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

Nice story on Dun

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

  • Nice story on Dun

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...avy/index.html

    By Steve Aschburner

    This is a pretty good story about Dun, although it seems the writer does his best to stop just short of giving Dunleavy full respect.

  • #2
    Re: Nice story on Dun

    Originally posted by johnnybegood View Post
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...avy/index.html

    By Steve Aschburner

    This is a pretty good story about Dun, although it seems the writer does his best to stop just short of giving Dunleavy full respect.
    Seems like a pretty good article to me. He didn't go through all the gritty details, but he pretty much summarized things well enough from the time of getting drafted to Dunleavy's latest performances with the Pacers.

    I think the "full respect" would have come if Dunleavy was having this kind of season on a winning team.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Nice story on Dun

      Dun is starting to become a star amongst fans and the media. He'll earn "Full Respect" only if he continues to play well consistently next season. Maybe, then his contract won't seem so bad to us.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Nice story on Dun

        Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
        Dun is starting to become a star amongst fans and the media. He'll earn "Full Respect" only if he continues to play well consistently next season. Maybe, then his contract won't seem so bad to us.
        I'm sorry, There's no way you can tell me that Dunleavy's contract is bad. He's not a rookie-contract superstud. He's on a Vet's contract not unlike these other guys.

        I will admit that Dun's contract may be a year or two too long.

        Anyway, here's the real numbers:

        http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries08.txt

        Players earning $7 million or more
        1. Kevin Garnett (Bos) ......... $23,750,000
        2. Shaquille O'Neal (Pho) ...... $20,000,000
        3. Jason Kidd (Dal) ............ $19,728,000
        4. Jermaine O'Neal (Ind) ....... $19,728,000
        5. Kobe Bryant (LAL) ........... $19,490,625
        6. Tim Duncan (SA) ............. $19,014,188
        7. Tracy McGrady (Hou) ......... $19,014,187
        8. Allen Iverson (Den) ......... $19,012,500
        9. Stephon Marbury (NY) ........ $19,012,500
        10. Chris Webber (Phi) .......... $19,000,000 [released 1/11/07]
        11. Michael Finley (Dal) ........ $18,593,750 [released 8/15/05]
        12. Baron Davis (GS) ............ $16,440,000
        13. Shawn Marion (Mia) .......... $16,440,000
        14. Antawn Jamison (Was) ........ $16,360,094
        15. Dirk Nowitzki (Dal) ......... $16,360,094
        16. Paul Pierce (Bos) ........... $16,360,094
        17. Ray Allen (Bos) ............. $16,000,000
        18. Ben Wallace (Cle) ........... $15,500,000
        19. Elton Brand (LAC) ........... $15,344,000
        20. Steve Francis (Por) ......... $15,070,000 [released 7/11/07]
        21. Rashard Lewis (Orl) ......... $14,880,000
        22. Michael Redd (Mil) .......... $14,520,000
        23. Yao Ming (Hou) .............. $13,762,775
        24. Amare Stoudemire (Pho) ...... $13,762,775
        25. Pau Gasol (LAL) ............. $13,735,000
        26. Andrei Kirilenko (Uta) ...... $13,735,000
        27. Mike Bibby (Atl) ............ $13,500,000
        28. Joe Johnson (Atl) ........... $13,488,377
        29. Zach Randolph (NY) .......... $13,333,333
        30. Lamar Odom (LAL) ............ $13,248,596
        31. Vince Carter (NJ) ........... $13,320,000
        32. Kenyon Martin (Den) ......... $13,250,000
        33. Carmelo Anthony (Den) ....... $13,041,250
        34. LeBron James (Cle) .......... $13,041,250
        35. Dwyane Wade (Mia) ........... $13,041,250
        36. Wally Szczerbiak (Cle) ...... $12,775,000
        37. Rasheed Wallace (Det) ....... $12,540,000
        38. Chris Bosh (Tor) ............ $12,455,000
        39. Raef LaFrentz (Por) ......... $12,440,787
        40. Richard Jefferson (NJ) ...... $12,200,000
        41. Larry Hughes (Chi) .......... $12,000,084
        42. Gilbert Arenas (Was) ........ $11,950,400
        43. Theo Ratliff (Min) .......... $11,666,666
        44. Peja Stojakovic (NO) ........ $11,664,000
        45. Steve Nash (Pho) ............ $11,375,000
        46. Carlos Boozer (Uta) ......... $11,260,483
        47. Marcus Camby (Den) .......... $11,250,000
        48. Kirk Hinrich (Chi) .......... $11,250,000
        49. Jason Richardson (Cha) ...... $11,111,110
        50. David West (NO) ............. $10,650,000
        51. Erick Dampier (Dal) ......... $10,590,500
        52. Brad Miller (Sac) ........... $10,500,000
        53. Tony Parker (SA) ............ $10,500,000
        54. Tyson Chandler (NO) ......... $10,250,000
        55. Samuel Dalembert (Phi) ...... $10,250,000
        56. Zydrunas Ilgauskas (Cle) .... $10,142,156
        57. Chauncey Billups (Det) ...... $10,000,000
        58. Richard Hamilton (Det) ...... $10,000,000
        59. Gerald Wallace (Cha) ........ $9,500,000
        60. Andre Miller (Phi) .......... $9,366,666
        61. Bobby Simmons (Mil) ......... $9,280,000
        62. Troy Murphy (Ind) ........... $9,206,349
        63. Manu Ginobili (SA) .......... $9,079,811
        64. Kwame Brown (Mem) ........... $9,075,000
        65. Boris Diaw (Pho) ............ $9,000,000
        66. Josh Howard (Dal) ........... $9,000,000
        67. Eddy Curry (NY) ............. $8,947,543
        68. Adonal Foyle (GS) ........... $8,937,500 [released 8/13/07]
        69. Jason Williams (Mia) ........ $8,937,500
        70. Jason Terry (Dal) ........... $8,898,000
        71. Nene (Den) .................. $8,840,000
        72. Tayshaun Prince (Det) ....... $8,675,620
        73. Chris Kaman (LAC) ........... $8,600,000
        74. Andres Nocioni (Chi) ........ $8,500,000
        75. Mehmet Okur (Uta) ........... $8,500,000
        76. Al Harrington (GS) .......... $8,425,625
        77. Mike Miller (Mem) ........... $8,376,194
        78. Cuttino Mobley (LAC) ........ $8,350,000
        79. Antoine Walker (Min) ........ $8,329,640
        80. Darius Miles (Por) .......... $8,250,000
        81. Mike Dunleavy (Ind) ......... $8,219,008
        82. Caron Butler (Was) .......... $8,218,990
        83. Quentin Richardson (NY) ..... $8,105,500
        84. Kurt Thomas (SA) ............ $8,091,188
        85. T.J. Ford (Tor) ............. $8,000,000
        86. Jamal Crawford (NY) ......... $7,920,000
        87. Mark Blount (Mia) ........... $7,901,040
        88. Rasho Nesterovic (Tor) ...... $7,840,000
        89. Kenny Thomas (Sac) .......... $7,875,000
        90. Maurice Williams (Mil) ...... $7,750,000
        91. Jerome Williams (NY) ........ $7,639,400 [released 8/15/05]
        92. Ron Artest (Sac) ............ $7,400,000
        93. Malik Rose (NY) ............. $7,101,250
        94. Corey Maggette (LAC) ........ $7,000,000
        95. Aaron McKie (Phi) ........... $7,000,000 [released 8/12/05]
        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Nice story on Dun

