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

Brad Miller

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

  • #31
    Re: Brad Miller

    There you go, having to bring in legit basketball discussion to a perfectly derailed post.

    However everything you said is 100% true.
    House Name: Pacers

    House Sigil:



    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Brad Miller

      Originally posted by Diamond Dave
      Because certain member of this board have been known to be hypocritical and homerish. If Jeff Foster was traded today their would be a segment who next year would be telling how limited Foster was on offense and that he couldn't guard a motivated Bryant Reeves. Just like when Brad left all of the sudden he was now a horrible defender.




      And what has that got to do with Austin Corshere ??

      I would rather be the hammer than the nail

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Brad Miller

        Originally posted by PacerMan
        He was the perfect complement to JO's low post game. He pulled the center out to the free throw line or he'd bury 17'ers all night. That let JO go one on one against FOUR'S. That's a dominant mismatch.
        It was a HUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE mistake to lose him. ANd they know it. But we've moved on and built in other directions.
        Now we'll hope that Hulk becomes the post guy and Jermaine moves more mid range outside. But against 4's out there he has no advantage.....
        When Brad can make it through an entire season without breaking down and be a contributing factor when it matters most, then you might be able to argue it was a mistake. Until then, it was unequivocally the right decision.

        Dammit! I was going to stay out of this or keep it light with astronaut jokes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Brad Miller

          Well, permit me to offer you a solution.

          Kurt Thomas.

          Yes - THAT Kurt Thomas. Old Crazy Eyes himself.

          Can shoot from 18 feet. Great post defender. Solid rebounder. Gets flagrant fouls - pretty decent Shaq-defense.

          And if he comes to Indiana maybe his eyes will even line up with each other.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Brad Miller

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
            Well, permit me to offer you a solution.

            Kurt Thomas.

            Yes - THAT Kurt Thomas. Old Crazy Eyes himself.

            Can shoot from 18 feet. Great post defender. Solid rebounder. Gets flagrant fouls - pretty decent Shaq-defense.

            And if he comes to Indiana maybe his eyes will even line up with each other.
            Croshere, Bender, and Pollard for Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas, and your pick. You know you want to.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Brad Miller

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
              Well, permit me to offer you a solution.

              Kurt Thomas.

              Yes - THAT Kurt Thomas. Old Crazy Eyes himself.

              Can shoot from 18 feet. Great post defender. Solid rebounder. Gets flagrant fouls - pretty decent Shaq-defense.

              And if he comes to Indiana maybe his eyes will even line up with each other.
              I'd take Kurt Thomas in a heartbeat.
              House Name: Pacers

              House Sigil:



              House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Brad Miller

                Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                I'd take Kurt Thomas in a heartbeat.
                If we were gonna be in contention at any time in the next three years I'd be first in the drive to keep him. He's the lunch-pail kind of guy, like Dale Davis, Horace Grant, etc., every team needs.

                We won't be. Might as well deal him for something - not sure what Indy has that I'd want though.

                Same holds true for a bunch of other teams - we should be able to deal him to a contender for some decent young talent.
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Brad Miller

                  I take it you are implying Kurt Thomas for Ron Artest? That's a disgusting proposition. I like KT, but ehm I rather take the risk with Ron .

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Brad Miller

                    Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
                    And what has that got to do with Austin Corshere ??

                    There is a good chance I'm not understanding what you're meaning here, but if your point was to ask how anything I said about comparing Brad means anything to our players then I'll answer.

                    It is hypocritical to judge an opposing player's weakness while defending the same weakness of a player on your team. Which I believe for every supposed weakness that is listed for Brad, although that list seems to keep on growing despite his success, can be compared to one of our players yet the same people who would defend the Pacer would critique Brad.

                    Brad is too injury prone= Jamaal, Jermaine,

                    Brad is overpayed = , Austin, Jermaine (thats right I said it)

                    Brad is lazy = Jamaal, David Harrison (possibly)

                    Brad can't play defense= Reggie Miller

                    Brad is undersized = Fred Jones

                    Brad is not athletic = Anthony Johnson, Scot Pollard, Reggie Miller

                    However, we don't need a Brad Miller debate. The line in the sand has been drawn and everyone is on their respective sides. No one is switching either.
                    House Name: Pacers

                    House Sigil:



                    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Brad Miller

                      Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
                      I am not picking on you Peck but why do so many posters argue by comparison. This was a Brad Miller thread, redundant that it may be, so why are we talking about JO and JT.

