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

In retrospect; The Silence

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

  • In retrospect; The Silence

    Up and until the All Star break, Brad had a fabulous season with the Kings.

    This caused many, many, maniacally many, posts about the stupidity of the Front office, The people that agreed with the decision and those that wanted to see and were in principle agreeing on the economics.

    The All Star game came and went (with Brad on it just like in the year he played here) and low and behold;

    Then I read this on a thread on this board;

    Quoting anthem

    Well, the Kings just pulled their starters and put in their scrubs. This one's done.

    This game was interesting. I kept watching Brad and Brad only, and I didn't miss him. Everybody has off nights, but this was bad. When somebody named Slava is making you look silly...

    Seriously, I always thought the money was beside the point. I thought that Bird, who admitted that he didn't watch the regular season, was unimpressed with Brad's conditioning and demeanor in the playoffs and lowballed him.

    The demeanor was on full display tonight.
    And you know what makes it even weirder?

    I read this yesterday on ESPN:

    quote Marc Stein;

    Brad Miller got hurt in the All-Star Game and really hasn't been the same since, as if the Kings didn't already have to wait forever to bring Chris Webber back.
    And since I did not yet have my quota of coffee whilst setting up some puters I build last night my mind finally made the connection.....

    "Brad Miller got hurt in the All-Star Game and really hasn't been the same since"

    Haven't I heard that before ????


    As the French say: l'histoire ce repete

    "history repeats itself"

    Oh yeah; and of course he "showed" for the P's game, but if he could show here? then why is he not showing elsewhere?

    Kings playoff success != Brad Miller

    The jury has reconvened.



    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  • #2
    Re: In retrospect; The Silence



    I have always felt that the reason we tanked so bad last season was an injured and nonproductive Brad Miller.

    I gave him the benefit of the doubt though and thought it was a fluke and he would finish strong this season.

    I looks like he won't and yes, without him the kings will not advance to the NBA Finals.

    What if he was tanking for us again???

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: In retrospect; The Silence

      I think its more the writer saying that to explain why the Kings lost. If you look at the box scores or would have watched a lot of the other games you would see that he has in fact been playing very well. He simply had a bad night last night. Most games he not Vlade finnishes the games because he is more valuable to them.

      For example in the loss to the Bucks Brad played 30 minutes scoring 14 points on 4-7 shooting ang grabed 8 rebounds. Vlade only played 17 minutes. If you will recall he grabed 13 rebounds against us and shot 6-9. Against the Spurs 19 points and 13 rebounds. (I am only pointing out the games that I have seen it may be that he played worse in other games)

      That does not seem to me to be the play of someone who is not pulling his weight. I know a lot of people would rather he fall on his face so that they can say see its better not to have him because he is injured.

      It is so much better to have Pollard who sucks and Kenny Anderson who does not play than to have a guy who can only score 19 points and get 13 rebounds in 30 minutes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: In retrospect; The Silence

        Since playoffs:

        Feb 17 DNP
        Feb 19 DNP
        Feb 20 DNP
        Feb 22 DNP
        Feb 24 DNP
        Feb 26 DNP
        Feb 27 DNP
        Feb 29 10 (R) 2 (As) 16 (pt) 34 (min)
        Mar 2 9 3 23 34
        Mar 4 7 2 19 32
        Mar 6 11 2 8 32
        Mar 7 13 3 22 42
        Mar 9 10 5 7 30
        Mar 11 16 3 21 35
        Mar 12 7 1 8 34
        Mar 14 13 4 19 34
        Mar 16 6 4 12 25
        Mar 17 8 6 14 36
        Mar 19 13 5 12 37 (pacers)
        Mar 21 3 1 2 18
        Mar 23 8 4 14 30
        Mar 24 7 5 2 27

        Average over the total period since AS:

        9.7 Rb 3.3 Ast 13.2 Pt 32 min

        season avg
        10.5 4.4 14.6 36.8

        Avg since Mar 12

        8.1 3.75 10.4 30.2


        avg before AS:

        11.3 5.5 16


        quite a decline from whatever perspective you look at.

        Still it is an observation, not a standpoint.

