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

I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

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

  • #31
    Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

    This offseason is Tyler first completely offseason, and actually this season is his THIRD season. Just like you guys believe Paul George can break out in his third season, I do believe PsychoT can do, too.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

      Y'all are friggin silly. When Hansbrough marched us into the playoffs 2 years ago and was owning Boozer left and right, and got that steal and thundered down the court for a huge dunk-and-1, I'm sure y'all were pumping your fists.

      He didn't look so hot last year, and all the "I told ya so's" are sticking their ugly heads out the window. Get outta here with that crap, lol...

      He can play a lot better. I still think there's more to it than meets the eye... I've got this feeling he's dealing with some concussion lingering effects or vertigo... I dunno... his regression last year is conspicuous though.

      But you all know he can play better, we've seen it. He was lookin pretty darn good towards the end of Vogel's first season. I'm rootin for him.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Y'all are friggin silly. When Hansbrough marched us into the playoffs 2 years ago and was owning Boozer left and right, and got that steal and thundered down the court for a huge dunk-and-1, I'm sure y'all were pumping your fists.

        He didn't look so hot last year, and all the "I told ya so's" are sticking their ugly heads out the window. Get outta here with that crap, lol...

        He can play a lot better. I still think there's more to it than meets the eye... I've got this feeling he's dealing with some concussion lingering effects or vertigo... I dunno... his regression last year is conspicuous though.

        But you all know he can play better, we've seen it. He was lookin pretty darn good towards the end of Vogel's first season. I'm rootin for him.

        In that playoff series you are talking about he played awful. He had one good game and 4 awful ones. I know I was letting it be know the year Tyler started I was not a fan of it and rather ed Josh(and I by no means like either one of them as a rotation big man) and we weren't gonna win a thing with him as a starter. I haven't changed that opinion once since we drafted him the year he started we were sub 500 btw.


        I disagree with the bold yes he can play better but...

        he isnt a rotation big IMO on a winning team. Emergency Lou role? sure.
        Last edited by pacer4ever; 07-19-2012, 10:57 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

          I think there's just too much overly critical reaction here over Tyler's bad season. Yeah I can't deny that he was horrendous last season, but other than last season he was a pretty good role player.

          People easily forgot that he was the part of the reason why the Pacers made a playoff run 2 seasons ago. When everybody was almost mentally checked out, he was the only one playing hard. When there was a losing steak in Vogel's interim coaching days, he was a spark that ignited the playoff hopes that was dwindling. Remember that back-to-back Knicks games where he destroyed Amare and both resulted in wins?

          We just easily give up on our own players just as we easily declare them future HOFers I think. When Roy Hibbert was struggling there was a clamor to ship him out while he has value. But right now when he's looking like an elite center most are thinking he's worth a max contract. Same for DG and DC during their ups and downs.

          Going back to Tyler, well it's make or break for him. But I'm pretty sure he'll bounce back whether he's still be a Pacer or not this season. Many changes happened last season that really affected his play (lack of preparation due to lockout, change of his style of play, demotion to the bench with DWest coming in, etc.). Not really an excuse there but we know at one point players will have a struggling season at one point in their careers due to adjustments. Let's give him this year to prove his worth before we lose hope in him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

            This offseason is Tyler's first offseason, and actually this season will be his THIRD season. Just like you guys believe Paul George will break out in his third season, I do believe Tyler can do so after work out with West.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Y'all are friggin silly. When Hansbrough marched us into the playoffs 2 years ago and was owning Boozer left and right, and got that steal and thundered down the court for a huge dunk-and-1, I'm sure y'all were pumping your fists.

              He didn't look so hot last year, and all the "I told ya so's" are sticking their ugly heads out the window. Get outta here with that crap, lol...

              He can play a lot better. I still think there's more to it than meets the eye... I've got this feeling he's dealing with some concussion lingering effects or vertigo... I dunno... his regression last year is conspicuous though.

              But you all know he can play better, we've seen it. He was lookin pretty darn good towards the end of Vogel's first season. I'm rootin for him.
              That playoff series that you are hanging your hat on?

              He averaged 33 minutes per game, scored 11.2 points per game on 33% shooting, and grabbed 5.4 rebounds, and no other significant contributions. He had a PER of 8.9 and a TRB% of 9.3, both of which are really pretty awful.

              Is that really all that we're hoping he can get back to?

              The biggest problem with all those stats? He averaged 33 minutes a game. He was a serious detriment to the team in games 2, 3, 4, and 5. He was, by a wide margin, the 2nd best power forward on our team in that series. Unfortunately, Vogel has shown nothing but faith in him, and continues to play him big minutes no matter how terrible he plays. He didn't earn the minutes he was given last year, and he didn't earn them the year before. He was simply given them.

              I hope Vogel learns from his mistakes going forward. Even if he isn't going to contribute, he can't continue to be such a major detriment. If he is, he needs to be on the bench.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                Tyler isn't going to get a second contract unless he really starts committing to rebounding. That needs to improve more than anything.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                  Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                  That playoff series that you are hanging your hat on?

                  He averaged 33 minutes per game, scored 11.2 points per game on 33% shooting, and grabbed 5.4 rebounds, and no other significant contributions. He had a PER of 8.9 and a TRB% of 9.3, both of which are really pretty awful.

                  Is that really all that we're hoping he can get back to?

                  The biggest problem with all those stats? He averaged 33 minutes a game. He was a serious detriment to the team in games 2, 3, 4, and 5. He was, by a wide margin, the 2nd best power forward on our team in that series. Unfortunately, Vogel has shown nothing but faith in him, and continues to play him big minutes no matter how terrible he plays. He didn't earn the minutes he was given last year, and he didn't earn them the year before. He was simply given them.

