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

RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

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

  • #61
    Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    So Redick is Dunleavy and Big Baby is Troy Murphy, man some people really need to watch other teams ASAP.

    I remember getting s*** for suggesting to bring Diaw here, I also remember a poster that rhymes with "tech" telling that he sucked and was bad on D, I guess I was wrong because the best coach in the NBA is not only playing him but starting him in one of the best teams in the league, yep that horrible player...
    The trade that you suggest would IMHO trade 1 quality Player for 2 slightly less quality Players....which would leave us with the same Starting lineup that we have now....but with more depth in the 2nd unit.

    Are you in favor of having a Team with a better Starting Lineup ( as in GH/PG/Granger/West/Hibbert with DJ/Lance/Green, Young or OJ/Hansbrough/Mahinmi as the 2nd unit )?

    or

    Are you in favor of having a Team with a decent Starting Lineup but with a deeper bench ( as in GH/Lance or Redick/PG/West/Hibbert with DJ/Lance or Redick/Young or OJ/Glen/Mahinmi as the 2nd unit )?

    I'm not saying that one is better than the other....I'm just saying that this is what I see in such a trade. We'd essentially trade Granger for more depth in the rotation.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

      Originally posted by Dece View Post
      Dude averages as many assists as our starting point guard in similar minutes, shoots 45%+ from the field, ~40% from deep, but he's just a catch and shoot player.
      I agree with your overall point, but in our system point guards are never going to average as many assists as others. It's just not the way our offense is structured. Nothing wrong with it, but it's just a deeper look at the numbers.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        So Redick is Dunleavy and Big Baby is Troy Murphy, man some people really need to watch other teams ASAP.

        I remember getting s*** for suggesting to bring Diaw here, I also remember a poster that rhymes with "tech" telling that he sucked and was bad on D, I guess I was wrong because the best coach in the NBA is not only playing him but starting him in one of the best teams in the league, yep that horrible player...
        Hm. I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that Diaw was only a good player when he was motivated. That is, in the past he's showed up to NBA practice after a summer having gained significant weight and not been able to contribute effectively due to his physical condition. But when he was in shape and motivated, he'd be a productive and versatile member to the team.
        follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          The trade that you suggest would IMHO trade 1 quality Player for 2 slightly less quality Players....which would leave us with the same Starting lineup that we have now....but with more depth in the 2nd unit.

          Are you in favor of having a Team with a better Starting Lineup ( as in GH/PG/Granger/West/Hibbert with DJ/Lance/Green, Young or OJ/Hansbrough/Mahinmi as the 2nd unit )?

          or

          Are you in favor of having a Team with a decent Starting Lineup but with a deeper bench ( as in GH/Lance or Redick/PG/West/Hibbert with DJ/Lance or Redick/Young or OJ/Glen/Mahinmi as the 2nd unit )?

          I'm not saying that one is better than the other....I'm just saying that this is what I see in such a trade. We'd essentially trade Granger for more depth in the rotation.
          C'Mon.....

          Look I may be an admitted Granger fan/apologist but could we at least be real here. That would be like me saying Danny is a slightly less quality player than Kevin Durrant or LeBron James.


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

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

            Originally posted by BornReady View Post
            Hm. I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that Diaw was only a good player when he was motivated. That is, in the past he's showed up to NBA practice after a summer having gained significant weight and not been able to contribute effectively due to his physical condition. But when he was in shape and motivated, he'd be a productive and versatile member to the team.
            He's referring to me, I said with the Bobcats Diaw sucked. I also took it farther by saying I thought Diaw sucked in general.

            Obviously Bill Walton disagree's with me.



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

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              He's referring to me, I said with the Bobcats Diaw sucked. I also took it farther by saying I thought Diaw sucked in general.

              Obviously Bill Walton disagree's with me.
              Yep you said that I was crazy to suggest to bring Diaw here because his defense was a bad as Troy Murphy and that he was a horrible player, does it sounds familiar?
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                To be honest with you guys, I think the Magic turn us down on the vnzla trade idea. They get an unknown health Granger on a huge contract. Big Baby is a huge part of their offense. I don't know why they would want Green anymore than we do. It is not like we are doing them a favor by taking JJ's insane contract.
                There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  C'Mon.....

                  Look I may be an admitted Granger fan/apologist but could we at least be real here. That would be like me saying Danny is a slightly less quality player than Kevin Durrant or LeBron James.
                  Okay.....my whole point is that in his trade suggestion....we'd be trading Granger ( a high quality Starter ) for Reddick and Big Baby ( average Starters or quality Rotational Players ? ) and the end result that we'd see.....trading Granger for more depth in the bench....IMHO decent but quality rotational Players.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-26-2013, 06:09 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    By all means let's take a team with a .605% winning record and make trades that sends away a core piece (one who hasn't even played yet) and bring back at best bench players.

                    For those of you advocating we need Redick because he moves without the ball & can shoot the three point shot and you don't really care that his defense is sub par (that's being polite btw) I want to know where you stood on Mike Dunleavy when he was on the team. At least Mike was also a pretty decent rebounder for his position so at least he wasn't just a catch & shoot guy.

