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

We don't need stars.

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

  • We don't need stars.

    You know atfirst I really wanted to see McGrady or Allen or Pierice here in Indiana but after giving it much thought that would not help us.

    What Indiana has is a star, Jermaine O'Neal, and they should build around him.

    I would like to see Artest gone because he has brooken the offense so many damn times. I hate the guy.

    Yet its hard to get fair value for him but I would settle for less, probably.

    Anyway, my point is, is that we don't need stars but we do need good players.

    Heres a list:

    - Jason Terry
    - Matt Harpring
    - Corey Maggette
    - Mike Dunlevy
    - Stephen Jackson
    - Quentien Richardson
    - Brent Barry
    - Michael Reed [I wish]
    - James Posey
    - Mike Miller
    - Cuttino Mobley
    - Manu Ginobli [I would love to have him. I'd take him over Artest! Thats how much I hate Artest because I know Artest is better.]

  • #2
    Re: We don't need stars.

    Without Ron Artest this team would have never won 61 games this year , 50 if we were lucky and I would say more like 45 , without Ron Artest we never make the ECF this year.

    SO becareful for what you wish for

    If Ron had not came back so quickly from his surgery like most assumed we would have never won 61 games , and probably would have finsihed 2nd in the Division or Maybe 3rd.
    Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: We don't need stars.

      I'd honestly be surprised if we got Tmac or Pierce. At this point, it's all speculation and wishful thinking anyway.

      I don't understand why you hate Artest, but I do agree that a 2nd-tier 2-guard would probably suffice for what we need. Pretty much any of the guys on your list would fit the bill.
      Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: We don't need stars.

        Trade Ron, and you'll lose more on defense than you could ever GAIN on offense.

        I'd probably deal Ron for TMac, but I'd really REALLY think hard about it.

        Ron's defense is not somethign you can duplicate. He's the only player in the NBA that can do what he does on that end.

        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


        • #5
          Re: We don't need stars.

          Your Right though we don't need a Tmac or Ray Allen type player , all we need is a SG who can put in 15ppg , I Forget what the stats were but they were pretty amazing that when Reggie scored 15 ppg or more we won most every game he did that , so if you can get a SG who puts in 15ppg and Reggie comes off the Bench and adds say 5-10 ppg that would be enough to get us over the hump at SG I think.
          Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: We don't need stars.

            You know atfirst I really wanted to see McGrady or Allen or Pierice here in Indiana but after giving it much thought that would not help us.

            What Indiana has is a star, Jermaine O'Neal, and they should build around him.

            I would like to see Artest gone because he has brooken the offense so many damn times. I hate the guy.

            Yet its hard to get fair value for him but I would settle for less, probably.

            Anyway, my point is, is that we don't need stars but we do need good players.

            Heres a list:

            - Jason Terry
            - Matt Harpring
            - Corey Maggette
            - Mike Dunlevy
            - Stephen Jackson
            - Quentien Richardson
            - Brent Barry
            - Michael Reed [I wish]
            - James Posey
            - Mike Miller
            - Cuttino Mobley
            - Manu Ginobli [I would love to have him. I'd take him over Artest! Thats how much I hate Artest because I know Artest is better.]
            Laughable!

            Let me get this strait...You want to give up a guy that is worth a "guaranteed" 12 to 15ppg plus knocking off at least 10 points off the average of whomever he guards? Yet, you want to keep a guy that is INCONSISTANT, a black hole, and takes poor shots when he could pass. Yeah, Ronnie breaking the offense can be maddening at times, but Harrington couldn't carry Ronnie's jock strap when it comes to who is worth more to this team.

            Harrington...Have fun starting for (place sub-.500 team here)! Bye bye.
            ...Still "flying casual"
            @roaminggnome74

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: We don't need stars.

              Trade Ron, and you'll lose more on defense than you could ever GAIN on offense.
              Ron's defense is not somethign you can duplicate. He's the only player in the NBA that can do what he does on that end.
              You hit it right on the Head but not only what Ron does Defense wise , He can do it on the Offensive end , he did avg 18ppg and I can't think of another player who can do it on both ends like Ron Artest.