                      Can we not criticise someone without introducing others for comparison. What you said about JO and JT is true but what was said about Brad was true.

                      Now, what am I saying ? Hell, I don't know either but the constant comparison thing just bothers me.

                      Rant over and now back to your previously scheduled program.


                      Pretty simple answer to this really. Just look at Bulletproof's answer just above here. He is saying that because Brad breaks down or is injured by the time the playoffs run around that it is the reason to make the trade. He is listing this as the # 1 reason to make the trade in the post he just made. He didn't mention salary, ability, etc. He just mentioned injury's.

                      It's called a standard. If you have a standard you are using to judge something then it has to be used to judge other things as well, even if they are not judged the same.

                      So hence, when people say "Brad always breaks down by the playoffs" I feel the need to ask why is he the only one who is held to this standard? Why do we not ask the same of Jamaal or for that matter why do we not ask the same of Jermaine?

                      If you are using the standard that Brad is injured all of the time why the heck does it not apply to Jamaal, Jermaine & for God's sake Jon Bender?


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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Brad Miller

                        Originally posted by Mourning
                        I take it you are implying Kurt Thomas for Ron Artest? That's a disgusting proposition. I like KT, but ehm I rather take the risk with Ron .

                        Regards,

                        Mourning
                        Don't want Ron.

                        His potential negatives are less for us than some because we suck. It's not like he'd, say, turn a Championship contender into an also-ran that gets eliminated in the 2nd rd of the playoffs. But what's the benefit? So we can go from 33 to 39 wins and he can be such a wonderful example to our young players?

                        Sorry. Keep him.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Brad Miller

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          So hence, when people say "Brad always breaks down by the playoffs" I feel the need to ask why is he the only one who is held to this standard?
                          Do people "say" that, are they making it up, or does it actually happen?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Brad Miller

                            Honestly, I never hear that outside of this forum.

                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Brad Miller

                              Which I believe for every supposed weakness that is listed for Brad, although that list seems to keep on growing despite his success, can be compared to one of our players yet the same people who would defend the Pacer would critique Brad.
                              David, this was not one of your better posts.
                              Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                              Brad is too injury prone= Jamaal, Jermaine,
                              The complaint is that he doesn't work on his conditioning over the summer. Jermaine and Jamaal both do. Non-issue.
                              Brad is overpayed = , Austin, Jermaine (thats I said it)
                              I actually didn't think Brad's contract was out of line, but I don't see what you're trying to prove here. You think Austin gets a pass for being overpaid? His salary drives everybody on the board crazy except your father. And if Jermaine's not worth the max, then very few players in the league are. And he'd be playing next to Tim Duncan right now, because the Spurs sure thought he was. Even Brad said the amount of money Sacto paid was beyond belief.
                              Brad is lazy = Jamaal, David Harrison (possibly)
                              Neither of those guys are lazy. You're stretching way to far to try to prove your point. I'll pretend you didn't say this, but if you want to try to defend this point I'd be glad to prove you wrong.
                              Brad can't play defense= Reggie Miller
                              Reggie's never been given a pass for playing poor defense. Historically, it's been one of the main complaints against the guy. I actually don't think Brad's defense is that bad against post players, but the man can't move his feet or jump to save his life. Even he admits that.
                              Brad is undersized = Fred Jones
                              I read every thread on this forum. I've never heard anyone say this. He's 7 feet tall, that's not undersized. Freddy, however, is undersized. Because of that, he'll have a hard time becoming a permanent starter for any team, despite his athletic abilities and long wingspan.
                              Brad is not athletic = Anthony Johnson, Scot Pollard, Reggie Miller.
                              Again, I've never seen anyone complain that Brad wasn't athletic. In fact, it's usually it's a point of pride for the people that back him. "He's not athletic, but he gets it done!"

                              You pushed way to hard to try to make this point.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Brad Miller

                                Originally posted by Harmonica
                                Do people "say" that, are they making it up, or does it actually happen?
                                I don't know. How many games in the playoffs did he play? How many did Bender play?


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X