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 have some issues #2

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

  • I have some issues #2

    Why do so many hate on Gill? He was brought in as a #3 point guard and, personally, I think he's done a hell of a job. Some of you more knowledgeable about the technicalities of the position are probably going to call me out on this one - which will only lead me to the technical aspects of issue #3.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

  • #2
    Re: I have some issues #2

    I don't like Gills game. Many people criticize Travis Best and AJ's point guard abilities, but I've said more than a few times that Gill's is the worst I've ever seen for a NBA point guard. His passing is beyond bad. I was shocked when he made a nice pas to Jeff last night on a pick and roll, but then he followed up with a couple of terrible passes. Rick yanked Gill pretty quickly last night.

    Having said this. I like Gill's defense, he plays hard, can hit timely shots, seems like a good team guy.

    So as a third string point guard, He's ok, but as a 2nd string, he just nis not very good .

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I have some issues #2

      Originally posted by Unclebuck
      I don't like Gills game. Many people criticize Travis Best and AJ's point guard abilities, but I've said more than a few times that Gill's is the worst I've ever seen for a NBA point guard. His passing is beyond bad. I was shocked when he made a nice pas to Jeff last night on a pick and roll, but then he followed up with a couple of terrible passes. Rick yanked Gill pretty quickly last night.

      Having said this. I like Gill's defense, he plays hard, can hit timely shots, seems like a good team guy.

      So as a third string point guard, He's ok, but as a 2nd string, he just nis not very good .
      Would you rather still have Jamison Brewer?
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I have some issues #2

        I'm not as down on Gill as some are here. I prefer Gill over Travis Best because at least Gill knows he's a PG. But considering my opinion of Travis Best that isn't exactly saying much though.

        I believe some here tend to be too harsh on PG's who aren't flashy (I'm not speaking of Ragnar and AJ here). I can't believe some of you were ready to drive Kevin Ollie to the airport or were happy to see Mark Jackson gone.

        I half wonder if Travis didn't acquire the fans he did because of his scoring.... IMHO Travis should've felt more wrath from the forum collective than some of the others.

        AJ has picked up his game and he had moments last year where he was frustrating to watch... and others where he was solid. His play against Detroit in the playoffs was very good. His return from injury was slow and seemed to show that it was a setback more than anything else. His normal game is better than that which I think is what we're seeing now that he has the reins to the offense (and is getting more and more comfortable there).

        We could do far worse than Eddie Gill as a 3rd string PG who is almost guaranteed to get playing time behind the oft-injured Tinsley.

        Or IOW... I think it is a short list of better 3rd string PG's who are out there (who fit this team- read: Know their role and don't make waves).

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

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

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I have some issues #2

          There is not much to say about Gill, he is just an average backup PG.. i dont see him as a starter tho

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I have some issues #2

            Last year and earlier this year (remember the huge losing streak we went through when J.T.went down) AJ just plain sucked. It was never about not being flashy it was about nearly committing a back court violation on every trip down the floor. It was about not being able to deliver the ball in rhythm.

            For some reason about a month or so ago AJ seems to have figured out how to play point guard. I dont think anyone could be more happy about this than I am. I have never had anything personal against him, I just thought he was being miss used. I thought he should play the Steve Kerr role on this team because he could hit shots.

            Gill is not playing any worse than he had earlier its just that AJ has passed him by. At the beginning of the year Gill was better than AJ. That does not mean Gill was good it meant AJ sucked bad. Now AJ is better than Gill.

            I still have no doubt that we will not get past Detroit or Miami without J.T. because in the playoffs those two teams will figure out that all you need to do to AJ is to pressure him in the back court. We might be able to get past Boston without him (that is a huge compliment to AJ BTW)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I have some issues #2

              Originally posted by Ragnar
              Last year and earlier this year (remember the huge losing streak we went through when J.T.went down) AJ just plain sucked. It was never about not being flashy
              That is why I pointed out I wasn't talking about you and your past dislike of AJ's game. That was based on a whole different thing and I ended up joining the club with you. There was a point I thought Gill was playing better ball and deserved to be ahead of AJ in the rotation. Maybe AJ rushed it back... I don't know...

              I wasn't down on him last year... but this year all your complaints were there on the court (and stat sheet) in full view and IMHO multiplied. But then he found his groove and is actually playing above last year's level.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I have some issues #2

                I didn't have a problem with AJ last year. I thought he was one of the best backup PGs in the league, and I was happy to have him. I can't say that for Gill though. The guy just doesn't seem capable of running an offense.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I have some issues #2

                  I like Ollie more than Gill. I guess I would take Gill over Brewer only because Gill can hit a shot.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I have some issues #2

                    I think Gill runs the team just fine for a third-string PG.

                    I'd rather have the kid we cut during last season's training camp - I'm airheading on his name - but I've got no problem with Gill. EDIT => Omar Cook.

                    IMO, ranking the recent backup PGs:
                    AJ > Ollie > Kenny Anderson > Cook > Gill > Rashad Wright > Jay@Section204 > Brewer > Erick Strickland> Travis Bust
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I have some issues #2

                      I am shocked that so many of you don't and didn't like Travis. For the life of me I don't understand it. You all most have been going crazy when he finished games 1998 - 2000. IMO Travis getting hurt was a large factor in the pacers lsing to the Lakers in 2000. Oh well we don't want to go there.

                      I was a huge Erick Strickland fan. Best defensive guard the Pacers have in the past 20 years. But Isiah ruined him, I just wonder what Rick's calm structured approach could have done with Strick who has always been a bit wild. But man I loved his defense.


                      Jay, I kinda liked Cook also.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I have some issues #2

                        I don't kow how much really you can expect of a 3rd string PG who get's very little playing time. Gill's defense is good though I think , I think the reason AJ has improved is because his PT has increased.
                        Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I have some issues #2

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck
                          I like Ollie more than Gill. I guess I would take Gill over Brewer only because Gill can hit a shot.
                          Letting Ollie go was a mistake.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I have some issues #2

                            Originally posted by ABADays
                            Letting Ollie go was a mistake.

                            Perhaps but he got a very nice long term contract from the Cavs. ay more money and for longer term that he is worth

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I have some issues #2

                              I "love" Gill. He's doing exactly what he's been asked and more. He deserves more credit than people give him.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X