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

excellent article by Conrad Brunner

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

  • #16
    Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    The team has played horribly for the most part the past 2 or 3 weeks. Hard to believe they won a game in Milwaukee not that long ago.

    But what I don't understand why so many in this forum must find something bad (or almost evil) going on here. Example: West and Roy are a cancer within the team.
    It's not that surprising to me. Basically you have to either believe one of two things. Either this team just lacks talent and therefor you just accept it for what it is or you believe that there is enough talent to win at least on a greater level than what you are and if that is the case you are trying to determine what is wrong. Finding fault is just a natural human reaction to evaluation of almost anything.


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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

      I agree with Bruno. At 6-9 pick the more I see Kevon Looney the more he grows on me the type of player Pacer fans love, aggressive, strong, junk yard dog, rebounder and only 18 producing nighly for UCLA 13 ppg and 11 reb. , his shot needs work but the form on it is good. He is 6'9 1/2 with a 7'3 wing span and he can guard 3's and 4's. Would fit in very well next to Paul George after a year of learning under David West

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        We will only have 8 of the 15 Players next season from the roster, so I don't expect to go into next season "hunky dory" even with PG13 returning. My guess is that the rest will be gone since they are Expiring Contracts. The question is what will Bird do to replace the holes that we have.

        That's why I don't expect the same results next season even with the return of PG13......I think that the 8 Players could be a good foundation to build upon and if Bird makes the right signings ( yeah, I know....good luck with that ) to fill the remaining needs that can hopefully complement the rest of the existing roster while drafting the right Player....we can still be a solid Playoff Team. Then in the summer of 2016.....with West likely gone.....continue to build upon that.
        How are those 8 performing? How do those 8 project to trend next year (arrow up, even or down), factoring in age, health and mileage? How do those 8 project to match up with the quality teams in the Eastern Conference?

        If those answers aren't positive, why would we expect different results from swapping the ancillary guys for other backups? The problem isn't the bench anymore, the problem is that what's left of that "core" from 2-3 yrs ago isn't good enough these days. That's what Brunner was suggesting when he said that even with PG this is a mediocre team.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

          Peck did a pretty good job of summing up my feelings. Cancer was an overly strong word. I just feel that, while less talented, this team played better and with more energy (and won more games when the schedule was harder) when West and Hibbert weren't the centerpiece of the team. Last year our starting line-up fell apart and obviously had some issues, and the two returning players from that unit have made this team worse when they are playing together. But it's not worse from a talent stand point, it's worse like it got worse last year, with energy problems and morale issues. I'll readily admit I'm not a fan of either of the two players, which biases my opinion. I feel West's effort is poor and Hibbert's mental stability is a problem. IMO, this team would be better next year with West, and maybe Hibbert, gone (assuming reasonable trade value for the players and the healthy return of PG and Hill)
          Danger Zone

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
            Peck did a pretty good job of summing up my feelings. Cancer was an overly strong word. I just feel that, while less talented, this team played better and with more energy (and won more games when the schedule was harder) when West and Hibbert weren't the centerpiece of the team. Last year our starting line-up fell apart and obviously had some issues, and the two returning players from that unit have made this team worse when they are playing together. But it's not worse from a talent stand point, it's worse like it got worse last year, with energy problems and morale issues. I'll readily admit I'm not a fan of either of the two players, which biases my opinion. I feel West's effort is poor and Hibbert's mental stability is a problem. IMO, this team would be better next year with West, and maybe Hibbert, gone (assuming reasonable trade value for the players and the healthy return of PG and Hill)
            I actually disagree that it's morale issues since West and Hibbert returned. I am in the camp of the style of play required for West and Hibbert is not conducive to the energy and ball sharing that took place at the beginning of the year (and that's West in particular because Roy was actually PART of some of those ball sharing high energy wins).

            The morale issues have come because of the inability to win (a long losing streak is mentally and emotionally exhausting). The losing has been a combination of playing teams that are simply better and in not being able to integrate West into a ball motion offense that includes Roy as the anchor. You can deal with having one big slow guy on the court. Two is a problem.
            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


            • #21
              Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

              Being a total Frank Vogel fan-boy, I want to believe there is at least one ultra selfish player causing the mental breakdown problems we all see. However, when teams like ours start fall apart, the Coach really needs to start looking behind him. Coaches are much easier to get gone than players! I hope it doesn't happen, but I won't be shocked if Frank gets the axe.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                West and Hill might not be Pacers after the deadline. West has quietly put together a solid season. I can't see Roy getting traded because we won't get what we will want. Scola could be gone too. It's time to start thinking lottery.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                  After the sudden collapse last season I think people are on high alert. We learned how much chemistry matters with the addition on Bynum and Turner and the subtraction of Granger last season. Yes, people are speculating about chemistry issues, but over the past calendar year has there been a team with more inconsistent play? I think people are just trying to make sense of it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                    Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                    How are those 8 performing? How do those 8 project to trend next year (arrow up, even or down), factoring in age, health and mileage? How do those 8 project to match up with the quality teams in the Eastern Conference?

