Johnson play similiar styles, obviously not perfect, but in the way they need the ball. (PP is way better at passing out of the isos which is a big plus) I think in order for PP to step up, he's going to have to step on other players.

      DWill, Johnson, PP, and Lopez all need regular/consistent touches in order to be effective IMHO. It's hard splitting the ball 3 ways, and much harder to split it 4. Johnson struggled this year because of the lack of consistency in his opportunities. It just got worse.
      The Celtics had plenty of guys who needed the ball too. Both Rondo and KG needed the ball in their hands to be effective, but it always ultimately worked out well with them and Pierce.

      Pierce will pick his spots. He's not trying to average 25 PPG. And like Joe said, there will likely be a lot of times when you'd rather Pierce have the ball than Johnson.

      Comment


      • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        If Ainge was willing to take Gerald Wallace's hideous contract, then I'm sure he would have been more than happy to take Granger's expiring as part of the deal. All Ainge cares about is losing next season, so he could care less about Granger's health. We would have had to part with some draft picks, but with our talent, they will likely be late draft picks anyway.

        Of course, the biggest hurdle might have been getting KG to waive his no trade clause to Indy, but he probably would have as long as Pierce was part of the deal. Plus I'm sure that Bird could have worked some magic on him.

        Yeah that would have been so nice, Hill,Pierce,PG,KG,Hibbert and a bench featuring Dwest and others, damn.

        Edit: pacers could have offered a better package for sure.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

          I know it sounds dumb from a winning perspective, but I couldn't stomach 2 players that will have their jerseys retired in Boston winning a championship for the Pacers. A PP and KG Pacer championship would be tainted IMO.

          Comment


          • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            The Celtics had plenty of guys who needed the ball too. Both Rondo and KG needed the ball in their hands to be effective, but it always ultimately worked out well with them and Pierce.

            Pierce will pick his spots. He's not trying to average 25 PPG. And like Joe said, there will likely be a lot of times when you'd rather Pierce have the ball than Johnson.
            Yep, and they struggled. (Which is why I find it funny that Jason Terry is coming along) Rondo and PP got to handle the ball, and everyone else had to adjust. Once Rondo went down, other players started emerging because they were put into their proper roles.

            It's very hard for a team to have 3-4 ball dominate guys rolling at the same time. The Pacers struggled with it all year, and even the most consistent offensive player (DWest) couldn't get any rythm. A basketball roster is like a jigsaw puzzle, where strengths and weaknesses need to compliment each other. The Nets roster right now is like a bunch of bricks, they need something that holds them all together.

            Maybe they'll find it, but I don't think so with how the roster is setup right now.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Yep, and they struggled. (Which is why I find it funny that Jason Terry is coming along) Rondo and PP got to handle the ball, and everyone else had to adjust. Once Rondo went down, other players started emerging because they were put into their proper roles.

              It's very hard for a team to have 3-4 ball dominate guys rolling at the same time. The Pacers struggled with it all year, and even the most consistent offensive player (DWest) couldn't get any rythm. A basketball roster is like a jigsaw puzzle, where strengths and weaknesses need to compliment each other. The Nets roster right now is like a bunch of bricks, they need something that holds them all together.

              Maybe they'll find it, but I don't think so with how the roster is setup right now.

              Struggled? They made the Conference Finals in 2012 with Rondo dominating the ball while KG and Pierce were still able to get plenty of touches. They made the Finals in 2010, at which point Rondo had begun to heavily control the ball. One season in which Rondo missed the playoffs doesn't trump the five previous seasons in which the team enjoyed incredible success. KG, Pierce, and Rondo all needed the ball, yet consistently found a way to make it work.

              And the other players being inserted into their "proper roles" resulted in getting stomped by the Knicks. Give me Rondo and the Conference Finals that he led the team to in 2012 over a bunch of inferior players playing in proper roles while getting eliminated in the first round.

              Comment


              • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                I like the deal for the Nets, myself. Coming into the season, the question was what kind of veteran help they can get for Hump's expiring - and IMO they got a pretty massive short term boost. Not only that, they got rid of Gerald Wallace's nonperforming butt.

                Are they locked out of making future roster moves? IMO no, because next year they'll have KG and Terry's expiring deals to dangle, and the year after that, Joe Johnson's. As long as the Russian is willing to keep taking bad contracts (and paying mountains of lux tax!), they'll be in the upper half of the East. Contenders? Maybe, maybe not. But they can easily be a playoff team for the next 4-5 years.

                On the flipside, the potential payoff for the Celtics is at least 3 years away. How patient will Rondo be? IMO Celtics will have dealt a disgruntled Rondo long before they get a useful return out of those picks. Their best hope is that by tanking now their own high picks can bridge the talent gap until the Nets' picks start paying off (if ever).

