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 Conrad right?

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

  • Is Conrad right?

    After basically throwing the concept of paying the max for Roy under the bus, he said an alternative would be to find a better PF and play two PF's, as long as one of the two can score in the post and one can block shots and rebound.

    I hadn't really considered that, but what do you think about it?

    I think it LARGELY depends on which PF you're talking about. If he means two guys the size of West or Hansbrough, hell no. But what about a 6'10 or taller PF who isn't a stick and can hold his own around the rim, and blocks shots/rebounds? Something to think about.

    But no names immediately come to mind, and once we come up with a list, which of them is available and worth spending on in FA or in a trade?

  • #2
    Re: Is Conrad right?

    If he was a big sum*****, OK. Like a lot of the other 6'11" "power forwards" in the NBA.
    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
    "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetimeís worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Conrad right?

      So then wouldn't one of the PF's be a center? Sounds like it to me....
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Conrad right?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        But no names immediately come to mind
        And that's the issue right there. And if we find a PF that is as good as you describe, guess what. We're going to have to pay him as much as we'd have to pay Roy Hibbert, if not more. And then what? We reach the playoffs and teams front the new PF just like they fronted Roy and we're back where we started.

        Really, signing/matching Roy should not be an issue. It should be done, period. After years of playing without an inside presence and stretch 4's, we finally get an inside presence and we're going to let him get away? I just don't see it. I know he's not Shaq or anything, but the Pacers wouldn't be paying him like that anyway.

        Ideally, the Pacers will find a PG this season that can throw a decent post entry pass.
        Last edited by Aw Heck; 07-05-2012, 11:03 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Conrad right?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          After basically throwing the concept of paying the max for Roy under the bus, he said an alternative would be to find a better PF and play two PF's, as long as one of the two can score in the post and one can block shots and rebound.

          I hadn't really considered that, but what do you think about it?

          I think it LARGELY depends on which PF you're talking about. If he means two guys the size of West or Hansbrough, hell no. But what about a 6'10 or taller PF who isn't a stick and can hold his own around the rim, and blocks shots/rebounds? Something to think about.
          Hicks its really a tough call man. I hate to loose big Roy for many reasons but it does call into question Roy's ability to improve greatly or if he will always be a 12 and 8 guy , who disappears at times. Would we be better with a Tyson Chandler/ Jordan Hill type undersized but good defender and rebounder? Or do we need that legit 7 footer. I knew this was bound to happen that Roy would get a max. I think we should match the offer because , providing Roy dosnt stop working, we should always be able to trade Roy if necessary

          The one thing that scares me is I see us going from a period of time where we consistently werent good enough to make the playoffs, yet too good to make the lotery. Now we are in a situatioon where we seem to be good enough to be that 2-4 seed yet not good enough to challenge the Miami's /Bulls

          I think more than anything we need that go to stud. Not sure how we get them but enough with the signing of good but not great players like G Hill for 40M
          But no names immediately come to mind, and once we come up with a list, which of them is available and worth spending on in FA or in a trade?
          Sittin on top of the world!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Conrad right?

            Nobody immediately comes to mind for me either, but it is something I have been considering. One of the arguments for keeping Roy is the lack of quality centers in the league. This is a valid argument, but perhaps a dated one. Maybe the league is going away from traditional centers. Maybe the traditional center in the NBA is equal to the fullback in the NFL. And, just as the NFL offenses have evolved to the point where a fullback is no longer even on most teams, maybe the NBA is at a place in time where traditional centers have lost some importance.

            Let me stress that I have not yet come to this conclusion, but I do think it is worth considering.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't even have that theory on the table at the moment. I wish people would stop living in the last ten seconds instead of looking at the whole picture.

              Because lebron James willed his team to the title does not mean the NBA is undergoing a shift.

              Did Michael Jordan's six championships mean that slow, plodding completely unathletic 7 footers were the wave of the future?
              Last edited by Kstat; 07-05-2012, 11:04 AM.

