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

Chad Ford Chat

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

  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

    Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
    Trader Joe is exactly right. West is the heart and soul of our team this year. Also, he is completely healthy right now. We have already proven that Danny can be replaced, as, Lance has done it admirably. I love Danny,too. But from a business sense it makes no sense to keep Danny after next year in the same role he is currently in. Especially, if it means giving up West.
    Idk that Lance has "replaced" Danny. We are at the bottom of the league in offense, and our need for another proven veteran scorer from the perimeter. We aren't going to consistently keep good to great teams under 90-95 points.

    I see your point, but whether we lose Granger or we lose West, they're going to have to be replaced with suitable talent that can offer some offensive punch.

    Comment


    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      The ship that is sinking to... one of the best Pacer teams ever??
      Ever? lol
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        I just am a little scared to find out how much West's addition has actually meant to this Pacers group.
        I'm scared to find out how much we truly do need Granger in the playoffs. I think we can agree that West is one of our weakest links defensively. I will say he has been much better this year than last. But even though Granger had a terrible year last year, he was still the more effective scorer because of free throws and 3 pointers.

        Danny Granger
        Points per shot without West (2010/11): 1.287
        Points per shot with West(2011/12): 1.231

        David West
        Points per shot without Granger (2012/13): 1.166
        Points per shot with Granger (2011/12): 1.176

        So on an individual basis, Granger is stronger both offensively and defensively.

        Teamwise, we were incredibly efficient last season with both. And it's hard to say how much it helps our offense to have a consistent low post presence who has the awareness and willingness to move the ball. But as our young players grow we may not necessarily need West to be that rock. So even without a big man who's a post threat we can still grind it out.

        Oddly enough, as long as we have scoring from Hill and our wings we may actually be BETTER with a defensive PF next to Hibbert because we can play inside-out no matter who's on the floor. (I don't believe it, but it's possible.)
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

          Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
          West is currently our top scorer on one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Do we really want to downgrade?
          Actually, George is now officially our top scorer. He's scored 586 and West is at 583 for the year, both at a rounded 16.7 ppg average

          Stephenson didn't replace Granger, George NEARLY replaced Granger's scoring and Stephenson is still over 4 points short of George's from last year.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

            I think you guys need to look at the offensive ratings in the last month to realistically gauge where our offense measures up. I agree that at the start of the year we were one of the worst offenses. In the last 30 days I would say that we are average. With Danny we might have been 12th.

            Can we continue to grow offensively without Danny? I think we can. And if Hill had been healthy and either West or Roy hitting their shots, we would have faired better.

            I think the offense is going to grow as the season goes on. It will never be on par with the defense. That is our identity. It has been nice to see this defense start off good and just get better and better. That is with the chemistry of our opponents getting better.

            We do need another scorer. But I do not think it is the end of the road for the Pacers this year if Danny never comes back. Vogel makes adjustments and we have some real talent on this team.

            Comment


            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

              Far more likely Plumlee was drafted to replace Hansbrough than a guy who wasn't even on the team when we drafted Plumlee.

              I disagree, but that's not my reasoning for this post. You mentioned replacing Tyler. Do you know if the Pacers picked up Tyler's Qualifying Offer for next year? I know if a QO isn't picked up the team the player becomes a UFA. (Joe Alexander)

              If a team picks up a players QO, that QO goes against the cap. At the end of the year prior to the QO, can the team trade the player b4 they give him a new contract?
              IOW, can the Pacers trade Hansbro this off season w/o having to give him a new contract if they have p/u his QO?

              Any enlightenment on the workings of a QO would be highly appreciated by yourself or anyone else.

              Comment


              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                I'm scared to find out how much we truly do need Granger in the playoffs. I think we can agree that West is one of our weakest links defensively. I will say he has been much better this year than last. But even though Granger had a terrible year last year, he was still the more effective scorer because of free throws and 3 pointers.

                Danny Granger
                Points per shot without West (2010/11): 1.287
                Points per shot with West(2011/12): 1.231

                David West
                Points per shot without Granger (2012/13): 1.166
                Points per shot with Granger (2011/12): 1.176

                So on an individual basis, Granger is stronger both offensively and defensively.