                    If those answers aren't positive, why would we expect different results from swapping the ancillary guys for other backups? The problem isn't the bench anymore, the problem is that what's left of that "core" from 2-3 yrs ago isn't good enough these days. That's what Brunner was suggesting when he said that even with PG this is a mediocre team.
                    If we are just looking at the projected 8 for the very long term ( basically beyond the 2016-2017 season ), I agree that having West doesn't look great. I think that West is not on this roster anytime between now and the summer of 2016. But if we are looking at the rest of that core of GH/PG13/Solo/Miles/1st round 2015 pick and maybe Hibbert and Rudez...I am fine with that as the future core beyond the 2016-2017 season to build upon. I don't consider Solo or Miles a Starter....so despite their lackluster play as of late while playing extended minutes....I am okay with them as key backup Players that get a good # of minutes.

                    If I were to look purely at the 2015-2016 season, I think that a healthy core of these 8 Players is good enough to make it to the Playoffs next season ( even if it's a 1st round exit ). It may not be a Championship Caliber Team....but I'm okay with what we have and what Bird will likely build upon for the 2015-2016 season because I know that our options are limited when it comes to moves next season.

                    The difference for me is that I view the short term differently than most, I know that our options are limited when it comes to 2015 offseason moves. For me, I'm looking long-term....not short term. Anything that we do in-between the short and long term ( whether it be trading or not trading West ) is fine with me....as long as it doens't affect our ability to makes moves in the summer of 2016. I am really looking at the 2016-2017 offseason as the time that we will make a major change to the roster.

                    JMHO though....
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      I actually disagree that it's morale issues since West and Hibbert returned. I am in the camp of the style of play required for West and Hibbert is not conducive to the energy and ball sharing that took place at the beginning of the year (and that's West in particular because Roy was actually PART of some of those ball sharing high energy wins).

                      The morale issues have come because of the inability to win (a long losing streak is mentally and emotionally exhausting). The losing has been a combination of playing teams that are simply better and in not being able to integrate West into a ball motion offense that includes Roy as the anchor. You can deal with having one big slow guy on the court. Two is a problem.
                      Yeah, but didn't we have the same concern last season? West maybe slower compared to last season....but it's not like he's been super fast to begin with
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Yeah, but didn't we have the same concern last season? West maybe slower compared to last season....but it's not like he's been super fast to begin with
                        It's not just the year-to-year decline (though I think with the long injury recovery he is more than just slightly slower than last year), it's that all the other problems have caused us to need strength where we have this weakness. Mid-range has been the place we made teams pay for how they collapsed on Roy, and not having perimeter defense has put a lot of pressure on Roy to help because David can't get to where he needs to.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                          I've always been a West and Hibbert fan but I see this team having the same downturn at the same time of year as last year. PG has been hurt, Lance is in purgatory and Hill has been hurt for all of 8 games so they can't be blamed. That leaves West and Hibbert. They do not put forth the effort needed to get a below average/average team to win consistently. If I see West get beat getting back in transition one more time my head may explode from screaming. Hibbert flops on a regular basis so he's on the ground more than a man his size should be and then he slowly jogs back to get involved. You add to that they are effective in a slow, methodical offense and it leads to lethargy and an overall lack of energy.

                          They are the 2 constants from last year to this year so if there is some turmoil in the locker room I would think it starts with one of those 2. I haven't seen much from West that shows me has issues keeping his morale up night in and night out so that leaves me to believe #55 is a major issue.
                          "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                            I guess I'm confused as to why a loss to Toronto (one of the best teams in the league) in game 47 of the year is all the sudden the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of people's hope for this team.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                              I'll just agree with Bruno and Scola that the group of players I call the Replacements really outplayed their talent in the early part of the season, and as a result, won some games they had no business winning.

                              Now, we are mostly healthy (except for George Hill) and this group of players we expect to be Paul G's supporting cast next year has managed to lose a string of games to the absolute dregs of the league, including to the Sixers, Lakers, and Wolves. To me, this is as real a breakdown as last year's.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: excellent article by Conrad Brunner

                                Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
                                I've always been a West and Hibbert fan but I see this team having the same downturn at the same time of year as last year.
                                Really? You think the downturn for this team this year only started in mid-January?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X