                    I know some of you (rhymes with Consuela) hated someone they used to call Suckleavy and would ***** and moan constantly about him until he was off of the team. Now you want him back, but shorter with less rebounds? Yes Big Baby is averaging 15 & 7, guess what Troy Murphy avg. 14 & 12 one year for us to but that doesn't mean I want him back on the team either. Neither play a lick of defense and I'm not sure that Davis is much more physical even though he has the tools to be.

                    Again why does this possibly improve a club that is winning at a .605% clip more than just adding Danny Granger back to the team?

                    You say you want outside shooting and a three point threat? How in God's green earth is Redick more of that than Danny? Not to mention that Danny can only do EVERYTHING else better on the basketball floor.

                    Adding Danny for nothing will be the biggest and best move we can make this season. Sure I'd like to be rid of Green's contract as much as any of you would but I would not give up a core player just to be rid of it nor would I get rid of a draft pick just to be rid of it. I guess I'll just be willing to eat the next two years of it or at least year of it when he becomes an expiring before I give up any value just to get rid of it.
                    Reddick is a very good defender.
                    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      By all means let's take a team with a .605% winning record and make trades that sends away a core piece (one who hasn't even played yet) and bring back at best bench players.
                      Well my proposal was to trade Danny and Tyler, are you suggesting that Tyler is a core piece?

                      For those of you advocating we need Redick because he moves without the ball & can shoot the three point shot and you don't really care that his defense is sub par (that's being polite btw) I want to know where you stood on Mike Dunleavy when he was on the team. At least Mike was also a pretty decent rebounder for his position so at least he wasn't just a catch & shoot guy.

                      I know some of you (rhymes with Consuela) hated someone they used to call Suckleavy and would ***** and moan constantly about him until he was off of the team. Now you want him back, but shorter with less rebounds? Yes Big Baby is averaging 15 & 7, guess what Troy Murphy avg. 14 & 12 one year for us to but that doesn't mean I want him back on the team either. Neither play a lick of defense and I'm not sure that Davis is much more physical even though he has the tools to be.
                      Peck I think you need to see Redick play more before you continue with the thinking that Redick is a duplicate of Mike Dunleavy, they are similar on offense but are not close on defense, there is a reason why many teams want him the guy is a really good player.

                      Again why does this possibly improve a club that is winning at a .605% clip more than just adding Danny Granger back to the team?
                      We don't know what Danny we are getting, once again you keep thinking of the old Danny.

                      You say you want outside shooting and a three point threat? How in God's green earth is Redick more of that than Danny? Not to mention that Danny can only do EVERYTHING else better on the basketball floor.
                      Both players are different, each one of them bring different things to the team, just because Danny does some things better than Redick doesn't mean JJ is garbage either.

                      Adding Danny for nothing will be the biggest and best move we can make this season. Sure I'd like to be rid of Green's contract as much as any of you would but I would not give up a core player just to be rid of it nor would I get rid of a draft pick just to be rid of it. I guess I'll just be willing to eat the next two years of it or at least year of it when he becomes an expiring before I give up any value just to get rid of it.
                      Of course you are going to say this, I mean as you keep saying you are a Danny fan/apologist, I'll be surprised if you don't say this.



                      By the way Peck, there is not reason for you or anybody else to get all upset about somebody suggesting something you don't agree with, this is an open forum for a reason.
                      Last edited by vnzla81; 01-26-2013, 06:15 PM.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                        Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                        To be honest with you guys, I think the Magic turn us down on the vnzla trade idea. They get an unknown health Granger on a huge contract. Big Baby is a huge part of their offense. I don't know why they would want Green anymore than we do. It is not like we are doing them a favor by taking JJ's insane contract.
                        The Orlando Magic insider told me that Orlando would not do it because they don't want a player with knee problems, plus the money he is making, it makes sense that Orlando would not do that deal, they would be giving up to good starters for an injured player and a backup power forward.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Yep you said that I was crazy to suggest to bring Diaw here because his defense was a bad as Troy Murphy and that he was a horrible player, does it sounds familiar?
                          Sounds familiar and I still think it.

                          I have no use for Boris Diaw but I understand that San Antonio has made a good role for him. I'll give him this, unlike Troy he at least will try on defense so in that respect he's not as bad.

                          Matt Bonner also has an important role on the Spurs yet I would rather gouge out my eyes than watch him in a pacers uniform.


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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                            Serious question Peck, how many times this year have you watched JJ Redick play?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Sounds familiar and I still think it.

                              I have no use for Boris Diaw but I understand that San Antonio has made a good role for him. I'll give him this, unlike Troy he at least will try on defense so in that respect he's not as bad.

                              Matt Bonner also has an important role on the Spurs yet I would rather gouge out my eyes than watch him in a pacers uniform.


                              The Spurs system is so great that you can pretty much sub anyone into their offense and make them affective. I really don't think Diaw would do well here.
                              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: RicBucher, Pacers interested in JJ Redick.

                                Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                                Reddick is a very good defender.
                                I'll just agree to disagree with you.

                                He might be better than I'm giving him credit for but there is no way I will use the term "good defender". Lance Stephenson is a good defender and Redick is nowhere near him IMO.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X