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

An Assessment of Pacer Talent

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

  • An Assessment of Pacer Talent

    Here’s an assessment and outlook for the players who played a serious role in the past season, injured or not.

    JO – A perennially injured player with a $20 million/yr contract. Is incapable of ‘taking over a game’ even when healthy. Can ‘create’ his own shot, but with a low percentage. Probably doen’t contribute to ‘team chemistry’ because he demands the ball when on the court but can’t deliver. An outstanding defensive player and could easily be defensive player of the year if he put his mind to it. No off-court issues. Bottom line: will NOT be traded and will start but due to his health issues will see action in less than 55 games.

    Tins – There’s something going on with Jamal besides ‘injury’. Attitude, maybe? He seemed ideal for JOB’s ill-advised ‘uptempo’ philosophy, i.e., unforced turnovers, impossible 3’s, ineffective offensive rebounding and terrible defense. Something happened to Jamal this past season between game 15 – 20. What? He has a terrible off-court record. Salary’s not that bad. No longer young but I believe has upside potential in the right situation. Bottom line: will be traded.

    Granger – Our current ‘star’, a very solid player. He’s no Ron Artest on defense (who is?), but he’s good enough in terms of perimeter defensive. No off-court issues. DG is now the face of the current franchise. Had a break-out year in 07/08 – thanks to JO injury. Untouchable in terms of trade. Bottom line: will continue as a starter next season. Note, this guy deserves a cool nick-name.

    Murph – Gave us all he’s got, but JOB is right, on a playoff-bound West Coast team, he would not be a starter. Dependable, doesn’t sulk with lame injuries when he takes a breather on the bench. Despite size, plays as a shooting guard. Accuracy is inconsistent, and takes way too many threes. Can’t defend consistently either. True front-court team mates get into foul trouble trying to help out on his defensive lapses. Makes way too many $ for his value and his contract is too long. No off-court issues. Bottom line: will be offered as trade bait, but will probably be a Pacer next season. This is not all bad as he will handle JO’s duties when JO is on the bench with injuries.

    Dunlevy – Just finished his best season ever as a pro. He’s an excellent ball handler for his size. His size and transition game puts a lot of pressure on opponents defense. Best 3-point shooter on the team and fits JOB’s misguided game plan (you know, heave a 3 with 16 seconds on the clock). A liability on defense, but then so was Reggie in his later years. Can play at two positions. Salary not out-of-line for last season’s performance. Zero issues off-court. Bottom line: Mike will be a Pacer next season, and will start!

    Foster – It’s hard not to like this guy. He doesn’t complain, leaves everything he has on the floor, a fundamentally very solid non-scoring, rebounding and defensive specialist. Plays better defense than anyone on the team because he plays ‘position defense’. Actually sets picks and blocks out (a novel idea!). Pay’s reasonable and there are no off-court problems. Bottom line: May be offered as trade bait but he’ll be back and he’ll start more games than not.

    Williams – Has nice size and athletic ability but is dumber than mud. You know, bought a car but drives without a license (every 16-year old kid in America knows you need a driver’s license). Didn’t show up for court date. Hangs with drug user, gun carrying buddy and a wanted murderer so he wouldn’t pass anyone’s man-in-the-street IQ test. Didn’t develop much this past season but shows promise and isn’t especially strong, defensively. His salary makes him tradable. Bottom line: Will be traded in order to cleanse the collective team character, hopefully for a late 1st-round draft pick.

    Diener – Amazing assist-to-turnover ratio. Much better than he looks because let’s face it, he appears to be in the 9th grade. I want him on the floor late in the 4th Q if we have at least a 6 point lead. Can’t really create a winning shot if you need a basket but he’s a great insurance policy when you have JT for a starter. Can get you a 3 when you need it since defensively opponents drop off him to double guys in the paint. No known off-court issues and has a reasonable contract. Can’t imagine he’s in demand for trading purposes. Bottom line: He’ll be a Pacer next season and there will be nights when we’ll be glad we have him.


    Murray – Nice size for a point guard. Can hit the 3. Inconsistent from night-to-night and at both ends of the floor. Low in basketball IQ but seems like there is upside potential if he get playing time. No publicly known team chemistry issues and has behaved off-court at least so far. Cheap and contract length is ideal. Bottom line: Will continue as a Pacer next season, perhaps as a back-up if the team finagles a true point guard.

    Everyone Else On the Roster Including Ike – Trade fodder for the rebuilding that has to come.

  • #2
    Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

    Originally posted by madison View Post

    Murray – Nice size for a point guard. Can hit the 3. Inconsistent from night-to-night and at both ends of the floor. Low in basketball IQ but seems like there is upside potential if he get playing time. No publicly known team chemistry issues and has behaved off-court at least so far. Cheap and contract length is ideal. Bottom line: Will continue as a Pacer next season, perhaps as a back-up if the team finagles a true point guard.
    The thing is that Flip isn't and shouldn't play at the 1 guard position. His ball handling skills are just terrible. He can't pass, either. I think he would work fairly well as a backup 2 guard, but that is if we keep him.