              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


              • #8
                Re: Is Conrad right?

                even if we don't resign Roy (which thinking now seems less likely each day) we better get off our butts and do something in free agency then or we might not make the playoffs next season

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Conrad right?

                  Sure if your ok with a record hovering around .500%

                  Roy wasn't just a tall figure out there, he was the anchor of our entire defense. David West could barely defend his own man let alone any help side defense and any defender that is going to be as good as Roy or better than Roy is going to cost almost as much as Roy.

                  I've been holding out because I kept telling myself we had till the 14th to make a move here (matching in this case) and that we are just working all angles before making the comittment.

                  But it now seems like they are setting us up to let us know they are going to let him walk. We still have time so until it either happens or they come out and say it's going to happen I won't panic, but I'm telling you if they let Roy walk and we can bring in no other significant players this off season I am going to be mightily p!ssed.


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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Conrad right?

                    Only thing I could imagine is Josh Smith, and I think he's too inconsistent to depend on... An option for the Pacers in next years free agency. But, EVEN IF WE MATCH Roy, and dump salary (Dahntay, Hans, and DC) we would have enough for him to play WITH Roy and West in the future, so long as his first year is at or below 11m. AFTER re-siging Roy and Hill we'd be at around 42 million. Giving us about 13 million, but we're probably going to sign some veteran to fill out the big man spot until then, hopefully for one year.

                    The trick here this summer, I think, is to get a scoring wing on a one year deal with the opportunity to re-sign him. Kevin Martin (The guy I want us to trade our scraps for, who is on the market), JJ Reddick, Anthony Morrow, and Jarrett Jack could be targets. Then this player would come off the books, with the vet big man we sign (Kenyon Martin, Jermaine O'Neal, or Antawn Jamison), and David West. Leaving us with Paul George, Danny Granger, George Hill, Roy Hibbert, Miles Plumlee, and Orlando Johnson under contract, eating up around 42-44 million. Leaving us leeway to get a big man like Josh Smith or Paul Milsap.

                    After we go after one of those guys, we re-sign David West and our wing.
                    Last edited by BringJackBack; 07-05-2012, 11:07 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Conrad right?

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      So then wouldn't one of the PF's be a center? Sounds like it to me....
                      In the way that JO was a 'center' or Garnett is now a 'center', yes. The point is somebody who is not blatantly nothing but a center (Kaman, Roy, Oden, Dwight, Chandler, Gortat).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Conrad right?

                        IMO it can be done effectively, but it has to be the correct combo of PFs. The Pistons really did if with the Wallace boys. Rasheed was more of a stretch forward. Wallace just sagged down on the back side to block shots. I know some will say that Ben was really a Center, but I don't necessarily agree. You still need an enforcer and shot blocker around the rim. The other needs to be athletic with some range. West can shoot a little, but I don't know that he is the ideal PF to match another PF with.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Conrad right?

                          I don't know, but I don't like Conrad weighing in on this topic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by littlerichard54 View Post
                            IMO it can be done effectively, but it has to be the correct combo of PFs. The Pistons really did if with the Wallace boys. Rasheed was more of a stretch forward. Wallace just sagged down on the back side to block shots. I know some will say that Ben was really a Center, but I don't necessarily agree. You still need an enforcer and shot blocker around the rim. The other needs to be athletic with some range. West can shoot a little, but I don't know that he is the ideal PF to match another PF with.
                            Ben Wallace was a center. There's really no controversy here. I watched him play the position for a solid decade.

                            The man was the same height as rip Hamilton, but that didn't make him any less of a center. And to say he just "sagged back and blocked shots" is one of the biggest understatements I've ever heard. I cannot think of a less accurate assessment of wallace's defense.

                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Is Conrad right?

                              Worrisome that Bruno is floating this out there, what was the context?

                              I think alot of teams in today NBA do this, essentially. There aren't enough big men to go around, especially in the East. What teams in the East have good true centers?

                              You could argue it either way, East teams don't have true centers who are good, so having Roy is a big advantage OR Teams in the East don't have true centers who are good, so you could compete without one.

                              Interesting discussion, either way.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X