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

Grade the Pacers offseason

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

  • #31
    Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

    I don't know. imawhat makes a lot of points I agree with. I fear our defense won't be any good and our offense won't be nearly good enough to offset our poor defense. But then I realize the team was where it was and West was leaving and Hibbert likely had to leave.

    So maybe we did the best we could.

    I don't think anyone really knows how this team will play together and that is always the great unknown

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

      I know that if the plan is to play Hill, Ellis, Miles (or Budinger), and George together most of the time, which seems like it must be the case, I'd much rather have Hibbert behind them than have Jordan Hill back there.

      We basically traded Hibbert for Jordan Hill and Rodney Stuckey. To me, that is a loss.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

        You can say what you want about the players who were brought in this year, but the Pacers replaced their three worst starters from a year ago (West, Solomon Hill and Hibbert), one of which I just don't think is that good (Hill), one of which was really old and lazy (West) and one of which hated being here and had a negative impact on the court and in the locker room (Hibbert). On top of that he has let go of the only other bad player to play over 1,000 minutes (Sloan).

        We still have Hill, but three of the four worst players who played over 1,000 minutes last year are gone. I, for one, am pretty excited about it. I was sick of watching West not even try to box out on rebounds and walk up and down the court, and I was sick of watching the emotional train-wreck of Hibbert. I'll miss who they were 2 years ago, but based on last year, good riddance.

        (For reference, the best players comments is based upon the on-court/off-court stats. Solo Hill, Hibbert, West, Watson, Sloan, or Cope definitely seemed to hurt the cause.)
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

          B-. Pieces don't fit together, as they share all the same qualities even if they do it at different levels. Swap out one or two of the wings for a quality starting big man, either 4 or 5, and it would have been a A.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            I know that if the plan is to play Hill, Ellis, Miles (or Budinger), and George together most of the time, which seems like it must be the case, I'd much rather have Hibbert behind them than have Jordan Hill back there.

            We basically traded Hibbert for Jordan Hill and Rodney Stuckey. To me, that is a loss.
            I'm just glad the Incredible Sulk is gone. To me it's a win. Hibbert's place on this team has been untenable for well over a year. He needs to find stability and happiness somewhere, and it wasn't going to be rediscovered in Indy. The coaches and FO gave him every opportunity, but he wasn't going to overcome whatever personal demon's still haunt him in Indy. Better to get Hill and Stuckey than have the net negative that is constant unhappiness.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              B-. Pieces don't fit together, as they share all the same qualities even if they do it at different levels. Swap out one or two of the wings for a quality starting big man, either 4 or 5, and it would have been a A.
              Believe it or not I actually agree with this statement. I am amazed that they were able to pull together quality of players they were for the prices they got but in the end I do wonder if they fit together. I have absolute faith in Frank Vogel to make them fit but it may be a bumpy ride.

              A lot of this kind of hinges on Turner, which we should never hold our breath on a rookie big man but man does he ever look like he has the tools to be a special player.


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

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                I gave the off season moves a B simply because of the speed and determination shown after West's opt-out got the ball rolling on a rebuild. I think that was the only hitch that LB could have foreseen. I West opted in, Bird would have had to trade him first or at the same time he was shopping Roy.
                This season's change in personnel caused me to up the grade from the C or C- I really felt the roster deserved. However, the announcement of a change of direction and the speed of the change signals good things, IMO.
                This group or what is left of it as the core probably needs at least 2 years to get back to real competitive speed. We'll see.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                  A+
                  It felt like I was in Larry's seat making the decisions.

                  Monta Ellis: have wanted him for years, in exchange for Granger for example; is a great fit next to Hill
                  Stuckey: one of the best players av, very likeable guy
                  Jordan Hill: thé best FA big and thé best fit for our team (the LMA's off this league cost too much and aren't keen on playing here)
                  Christmas: huge believer in this one
                  Young: strong believer in this one
                  Turner: great upside, got my preference over WCS and Kaminsky
                  Budinger: like him a lot, dumped a terrible allround player in the process
                  Lavoy Allen: very glad to have him back
                  Paul George at the 4: splendid idea
                  Mahinmi: keeping him around to secure some rim protection
                  Solomon: keeping him on the team, think he will have a good year
                  Roy Hibbert: no more watching paint dry offense and no more teammates up against 2 players outside the painted area defensively
                  David West: as much as I like the guy, he could barely keep up in a much slower pace
                  GR3: great allround player, just the way I like them
                  Whittington: deserves at least another year, so glad to see him return
                  Scola: never liked him and I never will like him, way too short for a big

                  So generally speaking, I like all our acquisitions and contracts, I like all our losses and I certainly like the way we are going to play. Can't think of anything I would have done differently after the season ending press conference.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    This was not a good offseason, imo.
                    I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are, but I'm much closer to your point of view than others

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    -We lost our leader, and we also traded our defensive anchor.
                    West checked out a while ago. While I agree he was the leader, he wasn't doing a very good job in terms of leading. It sucks that we lost Hibbert due to the defensive sieves we picked up in the off season, but it was clear he had to go. Unfortunately.