                  I hope Vogel learns from his mistakes going forward. Even if he isn't going to contribute, he can't continue to be such a major detriment. If he is, he needs to be on the bench.
                  Yep, he went in the tank after that dunk. But... he still got us there, and then he gave Chicago a good scare for a game or two. Your stats were for the entire series, but you didn't list his stats down the stretch and the first few games of the playoffs. Say what you will, but he had a real good stretch there, and there was a bit of Hansbrough-mania goin on for a few months. Yeah, Chicago's D finally clamped down (they were a great defensive team), and he was finally shut down, but you're not giving him near enough credit for his play down the stretch.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    I remember hearing Charlotte's reporter on the radio saying and laughing at the same time that Augustin declined to get a multi year extension because he didn't want to stay in Charlotte and the proposed extension was about 6mil a year.
                    I am 100% comfortable in saying none of this happened. I mean, seriously. Just think about what you're saying. Now, think if what you are saying is plausible in any way, shape, or form. It isn't. Therefore, it's probably not true.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                      Originally posted by bphil View Post
                      Tyler isn't going to get a second contract unless he really starts committing to rebounding. That needs to improve more than anything.
                      Completely agree. Obviously a good scorer, but I feel like his bad-boy image makes us Pacer fans think he's something more than he truly is. He needs to develop some other part of his game. I don't know what that is, but with Mahinmi & Plumlee both here now (purposefully leaving out Pendergraph), I don't think he can just rely on his image as the Pacer's designated bruiser. Ha. Still love him though!
                      "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                        I really want to see what Tyler can do after a REAL training camp. Some of the adjustments he was trying to make to his game (in season and with very few practice opportunities) can be done SO much better during a focused period with coaches and players on the floor with him.

                        If he doesn't shape up after that, so be it, but I think his development has been hampered by having to be done almost completely individually due to injury and lockout.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                          Do we know that the Pacers were trying anything to trade Tyler?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                            This is insane, of course he'll be better! A young player, a full off-season, and most importantly, the guy was playing with a broken face last hear. Seriously, a broken face! (thanks ex-Pacers @sshat).

                            Tyler is weird because there is a lot of very good, and a lot of very bad. He gets to the line at an amazing rate and shoots a high free throw percentage, he gets a lot of steals, he plays hard and with a high level of intensity, and his man defense is not that bad. Normally I'd say those things for a PF would indicate he'll be solid in the league.

                            Unfortunately he seems to have no vertical ability, gets his shot blocked a lot, and doesn't seem to have an awareness that basketball is a team game (both on offense and defense!)

                            Still, I expect his midrange game to improve (without a broken face) and his help D to get marginally better just through repetition. I don't see his inside game improving as he will always "play below the rim" and for some reason I just don't think he'll ever get the concept of passing to set up his teammates (aka offensive black hole).

                            So in conclusion - marginal improvement, but definitely enough to make him a viable PF option for the Pacers if they decide to keep him. Most importantly I expect his D to be a little better and his FG% to improve significantly due to hitting more jumpers.
                            Danger Zone

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Yep, he went in the tank after that dunk. But... he still got us there, and then he gave Chicago a good scare for a game or two. Your stats were for the entire series, but you didn't list his stats down the stretch and the first few games of the playoffs. Say what you will, but he had a real good stretch there, and there was a bit of Hansbrough-mania goin on for a few months. Yeah, Chicago's D finally clamped down (they were a great defensive team), and he was finally shut down, but you're not giving him near enough credit for his play down the stretch.
                              That dunk came in game 1. He didn't give them a scare for a game a two. The Pacers might have, but they also might have had a better chance to actually close out some of those games if Hansbrough wasn't playing so many minutes.

                              How many games do you want to go back? Listen, he had a pretty good month of March in 2011. He averaged 17 points on almost 50% shooting, and 7 rebounds. That was, by a huge amount, the best he has ever played in his career. The Pacers went 8-10 in that month.

                              As always has been the case, the success of his team, and Tyler Hansbrough's personal success are completely independent of each other. In his career, he has averaged 9.8 points on 42% shooting, 4.9 rebounds, and 0.5 assists in games that the Pacers have won. When the Pacers have lost? He has averaged 10.0 points on 43% shooting, 4.7 rebounds, and 0.7 assists. Simply put, due to his high-usage, low-efficiency style of play, and lack of contributions in places that don't show up in a box score, he just doesn't do anything to impact whether or not the Pacers win. His numbers are essentially irrelevant.

                              He didn't "get us there." He didn't "give Chicago a good scare." He was simply out there. Any "Hansbrough-mania" was woefully misguided. If you were one who participated in that "Hansbrough-mania," you weren't paying enough attention.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                I am 100% comfortable in saying none of this happened. I mean, seriously. Just think about what you're saying. Now, think if what you are saying is plausible in any way, shape, or form. It isn't. Therefore, it's probably not true.
                                Of the 15 players who ended the season here, only four look like sure keepers: Rookies Bismack Biyombo and Kemba Walker, shooting guard Gerald Henderson and point guard D.J. Augustin. Augustin will be a restricted free agent who has already turned down a contract extension, so retaining him is not entirely the Bobcats’ call.

                                Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#storylink=cpy
                                Here is the reporter's article from the Observer, we was in 1070 the fan and said that the extension was 6mil a year, believe if you want to or not, I know that your story sounds better because "Tyler is garbage so not even the Bobcats want him" but that is not what it was reported by their insider.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X