    His numbers went up a little the last few games that he played with us, but I think a struggling team would be wanting to pick him up for his ability to shoot the 3.

    I honestly don't think that he will be back next season.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

      The sad part is that I'm struggling to think of who the other guys that he didn't mention were.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        The sad part is that I'm struggling to think of who the other guys that he didn't mention were.
        Ike, Harrison, Graham, Rush, Owens...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

          Despite wanting the Pacers to bring in his younger brother, I cooled to K Rush by the end of the year. He got set up to succeed from three and often didn't make good on it like you'd want a specialist to do.

          Also his early promise on defense seemed to fade over time. There was a reason he started seeing bench time at the end of the year unfortunately. No loss in taking a look but not likely to be part of the long term plan it would seem.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

            Excellent summary of the current state of reality. I especially liked this precious segment: "Tins – There’s something going on with Jamal besides ‘injury’. Attitude, maybe? He seemed ideal for JOB’s ill-advised ‘uptempo’ philosophy, i.e., unforced turnovers, impossible 3’s, ineffective offensive rebounding and terrible defense. "

            The only thing that took me by surprise, which I actually do agree with as well, is the knock on Williams. Yes, Shawne is young and young people often do dumb things. However, I am afraid Mr. Madison has him pegged. So sad. He's a talented baller...
            Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

              Nice summary. I'm still made a little queasy with the 'untouchable' tag
              on anyone on a 35 win team. But other than that, aside from the
              fact that it's tough to rebuild w/o giving up anyone another team
              might want, it's a pretty good sysnopsis.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                I've only read the first two - but what happened with Tinsley is O'Brien scolded him after the Suns game and then suspended him some games later and Tinsley pouted, and injuried his knee.

                Overall very nice summaries. Agree with most of them. I will disagree with your statement that Dunleavy is a liability on defense. He might not be an asset, but to say flat out that he is a liability I believe is just not correct. He plays the defensive system better than anyone on the team. He takes a lot of charges - his team defense is excellent, and in O'Brien system team defense and playing the system is extremely important. Sure his one-on-one defense is poor. But then Granger's team defense is often lacking - although he got better as the season went along.
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-24-2008, 08:01 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                  I agree with almost all of this. Good break-down. Post more.


                  Originally posted by madison
                  Note, this guy deserves a cool nick-name.
                  The Gift.

                  Originally posted by madison
                  Diener – Amazing assist-to-turnover ratio. Much better than he looks because let’s face it, he appears to be in the 9th grade.
                  Nice.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                    Good stuff, Madison. But what about M. Daniels?

                    Granger's cool nickname is "The Gift."

                    And I don't have a problem with keeping Williams. If Tinsley, Daniels and Harrison are gone, and replaced with good citizens and serious drinkers of milk and/or Pepsi, then Shawne Williams can grow up and become a man and a NBA player. It is all a question of clubhouse atmosphere. We've not had 12 serious men for a lot of years.
                    Last edited by Putnam; 04-24-2008, 09:42 AM.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                      I'm struggling to contain my dork-ness.... is anyone going to photoshop Danny leaping into a portal to save Sunnydale? No one?

                      Aww.

                      Anyway, I agree with a lot of the initial post, but certainly not everything. Most glaring is the belief that Jim O'Brien essentially coaches them to take bad shots or to not attack the basket.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        I'm struggling to contain my dork-ness.... is anyone going to photoshop Danny leaping into a portal to save Sunnydale? No one?

                        Aww.

                        Anyway, I agree with a lot of the initial post, but certainly not everything. Most glaring is the belief that Jim O'Brien essentially coaches them to take bad shots or to not attack the basket.
                        So, does that make Tinsley Glory?

                        Is Obie Giles?

                        Who's Spike?

                        I'm thinking Travis would be Dawn.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                          OK, now I just pictured Travis in that dress they put Dawn in at the end.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            OK, now I just pictured Travis in that dress they put Dawn in at the end.
                            Of course, Dawn would be able to grow a fuller beard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: An Assessment of Pacer Talent

                              Originally posted by Mal View Post
                              Most glaring is the belief that Jim O'Brien essentially coaches them to take bad shots or to not attack the basket.
                              I think he coaches them to take open shots not bad shots. In fact, I think he specifically emphasizes not taking bad shots.

                              I wonder what our shooting percentage is for open 3-pointers verses contested 10-footers? That would be an interesting stat, and I bet they have it.

                              That said, I do agree that we do need to be more aggressive when attacking the basket in order to be successful.
                              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                              - Jimmy Buffett

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X