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

Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

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

  • #16
    Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
    We also need to trade either Dunleavy or Murphy. I would prefer to keep Dun because he at least tries to get into the game a little more often than Murphy who is content to have a good game once a week which he learned from JT (or the other way around). This team just doesn't expect to win because they do not have confidence in one another.
    Sure....I would love to move Dunleavy or Murphy.....but ( just like Tinsley ) I don't think that anyone will take them ( mainly cuz they are overpaid ) unless we package them with someone.

    Its like picking the lesser of 3 evils.....I may not like that the both of them are defensive liabilities and are inconsistent....but they are better roleplayers then Tinsley is....well...whatever he is. Given that we have limited resources that any team would want to take....if we have to package someone....I would much rather use what little trade assets that we have to move Tinsley...rather then Dunleavy or Murphy.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      What in the world are you talking about. He's had one minor injury all season and he missed two games - all season.

      Needless to say I disagree with everything you posted in total, including the tone
      I respect your comment and opinion, my only questions that NO ONE on this digest wants to answer is...


      Has/ Is Jeff Foster been a leader on this team?

      Does Jeff Foster do ANYTHING but chase down rebounds he sees because he's not part of the offense?

      His defense this year has been atrocious and his passing game in the low post is non exsistant. If Jeff had a mid range jumpshot, even one that looked like it was on a resperator I wouldn't even be talking about this. But the fact is that Jeff is a vetern of many years and has had more then opportunity to improve his shooting...He hasn't and when since the Pacers are the worst shooting team in the NBA this season, he is just a luxury player.

      Jeffs injury past is much like O'Neals and Tinsleys. Back Spasms, Hip surgury are just two that come to mind. Every Foster supporter talks about his hustle....well his hustle isn't cutting it obviously as they have dropped 13 of the last 14. Whats worse is that he doesn't inspire ANYONE on his team to do better or to hustle more. You would think that if you were a pacer player and you saw this 6'11" guy busting his chops to get every loose ball he could, you would also....but the fact is non of the pacers trust Jeff with the ball on offense because he can't shoot a lick, and rebounds, especially offensive rebounds are only good if the man chasing them down can convert them into points...Foster doesn't.

      He has no low post game anbd can't convert layups....but lets keep him becasue he hustles...yep, that makes sense...How about we package him and another player and get a REAL point guard or SHOOTER.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

        Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
        Seriously the pacers have traded away too many players to count to fit Rick's system and it still hasnt worked eventually you cant keep trading players to find those that fit the system because if you do you take on players that nobody intially would think about getting(Murphy, Dun,Daniels) after a while moving players and still not working you have to take a look at the system thats being run and by whom.

        The PAcers have traded away players becasue we the fans have demanded those trades and now we the fans have the nerver to critisize those moves by saying the coach can not coach anymore. The old saying is becareful what you wish for becasue you just might get it.

        The players brought in was a mid season move, the same thing happened to the Pacers when the Rose & Best Trade to Chicago happened. Making Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Ron Mercer fit in took all the second half of the season and if I remember right we staggered in at the 8th spot almost not making the playoffs...and yes Jermaine O'Neal and Jeff Foster and Jamal Tinsley were a part of tha team to.

        So to say Carlisle can't coach these guys is just....wrong, wait until he has a training camp and new fresh faces...then we'll see if he can coach.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          Totally disagree on the Foster comments. I think he gets hit with some ticky-tack fouls and yes he does make a whine after it but I don't see him yelling at officials instead of getting back on D.

          Hell, he's probably the only dude still hustling on the team.

          As for Jermaine, Jamaal, Foster, Murphy, and McLeod all definitely being moved by the draft, I'll believe it when I see it. I hope you're right regrading the first two, though.

          Jeff Foster will not lead the PAcers to anything but out of the playoffs, his hustle is only seen when the game is out of hand, I would gladly trade in a little of his hustle for a solid mid range jumper...but wait, hes a pro, shoudn'y he have developed that say about four years ago....

          He's not going to get anything but older now.....trade him!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

            Originally posted by Shaggy View Post
            "Is it Talent or Attitude?" Maybe, but it is also chemistry. These players just do not fit well together. Maybe give them a full training camp to get to know each other (and get healthy), but this current roster is just defective.

            Completely agree, but this team won't be the same after the draft this year....soo its really a mute point as the Pacers will be starting fresh.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

              Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
              How can a Pacer's play be passive aggresive? Does he turn to Tinsley in the huddle and say "well, I guess I can take the shot if you don't think you can make it"?

              Granger is a solid NBA player with little confidence....he has shown flashes of being able to just take over a game, but then defers to O'Neal and Tinsley because they are vets. I would really like to see Danny step up to the plate and let these vets know that he is ready to force the issue on the court. That is what this Pacer team needs, a player who does the talking with his game...not making excuses.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                So to say Carlisle can't coach these guys is just....wrong, wait until he has a training camp and new fresh faces...then we'll see if he can coach.
                Smash, it seems at every chance you love to defend Carlisle while on the other hand always complain about the non leadership skill of JO, Tins, or Foster (which by the way I do agree with).

