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

[ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

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

  • #31
    Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

    Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
    I don't think so.

    Our advantage last year was while PG was carrying the load offensively, we had guys like George Hill, Solomon Hill, and Ian Mahinmi busting their butt defensively as well. We don't have those guys now and I think we will struggle to defend teams to the same degree as we did in the playoffs last year.

    However, for arguments sake, lets say we do upset a team. Its highly unlikely we upset two teams and there is no chance in hell we get by the Cavs. We are the definition of a treadmill team right now and we are not a realistic piece or two away from changing that.

    I've said this before, but I'll say it again. If this were a game of poker, we are holding an Ace High. Sure, the Ace is great, but if he doesn't have other good cards around him, he is worthless. The Cavs have a Royal Flush, the Raptors have a Full House, the Celtics have a straight, and so on.

    We've lost. Time to fold the hand and hope we can get some better cards around Turner, who may turn into an Ace himself someday.
    If you're point is correct - wouldn't you rather have that Ace for the next 5 hands, knowing that you have another Ace coming up within the next 3 hands and key pieces around them already in place? PG is 26 and Myles is 21. It's not like they are 32 and 21.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

      Agree 100℅. George is a different beast in the playoffs.

      Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

        Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
        If you're point is correct - wouldn't you rather have that Ace for the next 5 hands, knowing that you have another Ace coming up within the next 3 hands and key pieces around them already in place? PG is 26 and Myles is 21. It's not like they are 32 and 21.
        Not when that Ace has checked out. "I wanna go be apart of a Royal Flush.", "I'm not having fun.", "I'm mad about not being included in picking the other cards to go with me.", etc.

        If his comments didn't make it pretty clear he isn't happy, his demeanor on the court has.

        Even then though, I think Turner is a good 4 years away from really being that player PG would need next to him to compete. However, we are starting from scratch at every other position too. In 4 years, none of the members from this team should be on the roster, outside of maybe GRIII. Paul George isn't going to be okay with a full rebuild(which is desperately needed), and even then, it takes a lot of time to really find the right pieces to compete for a Championship. We don't have the advantage of just signing another All-Star and competing. We mostly have to build through the draft and trades. Problem is, we don't have any valuable young assets(outside of Turner) to trade and we are going to be picking in the middle of the pack. You can certainly find good players there, but the odds are much more slim. By the time we actually got that team together, Paul George will be declining. He'll likely still be a very good player, but the window would shut more and more each season. I just don't view it as realistic that we could compete for a Championship with him. Not his fault, but its just where our team is right now.
        Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 03-03-2017, 02:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
          How about the fact that Paul George's man typically shoots better against him than their season average? Does this count?
          Sure it counts. Defense is a tricky thing to measure though. Yes, opponents shoot better but it could be explained by the fact that PG has to help more. Is that the explanation? IDK. But individual defense is hard to measure because it's so dependent on the team. We can look also look at on/off numbers. Last year the team was 1.5 worse defensively (opponent offrtg) with him off the floor. This year it's 1.1 worse.

          Or we can look at 82games counterpart production and see things like he's giving up 19.9pts to his offensive counterpart this season and 20.1 this season (at the SF position).


          This is what I mean about looking at all the information and not just the one side of it. When judging defense, hell anything for that matter, it's best to gather as much information as possible.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Sure it counts. Defense is a tricky thing to measure though. Yes, opponents shoot better but it could be explained by the fact that PG has to help more. Is that the explanation? IDK. But individual defense is hard to measure because it's so dependent on the team. We can look also look at on/off numbers. Last year the team was 1.5 worse defensively (opponent offrtg) with him off the floor. This year it's 1.1 worse.

            Or we can look at 82games counterpart production and see things like he's giving up 19.9pts to his offensive counterpart this season and 20.1 this season (at the SF position).


            This is what I mean about looking at all the information and not just the one side of it. When judging defense, hell anything for that matter, it's best to gather as much information as possible.
            I'm aware defense is more difficult to measure in stats. However, its easy to use the eye test to see he has not been remotely close to as good as he used to be.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

              Well my eye test tells me he is, so if the eye test is the deciding factor where do we go?
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Well my eye test tells me he is, so if the eye test is the deciding factor where do we go?
                I think at that point you're just a lost cause. ;-)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                  When he wants to be, he's the same A+ defender he's always been. It's just effort.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                    Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                    That's fair. I fully agree with you we need a better leader. David West was kind of that guy before. Do you think there's any chance because we have a guy like PG getting the 6 or 7 seed that we knock off the Celtics or Wiz and make the ECF? Or no chance? Because as long as there is a chance of that happening that's what matters. And in my eyes and seems like yours too, Playoff PG gives us that chance.
                    If our bench keeps clicking the way it is, we can make some noise in the playoffs if PG steps up and the starting unit can build or hold a lead. Right now, our bench is keeping us in games (god, when is the last time you can say that about a Pacers's bench?)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                      Wasn't Reggie Miller always judged by playoff performance? Didn't Reggie complain too much to refs?

                      Trading PG would be a massive mistake. Pacers will go 10 years trying to find someone as good as him.

                      Great that so many of you seem to know that PG doesn't want to be here, and that so many of you know he will bolt in free agency. Wonder if you can go to Vegas and put your money where your mouth is.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Wasn't Reggie Miller always judged by playoff performance? Didn't Reggie complain too much to refs?

                        Trading PG would be a massive mistake. Pacers will go 10 years trying to find someone as good as him.

                        Great that so many of you seem to know that PG doesn't want to be here, and that so many of you know he will bolt in free agency. Wonder if you can go to Vegas and put your money where your mouth is.
                        I see the word "think" everywhere except in this post.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Wasn't Reggie Miller always judged by playoff performance? Didn't Reggie complain too much to refs?

                          Trading PG would be a massive mistake. Pacers will go 10 years trying to find someone as good as him.

                          Great that so many of you seem to know that PG doesn't want to be here, and that so many of you know he will bolt in free agency. Wonder if you can go to Vegas and put your money where your mouth is.
                          Are you going to go put money on him staying?

                          If not, you really shouldn't be telling others to put their money where their mouth is.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Wasn't Reggie Miller always judged by playoff performance? Didn't Reggie complain too much to refs?

                            Trading PG would be a massive mistake. Pacers will go 10 years trying to find someone as good as him.

                            Great that so many of you seem to know that PG doesn't want to be here, and that so many of you know he will bolt in free agency. Wonder if you can go to Vegas and put your money where your mouth is.
                            **** Vegas, what do you want to bet me?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                              Are you going to go put money on him staying?

                              If not, you really shouldn't be telling others to put their money where their mouth is.
                              No, because I have never said he is staying and I have never said he is leaving. I have said No one knows, and I don't think PG knows either.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: [ESPN] Zach Lowe on Paul George

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                No, because I have never said he is staying and I have never said he is leaving. I have said No one knows, and I don't think PG knows either.
                                Well then, **** us for having opinions, right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X