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

Filling The Four

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

  • #61
    Re: Filling The Four

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    I think part of the reason we are successful is that we limit our rookies' exposure. Give them enough time to experience things that work and don't work, but also give them plenty of time watching live NBA action so they can learn the things that they need to get better at. If he gets better, increase his minutes accordingly.
    I've always believed this. I want rookies hitting the floor where they have a chance to succeed, not being constantly smacked in the face with failure all in the name of getting them floor experience.

    So many people undervalue practice against your own team's veterans as a valid way to bring rookies along, thinking that if a guy doesn't see significant floor minutes he's being stunted or wasted. I'd rather a guy learns what to do first and then gets a chance to use it rather than being shoved around and swatted back like a 4th grader before having to figure it out on his own.
    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


    • #62
      Re: Filling The Four

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      I've always believed this. I want rookies hitting the floor where they have a chance to succeed, not being constantly smacked in the face with failure all in the name of getting them floor experience.

      So many people undervalue practice against your own team's veterans as a valid way to bring rookies along, thinking that if a guy doesn't see significant floor minutes he's being stunted or wasted. I'd rather a guy learns what to do first and then gets a chance to use it rather than being shoved around and swatted back like a 4th grader before having to figure it out on his own.
      Agreed, the problem with throwing a guy in the wolf den immediately before he is ready is it can cause the player to learn bad habits which are more difficult to break. Sometimes players are ready immediately for big minutes, most of the time it is best to ease them in. Put them in situations where, as you said, they are set up to succeed. At this point it is tough to say how ready he is, but it is extremely unlikely he will be ready to start and he might not even be ready for more than garbage minutes. I trust Vogel to know what he is ready for.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Filling The Four

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        How about Taj Gibson? If you trade Roy wouldn't we have the space to take him in full?
        Who wants Roy?
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Filling The Four

          Having Turner play the 4 and then next year learning the 5 position makes little sense in developing the skills of a 19 year old. I think that would be difficult for any college player.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Filling The Four

            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
            Give me Tyler.

            He is deceptively athletic and brings an edge that cannot be quantified. To heck with his lack of shooting.
            Eh, a shorter pf with poor shooting% and mediocre rebounding... nah.
            He can have benefits at times but, i am not interested in bringing him back.
            He's too limited in my book.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Filling The Four

              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
              What reason is that? What's the similarities between Hibbert and Turner where you can't start him at the 4?

              Obviously, you wouldn't start Ellis at the 4, because of the height difference....duh.
              Well, reason #s 1-15 you don't start is because he's nowhere close to being ready. He's not even ready to be in the rotation yet as a 10th man, let alone a starter. Reason #s 16-30 is because he's too slow laterally to guard a pick and roll (like Hibbert), reason #31 is because he doesn't even know how to guard a pick and roll, and reason #32 is because he can't stretch the floor yet, be on the receiving end of a pick and roll, or score near the hoop yet.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Filling The Four

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                Well, reason #s 1-15 you don't start is because he's nowhere close to being ready. He's not even ready to be in the rotation yet as a 10th man, let alone a starter. Reason #s 16-30 is because he's too slow laterally to guard a pick and roll (like Hibbert), reason #31 is because he doesn't even know how to guard a pick and roll, and reason #32 is because he can't stretch the floor yet, be on the receiving end of a pick and roll, or score near the hoop yet.
                So you are saying we drafted a bum?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Filling The Four

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  Well, reason #s 1-15 you don't start is because he's nowhere close to being ready. He's not even ready to be in the rotation yet as a 10th man, let alone a starter. Reason #s 16-30 is because he's too slow laterally to guard a pick and roll (like Hibbert), reason #31 is because he doesn't even know how to guard a pick and roll, and reason #32 is because he can't stretch the floor yet, be on the receiving end of a pick and roll, or score near the hoop yet.
                  So you are saying you watched all the Texas games last year huh? That's funny cuz he's a better mid range shooter than hibbert ha. Just because he's compared to Hibbert because he isn't an athletic freak doesn't mean he IS Hibbert or some Gump.

                  Hes a good player and you will see around mid way through the season. This dude was a 5 star center who played on a Texas team that values seniority in their line up. He isn't Hibbert just because he's slower than say Jordan.