                FWIW, I don't highly value potentially lotto picks that are years away, like the CHA pick that Chicago owns that becomes unprotected in 2016. It's just too far away and uncertain to place a high value on, IMO.
                I like it for the Nets too. I was just responding to a post that was saying it's bad for the Celtics, I disagree, I think it's good for both. For all we know, the Celtics will end up with Wiggins or some other top prospect now, and have a number of assets going forward.

                Rondo seemed disgruntled one way or the other.
                I'd probably trade him (can you build and develop a young team around a headcase?). Or maybe Ainge does what he did with Paul Pierce pre-2008, features him on bad teams for a few years, collects assets and sees what opportunities come along.

                Re "expirings for bad contracts" strategy, I'm not as optimistic. This isn't the Marc Cuban/Isiah Thomas era anymore. There won't be Joe Johnson type super long bad contracts in this CBA. If all they can offer is just an expiring, and they can't add picks or other assets, and they can't do sign and trades, then they are left taking a gamble on some injured player on a 2-3 year deal like a Bargnani. They can do that, but like i said, it can also easily backfire.
                I think much more likely they'll try to compete for a few years, then they'll end up cutting salary -- at least going under tax apron, where they can use sign and trade again.

                But I do like it for the Nets. You have a chance to win the title, do it.

                Comment


                • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Struggled? They made the Conference Finals in 2012 with Rondo dominating the ball while KG and Pierce were still able to get plenty of touches. They made the Finals in 2010, at which point Rondo had begun to heavily control the ball. One season in which Rondo missed the playoffs doesn't trump the five previous seasons in which the team enjoyed incredible success. KG, Pierce, and Rondo all needed the ball, yet consistently found a way to make it work.

                  And the other players being inserted into their "proper roles" resulted in getting stomped by the Knicks. Give me Rondo and the Conference Finals that he led the team to in 2012 over a bunch of inferior players playing in proper roles while getting eliminated in the first round.
                  We are obviously talking about two different teams. The 11-12 Boston team didn't have ball dominate players surrounding Rondo/PP. This year's squad did.And yes, they didn't do anything in the playoffs, but they were playing better individually after Rondo. They just weren't good enough.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                    This trade also proves that a big expiring probably has some good value I mean Brooklyn got Pierce pretty much for Humpries.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                      No, I wouldn't call it the Nets getting Pierce for basically an expiring. Pierce has an expiring contract too himself. The draw for Boston is the unprotected 2016 and 2018 draft picks, and the pick swap option in 2017. Ainge is a gambler, and he's gambling that those picks are going to be good.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        If Ainge was willing to take Gerald Wallace's hideous contract, then I'm sure he would have been more than happy to take Granger's expiring as part of the deal. All Ainge cares about is losing next season, so he could care less about Granger's health. We would have had to part with some draft picks, but with our talent, they will likely be late draft picks anyway.

                        Of course, the biggest hurdle might have been getting KG to waive his no trade clause to Indy, but he probably would have as long as Pierce was part of the deal. Plus I'm sure that Bird could have worked some magic on him.
                        How far over the tax would we be? Could we afford to pay Paul and Lance? The Nets will be writing a lux tax payment of almost 80 million.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          By the way TJ just so you know KG is not fit to pass the physical but he is getting traded anyway, another example that injured players can be traded.
                          I think you missed my point...


                          Comment


                          • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                            Re "expirings for bad contracts" strategy, I'm not as optimistic. This isn't the Marc Cuban/Isiah Thomas era anymore. There won't be Joe Johnson type super long bad contracts in this CBA. If all they can offer is just an expiring, and they can't add picks or other assets, and they can't do sign and trades, then they are left taking a gamble on some injured player on a 2-3 year deal like a Bargnani. They can do that, but like i said, it can also easily backfire.
                            Maybe. But I didn't think they can pull off a KG+PP deal either. Sometimes it just takes the right trade partner/circumstances.

                            In this case it's Boston. Ainge didn't really have a lot of choices because of KG's no-trade clause. He had to sell KG and PP as a package to even have a chance of convincing KG. Plus I assume KG was only going to move to a contender. So a playoff team that can potentially match some $25m+ in salary - that narrows the field considerably. The Pacers for example, can't match that without giving up a core guy (Danny + 1 more).

                            So I think Boston had to take what I consider to be a bad deal, or be left with nothing at all. In that sense, it was a good deal - it's better than nothing. And I think the unprotected picks appealed to the gambler in Ainge.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              How far over the tax would we be? Could we afford to pay Paul and Lance? The Nets will be writing a lux tax payment of almost 80 million.
                              Another problem is, how do you salary match the $25m+ in salary of KG and Pierce? Actually it's $30m+ with Terry too. Granger only makes $14m, so you need a lot more than that.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Whoa, potential BOS/BKN blockbuster being discussed according to Woj

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Yeah that would have been so nice, Hill,Pierce,PG,KG,Hibbert and a bench featuring Dwest and others, damn.

                                Edit: pacers could have offered a better package for sure.

                                Pump the brakes. We could not have made this trade easily at all

                                Brooklyn can afford to do it because they don't have anyone coming up for a big pay day.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X