                Guess what, Rick Carlisle is in the very same boat and is not a leader of this team. The head coach needs to discipline, manage, and gain the respect or at least fear from his team that they better do what he says. IMHO Rick has failed miserably at this as of late. Like Larry Brown his time is up and he has been tuned out. All you have really pointed out is there is no leadership from top to bottom with this team and organization at this time.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                  I would just like to say I love DaSMASH's view of this team. I have never understood everyones views on Foster and have wanted to trade him for a very long time. I can't stand Tinsley and believe it will be a great day when he is gone. I love the trade that was made in the middle of the season the Pacers have always been a proud team and a class act Jax2 was a constant embarrasment to this team and this city. I just believe more needs to happen this off season. You have to crawl before you walk and this team can't walk right now. J.O. said last season if things didn't change this year he should be moved and I pesonally agree. The team does not work well together. Move JO, Tin man and Jeff and I will be a very happen man. The rest of the season we should concentrate on developing our younger guys. Start Danny, Ike, Harrison. with Dunleavy and Armstrong at the guards and just let the guys play. I like Carlise and believe we should stand by the guy and build a team from the ground up.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                    I think its pretty obvious by now that even the most blind of Jermaine O?Neal fans can now see that his talent is severely limited.
                    And you lost me. Severely? Back on Planet Reasonable they'd lock you up.

                    his (Foster) hustle is only seen when the game is out of hand,
                    Nevermind, they wouldn't even let you land on the planet in the first place.

                    his (Foster) injuries are almost rivaling Jonathan Bender
                    Expect a pre-emptive strike attack from Planet R before you can reach orbit. No point in risking an infection if you get too close.


                    Bill Walton called, he'd like his hyperbole back.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                      Is it talent? yes
                      Is it attitude? yes
                      Is it conditioning? yes
                      Is is coaching? yes

                      It is a pefect storm of self-reinforcing deficiencies.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                        I agree with Pacer Tom and RWB. The whole thing's -ed up. I don't think players or coaches can be defended at this point. Everyone needs to be held responsible. And let's not stop there. Gotta point the finger at management, too.

                        I'm know it won't happen, but my ideal scenario for next season would be a team without RC, JO, JT, Jeff, DH, Bird, and Walsh. We need to clean house. This core is now rotten or at least it's had its opportunity and has done nothing but fail.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                          Talent, 110%.

                          We've got 1 great starter (O'Neal), 2 average starters (Granger and Murphy) and 2 below average starters (Dunleavy and Tinsley). Add it all together and you've got a below average team.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                            Originally posted by Shawne View Post
                            Talent, 110%.

                            We've got 1 great starter (O'Neal), 2 average starters (Granger and Murphy) and 2 below average starters (Dunleavy and Tinsley). Add it all together and you've got a below average team.
                            I agree, but I'd put Foster in average starter status and Murph in below average. And Quis of course is an average starter I think, when/if he plays.

                            Foster rebounds and plays defense every night. Murph's offense is hit and miss. Each is about equally ineffective on the opposite end (Jeff on OFF, Troy on DEF).


                            I see people wanting Foster gone but keeping DunDun? Are you kidding? This team needs changes and perhaps they won't be able to do things they want to do because of salary, but why would someone want to move JO and Foster but keep the horrible defense of Dun on the team to go with his Jack-esque shooting streaks?

                            I like the kid's attitude and hustle and I root for him to put it together every night, and honestly this team typically desperately needs him to have his shot going most nights, but I don't see him as part of the solution. He, Troy and Ike joined the team and the team started playing worse, primarily on defense.

                            It wasn't a coincidence. GS was ranked very poorly in defense before the trade, Troy and Dun were big minutes guys during that stretch, so you have to assume that some of that came with them. The Pacers are giving up something like 100 ppg since the trade.


                            But what the team needs is to dump it's 2 best defensive players (outside of Greene that is) and keep a guy like Dun? To me that continues heading in the wrong direction. I'd rather keep the guys that were here when the team won 61 and move the guys that have never been on a winning team.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I agree, but I'd put Foster in average starter status and Murph in below average. And Quis of course is an average starter I think, when/if he plays.

                              Foster rebounds and plays defense every night. Murph's offense is hit and miss. Each is about equally ineffective on the opposite end (Jeff on OFF, Troy on DEF).


                              I see people wanting Foster gone but keeping DunDun? Are you kidding? This team needs changes and perhaps they won't be able to do things they want to do because of salary, but why would someone want to move JO and Foster but keep the horrible defense of Dun on the team to go with his Jack-esque shooting streaks?

                              I like the kid's attitude and hustle and I root for him to put it together every night, and honestly this team typically desperately needs him to have his shot going most nights, but I don't see him as part of the solution. He, Troy and Ike joined the team and the team started playing worse, primarily on defense.

                              It wasn't a coincidence. GS was ranked very poorly in defense before the trade, Troy and Dun were big minutes guys during that stretch, so you have to assume that some of that came with them. The Pacers are giving up something like 100 ppg since the trade.


                              But what the team needs is to dump it's 2 best defensive players (outside of Greene that is) and keep a guy like Dun? To me that continues heading in the wrong direction. I'd rather keep the guys that were here when the team won 61 and move the guys that have never been on a winning team.
                              Yes I am one of the people who like Dun because he is always trying to get into position to make a play or receive a pass, rebound, or shoot. I have also appreciated Foster but this year he seems a bit slower and still has no shot. The same reason you like Foster is why I like Dun because he hustles. Would I rather see someone who can shoot play SG? Of course but with a minimum number of real players on this team I would keep Dun. Truthfully I do not know who to keep other than JO. Everyone else is a question mark but the guys I would truly get rid of are JT and Murphy whose games can go from great to terrible. Forget the 61 games. They aren't coming back with this team or this coach. Perhaps when Venus and Mars are aligned as they were in 2004 will RC be that successful.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is it Talent or Attitude thats in question?

                                Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                                Jamal Tinsley, well if you didnít see the San Antonio game then you donít know how bad its got for Jamal.
                                The San Antonio game showed that Jamaal just can't be coached. How many times does Chuck have to tell him that the most efficient way to get a ball into the stands is by punting?
                                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X