        Nonetheless is the trend downward, where it should be upward, I only said the jury is out again, because if the downward spiral continues, then there is reason to believe there is more to it then meets the eye, 2 years in a row establishes a pattern and no, to much work to look up older years.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: In retrospect; The Silence

          It's not just the all-star foot injury, he's now bothered by "acute bursitis in his right elbow" according to a game report from a few days ago.
          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


          • #6
            Re: In retrospect; The Silence

            You can't ignore Webber's return on March 2 as a reason for any stats decline......
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: In retrospect; The Silence

              when I shut down Tim Duncan
              When you shut him down?

              Scot...is that you???

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                ...in the SA game when I shut down Tim Duncan, the reigning MVP.
                I hope they remember to put you on the playoff roster, just in case we run into the Spurs in the Finals....... :P
                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                  Able, I think you're working with some pretty near-sighted reasoning on this one.

                  Before the Pacers game, they were talking about whether or not Brad Miller would even play against the Lakers because of his injured elbow. Since you watched him closely throughout the game, I'm sure you noticed his heavily bandaged right elbow (which just so happens to be his shooting arm). I wouldn't judge him to harshly in from that Lakers game because the entire team stunk - especially Doug Christie and he's their best defender!

                  The guy got hurt in the AS game when someone landed on his ankle and had to miss seven games. That's a legit injury, not anything to scoff at. Granted it is a coincidence that he got hurt two years in a row in the second half of the season but he still has been a contributing factor in several of the Kings wins. And if you ask me, the return of Chris Webber to the lineup has effected his production more than the injuries.

                  It was still a lopsided trade in Sacramento's favor. Luckily, the Pacers haven't been hurt much by it. Why can't we just leave it at that?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                    Able, I think you're working with some pretty near-sighted reasoning on this one.

                    Before the Pacers game, they were talking about whether or not Brad Miller would even play against the Lakers because of his injured elbow. Since you watched him closely throughout the game, I'm sure you noticed his heavily bandaged right elbow (which just so happens to be his shooting arm). I wouldn't judge him to harshly in from that Lakers game because the entire team stunk - especially Doug Christie and he's their best defender!

                    The guy got hurt in the AS game when someone landed on his ankle and had to miss seven games. That's a legit injury, not anything to scoff at. Granted it is a coincidence that he got hurt two years in a row in the second half of the season but he still has been a contributing factor in several of the Kings wins. And if you ask me, the return of Chris Webber to the lineup has effected his production more than the injuries.

                    It was still a lopsided trade in Sacramento's favor. Luckily, the Pacers haven't been hurt much by it. Why can't we just leave it at that?

                    YO HO HO HO ho horsie;..........


                    1. H ave said clearly I was not judging, merely observing.
                    2. I can only hear and read, I am not in a position to be even allowed to pay for seeing the games, unless I fly a average of 5 thousand miles one way per game, with all cost attached.
                    3. I still think that it was nothing of a trade, it was getting $ 10 for scrapping the car instead of paying the the tow truck H could have signed elsewhere and we woulf have been left emptyhanded.
                    4. I appreciate what Brad has done in Indy, I appreciate his agent making the most, i accept Pacers org being unwilling and unable to participate in the dollar war.
                    5. I appreciate that Pollie has turned out less then we had hoped, though I appreciate what he does for us (see TD stop)
                    6. I pointed to a comment made in a thread (quoted the poster) and a newspaper/website (quoted the poster)
                    7. I have no problem with other opinions, as long as they make clear they are opinions and not science, those still calling this a trade are threading on thin ice in that aspect and should consider that a sign and trade is something totally different then a trade, in the first case you have little say so about the outcme, in the latter all.

                    I don't care one way or another, I hope for Brad he is successfull the rest of his career, may it last long and prosperous.
                    This does not mean that I share the opinion of some that I personally think that someone who says he wanted to stay and next blames his agent for going bananas has little sense of reality, I do not blame him for the fact, just for the lack of honesty, he had a payday, God bless him, but don't hide from that fact.

                    P's could not would not pay the same, God bless them for a sane business mind and tightly held wallet.