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    -We made a good effort to get "faster", but didn't address the areas that make "faster" work. We signed poor defenders (Ellis/Jordan Hill/Budinger), we didn't improve floor spacing/shooting, and we still don't have a player that creates easy shots for others.
                    Hit the nail on the head here. We could have used another shooting threat from the perimeter, whether it was a wing or a combo forward. Trading for Budinger definitely feels like a "move to make a move" type of situation. He's not a good shooter, he's not a stretch 4 (contrary to what many seem to think due to 5 good games). He's a wing that moves well without the ball, and can slash/finish at the rim, but can't stay healthy enough to do so for an entire season. Jordan Hill was about the worst big man we could have signed in terms of fit. He can score around the rim some and rebound the ball fairly well, but he is terrible defensively. I initially liked the Ellis trade A LOT because I felt G.Hill could play off the ball with Ellis, but play with the ball with Ellis on the bench. Perfect situation. Until...

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    We signed Ellis and re-signed Stuckey, two ball-dominant guards. In a vacuum Ellis was nice (financially), but re-signing Stuckey guarantees that one (or more) of Hill/Ellis/Stuckey will have the ball in their hands less, and therefore will be less effective.
                    The we re-signed Stuckey. I actually like both players. Both guys can get to the rim and can get their own shots. Stuckey was an absolute vet last year, and Ellis has an explosiveness about his game that we've never had from the backcourt spot before. But having them both on the team is going to be tough. It all boils down to yet another role change for G.Hill. He is going to have to play off the ball basically anytime he's on the floor. It's a sacrifice he has to make in order for Stuckey and Ellis to thrive. I'm nervous that moving him off the ball will only make him a shell of the player we saw last season. That would truly be a shame.

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    -We replaced a premiere rim defender with the worst rim defender from a team with the 5th worst rim defense.
                    Say that again. Luckily we have Ian, but I'm unsure how much he is going to play. Lavoy isn't a rim protector, and we don't know what to expect from Turner (though some seem to believe he'll somehow be a starter next year). Many also feel that rim protection is overrated. We will soon see how important it truly is.


                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    The way I see it, it looks like we made changes just to say we made changes. I don't see how the pieces fit together, and I genuinely believe the playoffs may not happen for us.
                    Again, I'm not as pessimistic. I believe in the talent of PG and Ellis. I think we are definitely a playoff team, but are probably closer to 6th-ish than 4th-ish. This will definitely be a "building" year. Hopefully we are able to build towards something that's substantial.


                    All in all I give our offseason a B- for doing pretty decent given the cards we were dealt (uncertainty about West opting out, Roy's trade value, who was available by the time we actually had cap space) but for doing somewhat poorly with the balance of the roster (a bunch of combo guards, no stretch 4's, and a bunch of young bigs). Swap Stuckey or Chase with a legit starting big man, and we are definitely in good shape.
                    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-29-2015, 12:35 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                      It kind of feels like we tore down one part of the team to build up another. We got better in the back court, worse up front. That is my rationale for giving us a C.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                        I gave it a C-, I guess I'm a harsh grader. Without getting down to the minutiae of the whole thing, the bottom line to me is that I think our team got worse this offseason. Circumstances dictated that a bit (it's pretty clear Hibbert had to go; and West was the other big domino that led us down the path we went).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                          Incomplete is probably the correct answer. This roster is an unbalanced mess with some tradeable assets.

                          The reality is that there is so much unproven with this team. We don't know what to expect.

                          We haven't seen Vogel coach in this style. (Although we have seen his predecessor coach this style and that was awful.)

                          We haven't seen Turner play a minute of NBA ball.

                          We haven't seen how to use GHill, Stuckey, and Chuck Ellis in a way that isn't redundant.

                          We haven't seen how bad the new defense will be, nor can we calculate how much additional offense is required to overcome the new defensive weaknesses.

                          We haven't seen if PG is 100% in a game.

                          We haven't seen if PG is ready to spend most of his time at PF, but considering this roster he's going to need to.

                          We haven't seen how PG's all-world wing defense will translate to defending the 4.

                          Some of these can be positive, but I think a lot of the high grades are just assuming these questions, and more, will be easy.

                          I don't see it that way.

                          I'm glad this team has some tradable assets, because this feels more like a rough draft than a finished product.

                          As I said in April, it will be a major rebuild. I understand why they are doing that, I just think its a shame the way they went about it.

                          Looking down the road, I still think a team of

                          TBD
                          Hill
                          George
                          Draft Pick
                          Turner

                          can be pretty exciting some day.

                          But it is going to take patience.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                            How much consideration do we give to the fact we have a healthy PG? Obviously that isn't a front office move or anything like that, but we will be a heck of a lot better for it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                              Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                              How much consideration do we give to the fact we have a healthy PG? Obviously that isn't a front office move or anything like that, but we will be a heck of a lot better for it.
                              depends what you consider "healthy."

                              He's going to play, but what percentage of the previous guy are you getting back? Bird has seen him way more than anyone and he's trying to move him to power forward "so he doesn't have to chase guys around as much."

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                depends what you consider "healthy."

                                He's going to play, but what percentage of the previous guy are you getting back? Bird has seen him way more than anyone and he's trying to move him to power forward.
                                Yeah, no clue how PG will respond. But just having him back in the state he was in last season is a HUGE improvement over what we have.

                                He doesn't have to be 2013 Paul George to be a big step in the right direction.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X