          Considering that we have the #4 guy on that list and he hasn't produced much for the last few years I'm okay with having the #81 guy on the list averaging 18 a game.

          Again, I'm probably drinking the Kool-Aid too much but I'm pretty happy with the way the team (on the floor) is coming together. Obviously, I'm not happy with the off the court stuff, but as far as the guys that are getting the minutes I'm happy.

          Dunleavy has really settled in as a Pacer this year and I never expected that would happen. I do agree that the writer didn't want to sound completely sold on Dunleavy, but I completely understand that. He needs to keep his average up for the rest of the year and then he will definitely deserve the respect.

          Also, a friend sat a few rows behind the Pacers bench a couple of weeks ago and said that Dunleavy was yelling at Diener over a mistake on the floor. I really liked hearing that someone on the team is stepping up and getting on the guys and pushing them. I fully expected Granger to take over the leadership role of this team (and he still might), but it looks lately like Dun might be that guy. I really hope so.
          Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Nice story on Dun

            After seeing that list, there is NO WAY that JO is worth 11 MILLION dollars a YEAR better than Dun, even if he was healthy. Sorry, just cannot see it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Nice story on Dun

              Interesting list. Detroit doesn't have anyone show up until Sheed at 37 and have 4 total. The Spurs have 4 as well, but Ginobili is only the 63rd highest paid player. I didn't count Finley who they are getting on the cheap thanks to Dallas. Talk about getting bang for your buck in both cases.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Nice story on Dun

                Originally posted by USF View Post
                Considering that we have the #4 guy on that list and he hasn't produced much for the last few years I'm okay with having the #81 guy on the list averaging 18 a game.
                My thoughts exactly.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Nice story on Dun

                  Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                  After seeing that list, there is NO WAY that JO is worth 11 MILLION dollars a YEAR better than Dun, even if he was healthy. Sorry, just cannot see it.
                  You gotta keep it in perspective when it comes to evaluating a player's worth versus his performance. Style of play compared to the player's relative position are also important factors to consider.

                  JO has typically played within an offense that featured more half-court sets and post-up play (under Zeke and RC). Based on how JO was producing in the pre-Brawl/pre-injury years, I was fine with him receiving such a large contract because he showed he could be produce. It wasn't until his injury-prone years did his rate of pay come into question.

                  JOB's offense is geared more towards the Guards which I think is the right way to play. As such, JO should be able to play more on the move like everyone else. The question most fans have, of course, is "can he"? I understand fully why so many fans wonder if JO can truly fit into JOB's offensive system, but trust me when I say "he can"...if healthy enough. But I degress...back to Dunleavy...

                  It's nice seeing Dunleavy finally get some praise. I didn't keep track of his progress nor the ramblings while he was with GS, but it would seem he received the same "not measuring up to expectations" treatment there as JO is now receiving here. In my book, neither deserved/s it.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X