              People say Bruce Bowen is compareable to Ron on Defense ( I still this Ron is more superior) But Bruce only avg 6.9 ppg this last season.
              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: We don't need stars.

                Your Right though we don't need a Tmac or Ray Allen type player , all we need is a SG who can put in 15ppg , I Forget what the stats were but they were pretty amazing that when Reggie scored 15 ppg or more we won most every game he did that , so if you can get a SG who puts in 15ppg and Reggie comes off the Bench and adds say 5-10 ppg that would be enough to get us over the hump at SG I think.
                Man, I agree with you more and more every day...amazing!

                I would like to get a marquee player like T-mac or Allen for just Harrington and some loose change, but Harrington is not that good to draw that kind of talent no matter the situation. We here have all seen Harrington and tend to overvalue the guy because we focus on the positives and not the negative. You better believe these GM's will be focusing on Al's short commings and reasons why some of us want this guy gone (like myself).

                If we can turn A.H. and loose change into role players that fit what we want...I would be happy.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: We don't need stars.

                  Oh I wouldn't mind having Tmac , Don't really care for Ray Allen but that's another topic I just think you have to give up too much to get such Players , you don't rob Peter ( defense) to pay Paul (offense)

                  I mean I would do a trade for Tmac if they would take Harrington , Croshere , Bender and if I had to I would throw in Pollard. Any way you slice it , it's gonna take most any team who want's Tmac , 2-3 players for 1 and I don't mean crap players , Orlando is gonna want to maximize what they get for Tmac and I don't blame them because they will be pretty much rebuilding a Team.
                  Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: We don't need stars.

                    Incase you guys haven't noticed the Pistons are beating the Lakers with their team defense. You see, Ben Wallace is a great defender but he won't shut his guy down. He is a great team defender. Key word is team and teams win championships.

                    Think about it, if we trade Artest and get two players who are good scorers and good defenders we would be better.

                    He can shut his man down all he wants [and I love that] but at the end of the day he is one of the most selfish players offenseively. Plain and simple. I honestly will be suprised if Bird puts up with it.

                    He has taken more shots than JO, the real star, so many times its not funny. He constantly ****s up the offense.

                    I know, his defense is great and I love that but we will never get anywhere with him ****ing up the offense. I'd take a good offenseive player who is a good defender over Artest, who is a great defender but a ok offenseive player anyday because the whole key to winning a tittle is team. There is no I in team. There is no Artest in team.

                    Am I the only one who saw/sees how selfish he is? It wasn't that hard to see. When he catches it and doesn't even look for a teamate. He justs looks up at his man and goes one on one or he will throw up a brick. He threw up so many bricks he could have built a new arena for us. [A little sarcasim there.]

                    Look at this:

                    In 73 games he shot 468-1,112. Thats an average of 6/15. Thats 41% which is ok, I guess.

                    From downtown he was 75-242. 1/3 a game. ed:

                    Then in the playoffs, he shot 9-22 from downtown vs Miami but then vs a much better team defenseively he shot 6-31. That makes no sense to shoot more 3s like that vs Detroit. Then he attempts more shots overall in that series and less foul shots.

                    That is why i've hated this guy. I feel like we could have won vs Detroit if he had half a brain.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: We don't need stars.

                      DAMNIT! People, one of the rules of trading says you do NOT trade Defense for instant offense.......

                      And in Artest's case, he brings much more to the table than just defense...

                      He was Defensive Player of the Year and averaged 18 points per game! DAMNIT!

                      I'm tired of these "Trade Artest" or "I Hate Artest" threads...

                      TOO many people undervalue what he means to the team, itself.

                      Like others have said, you take Artest off this year's team, then they don't win more than 50 games and more than likely lose the Heat in the playoffs...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: We don't need stars.

                        Incase you guys haven't noticed the Pistons are beating the Lakers with their team defense. You see, Ben Wallace is a great defender but he won't shut his guy down. He is a great team defender. Key word is team and teams win championships.

                        Think about it, if we trade Artest and get two players who are good scorers and good defenders we would be better.

                        He can shut his man down all he wants [and I love that] but at the end of the day he is one of the most selfish players offenseively. Plain and simple. I honestly will be suprised if Bird puts up with it.