                  Don't act like you followed him through out his basketball career.

                  I'm not saying he's ready to be our starter but not in the rotation? Please. Haha
                  Why you Grimpin?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Filling The Four

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    Well, reason #s 1-15 you don't start is because he's nowhere close to being ready. He's not even ready to be in the rotation yet as a 10th man, let alone a starter. Reason #s 16-30 is because he's too slow laterally to guard a pick and roll (like Hibbert), reason #31 is because he doesn't even know how to guard a pick and roll, and reason #32 is because he can't stretch the floor yet, be on the receiving end of a pick and roll, or score near the hoop yet.
                    What you are saying here is 100% opposite from what Dan Burke has been saying in videos and articles on Pacers.com this week. He doesn't BS when he praises someone either, so it is well earned. I'll trust him any day.
                    "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Filling The Four

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      Agreed, the problem with throwing a guy in the wolf den immediately before he is ready is it can cause the player to learn bad habits which are more difficult to break. Sometimes players are ready immediately for big minutes, most of the time it is best to ease them in. Put them in situations where, as you said, they are set up to succeed. At this point it is tough to say how ready he is, but it is extremely unlikely he will be ready to start and he might not even be ready for more than garbage minutes. I trust Vogel to know what he is ready for.
                      I disagree. IMO, a trial by fire is the best way to gain experience and growth. An anology that comes to mind: I've worked with guys that studied and obtained many certifications; but, when they first went into the field, they were completely clueless.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Filling The Four

                        What PFs are supposed to be FAs next summer?
                        Smothered Chicken!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Filling The Four

                          Originally posted by pogi View Post
                          I disagree. IMO, a trial by fire is the best way to gain experience and growth. An anology that comes to mind: I've worked with guys that studied and obtained many certifications; but, when they first went into the field, they were completely clueless.
                          I see what you're saying, but you have to go through training to get to that point. I'd rather not throw him out there at 19 and have him be dominated when you can have him more ready to hold his own at least. Obie went too far and kept PG from playing at all basically, but the idea was right imho. I'd like to see some limited minutes in January maybe. It's really hard to say honestly, I think just by maturing the next year he'll get 15% stronger. That will sure help. All I'm saying is I hope people are patient with him.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Filling The Four

                            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                            What you are saying here is 100% opposite from what Dan Burke has been saying in videos and articles on Pacers.com this week. He doesn't BS when he praises someone either, so it is well earned. I'll trust him any day.
                            In the video, Dan Burke says he has his PNR defense backwards. Then he says he's unsure if he's ready to contribute right away, both of which fit what I said above.
                            Last edited by imawhat; 07-03-2015, 11:46 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Filling The Four

                              Originally posted by KingGeorge_24 View Post
                              So you are saying you watched all the Texas games last year huh? That's funny cuz he's a better mid range shooter than hibbert ha. Just because he's compared to Hibbert because he isn't an athletic freak doesn't mean he IS Hibbert or some Gump.

                              Hes a good player and you will see around mid way through the season. This dude was a 5 star center who played on a Texas team that values seniority in their line up. He isn't Hibbert just because he's slower than say Jordan.

                              Don't act like you followed him through out his basketball career.

                              I'm not saying he's ready to be our starter but not in the rotation? Please. Haha
                              I think he has a great midrange shot. It's the most NBA ready part of his game.

                              That has nothing to do with why he shouldn't be starting at PF.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Filling The Four

                                Originally posted by pogi View Post
                                I disagree. IMO, a trial by fire is the best way to gain experience and growth. An anology that comes to mind: I've worked with guys that studied and obtained many certifications; but, when they first went into the field, they were completely clueless.
                                How much more clueless would they have been if they never had that training? How much slower would they have picked up on everything if they never had that training? How many bad habits would they pick up without that training to warn them against those bad habits? Yes, theoretical training does not adequately prepare you to be a master from the very beginning. What it does do is put you in the best position to learn, grow, and avoid bad habits when you do get thrown in with the wolves.

                                There is a reason why every course makes you do theoretical studies before you jump in and do the practical. New surgeon students don't jump right into surgery the first day of school. They study how to do surgeries, then they practice on cadavers, and slowly build up to doing full blown surgeries on real people.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X