                Teamwise, we were incredibly efficient last season with both. And it's hard to say how much it helps our offense to have a consistent low post presence who has the awareness and willingness to move the ball. But as our young players grow we may not necessarily need West to be that rock. So even without a big man who's a post threat we can still grind it out.

                Oddly enough, as long as we have scoring from Hill and our wings we may actually be BETTER with a defensive PF next to Hibbert because we can play inside-out no matter who's on the floor. (I don't believe it, but it's possible.)
                So, could you not say that as the young players grow, Danny's leadership and scoring may not be as much needed?

                Comment


                • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                  Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                  I think you guys need to look at the offensive ratings in the last month to realistically gauge where our offense measures up. I agree that at the start of the year we were one of the worst offenses. In the last 30 days I would say that we are average. With Danny we might have been 12th.

                  Can we continue to grow offensively without Danny? I think we can. And if Hill had been healthy and either West or Roy hitting their shots, we would have faired better.

                  I think the offense is going to grow as the season goes on. It will never be on par with the defense. That is our identity. It has been nice to see this defense start off good and just get better and better. That is with the chemistry of our opponents getting better.

                  We do need another scorer. But I do not think it is the end of the road for the Pacers this year if Danny never comes back. Vogel makes adjustments and we have some real talent on this team.
                  You could be right. But I look at games against Boston, MIA, MEM-- where we really struggle shooting and scoring the basketball, and I just do not think that's a recipe for success. Yes defense is our identity, I wholeheartedly agree, but if we truly want to be elite, 75, 77, and 83 pts against other really good teams is not a recipe for long term success, least in my opinion.

                  I guess we'll see what happens when Danny comes back. None of us can make a correct assessment of who truly fits within our immediate future until Danny comes back and plays with the "new" PG, Lance, Hill, etc.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                    Oh, and last year the Pacers had a role playing combo guard who averaged < 10 ppg, < 3 apg, and did not have proven durability. And somebody gave the kid 8 Million a year... George Hill anyone?

                    Lance is getting 6 Mil if he doesn't get extended until this summer...

                    Edit...... And that was with George Hill being Restricted with no other offers on the table.
                    Last edited by *astrisk*; 01-10-2013, 02:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                      Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                      So, could you not say that as the young players grow, Danny's leadership and scoring may not be as much needed?
                      You definitely could. And my points per shot comparisons aren't perfect either since most our offense gains a lot of its bite from offensive rebounds, most of which come off of short or midrange shots. And a lot of Granger's advantage in that stat comes from 3 pointers. And I think West is a more reliable source of "easier" shots than Granger. But Granger is almost as big as West and can score from everywhere on the court to boot.

                      And maybe Granger can't stay healthy this year and decides it for us? I don't know; but I think I prefer what Granger does for us over West. At the same time, I wouldn't be upset if they have to pick one and choose West.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                        Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                        Oh, and last year the Pacers had a role playing combo guard who averaged < 10 ppg, < 3 apg, and did not have proven durability. And somebody gave the kid 8 Million a year... George Hill anyone?

                        Lance is getting 6 Mil if he doesn't get extended until this summer...

                        Edit...... And that was with George Hill being Restricted with no other offers on the table.
                        Lance 6M per year? Me thinks someone has a screw loose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                          If you say so, but only Hansbrough is likely to not be here next season.

                          I really don't see Bird drafting Plumjam as a PF. He could have re-signed Lou for that, or gotten another player like Mahinmi. I don't doubt for a second Bird drafted Plumjam as a 5. Bird knew Hibbert was a FA as well looking for a big new contract, and Plumjam the Center might have to inherit Hibbert's job someday.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            Lance 6M per year? Me thinks someone has a screw loose.
                            not a screw loose. that seems a little unfair. More likely it should be called 'new toy syndrome.'

                            I like Lance, I think he could and will be a pretty good player, but he hasn't replaced Danny Granger anywhere except on the lineup card.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                              No way lance gets 6 mil per. Absolutely no chance. 3 mil maybe

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                                Lance 6M per year? Me thinks someone has a screw loose.
                                We all said that when George Hill got 8 Mil per... What will you do when Lance outplays that 6 Mil, and then we can't keep him because we just paid West, have to give PG a MAX, overpaid Hibbert and Granger's knee doesn't allow him to play at the level he used too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X