                        He has taken more shots than JO, the real star, so many times its not funny. He constantly ****s up the offense.

                        I know, his defense is great and I love that but we will never get anywhere with him ****ing up the offense. I'd take a good offenseive player who is a good defender over Artest, who is a great defender but a ok offenseive player anyday because the whole key to winning a tittle is team. There is no I in team. There is no Artest in team.

                        Am I the only one who saw/sees how selfish he is? It wasn't that hard to see. When he catches it and doesn't even look for a teamate. He justs looks up at his man and goes one on one or he will throw up a brick. He threw up so many bricks he could have built a new arena for us. [A little sarcasim there.]

                        Look at this:

                        In 73 games he shot 468-1,112. Thats an average of 6/15. Thats 41% which is ok, I guess.

                        From downtown he was 75-242. 1/3 a game. ed:

                        Then in the playoffs, he shot 9-22 from downtown vs Miami but then vs a much better team defenseively he shot 6-31. That makes no sense to shoot more 3s like that vs Detroit. Then he attempts more shots overall in that series and less foul shots.

                        That is why i've hated this guy. I feel like we could have won vs Detroit if he had half a brain.
                        Blame the coach for not sitting his *** on the bench and teaching him a lesson...

                        He's not going to learn unless there are consequences on the court...

                        And by consequences, I don't mean trading him....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: We don't need stars.

                          Incase you guys haven't noticed the Pistons are beating the Lakers with their team defense. You see, Ben Wallace is a great defender but he won't shut his guy down. He is a great team defender. Key word is team and teams win championships.

                          Think about it, if we trade Artest and get two players who are good scorers and good defenders we would be better.

                          He can shut his man down all he wants [and I love that] but at the end of the day he is one of the most selfish players offenseively. Plain and simple. I honestly will be suprised if Bird puts up with it.

                          He has taken more shots than JO, the real star, so many times its not funny. He constantly ****s up the offense.

                          I know, his defense is great and I love that but we will never get anywhere with him ****ing up the offense. I'd take a good offenseive player who is a good defender over Artest, who is a great defender but a ok offenseive player anyday because the whole key to winning a tittle is team. There is no I in team. There is no Artest in team.

                          Am I the only one who saw/sees how selfish he is? It wasn't that hard to see. When he catches it and doesn't even look for a teamate. He justs looks up at his man and goes one on one or he will throw up a brick. He threw up so many bricks he could have built a new arena for us. [A little sarcasim there.]

                          Look at this:

                          In 73 games he shot 468-1,112. Thats an average of 6/15. Thats 41% which is ok, I guess.

                          From downtown he was 75-242. 1/3 a game. ed:

                          Then in the playoffs, he shot 9-22 from downtown vs Miami but then vs a much better team defenseively he shot 6-31. That makes no sense to shoot more 3s like that vs Detroit. Then he attempts more shots overall in that series and less foul shots.

                          That is why i've hated this guy. I feel like we could have won vs Detroit if he had half a brain.
                          So, you are saying that his 18 ppg were all totally out of the offense? Ok... Did I not see R.A. not be able to take his man to the hole a lot of times this year, under Carlisle's direction? Yeah, Ron breaks plays, who cares. If it was a real issue...he would have been sitting the bench like Al Harrington at the end of games at the end of the season.
                          ...Still "flying casual"
                          @roaminggnome74

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: We don't need stars.

                            Are we talking about trading artest for a role player? If so, why not just trade Al for a role player? Or am i completely missing what is going on in this thread?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: We don't need stars.

                              Blame the coach for not sitting his *** on the bench and teaching him a lesson...

                              He's not going to learn unless there are consequences on the court...

                              And by consequences, I don't mean trading him....
                              I'm not going to play blame the coach, yet. Wait till a year or two and see where we're at. [Plus I got board at blaming Thomas last season.]

                              Seriously though, its common sense stuff.

                              Artest knows the diffrence between a good shot and a bad shot. He knows his limits and he knows how to use them. Fact is he didn't use his skills and he didn't show alot of knowledge when he came to the little things.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X