                    Kings won, We won, heck we're leading the league and have been in a two way battle with them all season for that position, I would say both parties did not really suffer from this sign and trade.



                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                      Um guys that was not Pollard who did a good job on Duncan it was Foster. I know a lot of us like to remember things differently (Brad sucks, Strick was a good pg, Best was a good pg......) But come on that was not very long ago.

                      The fact of the matter is that Brad is doing very well in Sacramento and they are very happy to have him. Yes his conditioning could be better so that he does not get injures unlike our very own Jon Bender ed:

                      He did not play well against the Lakers the other night but no one did. He played very well against the Spurs the other night before the elbow injury and I believe he will be fine again soon.

                      Saying it was better to trade him than let him get away for nothing is wrong for a couple of reasons.

                      1) We could have kept him for less than he left for. He has said this repeatedly. Bird or Walsh decided to let him go they decided to not to re sign him. We had offers to take Al they chose Al and Bender (see his extension) over Brad no two ways about it.

                      2) If we would have let him go instead of taking on Pollard we could have traded Mercer's ending deal for a player we could use rather than Pollard and we would not have helped the Kings land a player that could help them get over the hump and make the Finals.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                        we would not have helped the Kings land a player that could help them get over the hump and make the Finals.
                        I said in a similar thread that I would rather play against Brad in the Finals with our current roster than play Shaq with Brad still on our roster. I still stand by that. Let them deal with the Lakers.

                        That said, judging from last night's LA-SAC game, the point is moot......
                        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                          Ragnar: Pollard did defend Tim Duncan very well. Pollard is a decent low post defender.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                            I don't have time right now to respond to this like I would like to.

                            All I'm going to say is that you guys are talking about the all-star break, which reminds me of the all-star game.

                            You know the one Brad wasn't going to play in in the west.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: In retrospect; The Silence

                              But aren't you coming around to saying that it wasn't simply the Pacers didn't have enough money or any options for Brad, but rather that they saw him as overpriced and as such weren't going to even bother to make any needed moves or sacrifices in trying to sign him? They thought they saw a flaw (I assume that it is mid-season drop-off that they see as habitual altho maybe it is more or other than that) in his game. That's what I thought all along (it was more than just the money alone) when it got obvious they were not very interested in keeping BMiller.

                              Here's why it matters to me:

                              If they let Brad go because they perceived a critical flaw in his game or something that may be a problem in waiting for the team then fine. We can all see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. OTOH, if it was all about the money then it makes me wonder if we're always destined to be a piece or two away... competitive but just not quite 'there'. Always to have a question mark/hole because the team will not spend to get past a certain level if they see that level as 'good enough' to maintain a certain status quo at the box office.
                              bball, isn't that what I've been saying all along? Go back and read my posts regarding this subject. I think I've been pretty clear. Or have you not really been reading them?

                              From what I've gathered, and I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, it was primarily about the money with extenuating circumstances. Things are never as cut and dried as we'd like them to be. I know as humans we like to sort things out in our brain that way—put things in tidy little boxes. It makes it easy for us to understand why something may have happened. But that's rarely the case. That's why seven months after Brad's departure, we still discuss and debate it. We're still (well, not me) trying to wrap our brains around it. I, on the other hand, think I have enough answers to let it rest.

                              I honestly believe had Walsh thought Brad was worth what he was commanding, he most likely would have at least tried to make a case to the Simons to bite the bullet and cough up the dough. But based on Brad's history down the stretch—his lack of toughness and intensity when it matters most—he didn't think it would be the responsible thing to do. He couldn't justify in his own mind that Brad was worth it, much less to the owners who entrusted him to be a stewart of their money.

                              From the look of things right now, I'd say he was right. The guy is injured— as if almost on cue—right after the all-star break. Although, like you said, we will ultimately see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. Which brings up another point. I like what sixthman said sometime ago regarding this: GMs make decisions in real time. Not in hindsight.

                              Honestly, I hope this puts this to rest. Ragnar, if you want to discuss this further, PM me. Peck, what more can I say? bball? Shame on you for making me repeat myself.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X