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

Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

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

  • #31
    Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

    Originally posted by Bball
    I would be shocked... shocked... shocked... to see the Pacers get anyone but a veteran for the starting PG role or first off the bench.

    -Bball
    But what veterans are worth trading Tinsley for, that are available?

    There aren't many.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

      Originally posted by SoupIsGood
      But what veterans are worth trading Tinsley for, that are available?

      There aren't many.
      Did you not read the post I made just before the one you are replying to? Maybe the Pacers really are interested in this guy:

      http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=11775
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

        I read that.

        That player will never move Tinsley to the bench, and would be considered a rookie coming into the league, anyway.

        So, once again: What available veterans are worth trading/benching Tinsley for?
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

          i could see where larry would like Jasikevicius...he strikes me as a bird kinda player....all around game and can shoot...larry loves guys that can shoot....and this team is probably lacking outside shooting as much as anything....

          as far as who might be available....i cant help but wonder about guys like stoudamire, van exel, mobley....i have my doubts as to whether any of these guys would be the answer, but for the most part theyre considered decent shooters...they also seem to have issues, but who knows...

          once we get into this speculation mode....well...seems like anything can be twisted around to meet ones desired effect....

          kidd is always brought up....and ive never really felt like he was a good fit here....not as good as some have made him out to be...but with reggie now gone...that might be a bit different....this team definitely needs some veteran leadership....i think dale would will take over some of that...but i wonder if theyre thinking at all about someone like kidd or payton...id could see them going to an older guy like that for a couple years and then maybe trying to get one of the many point guards in the draft to groom for the future-if they have their doubts about tinsley-which im not sure they do-nor do i....but i do wonder if they like his leadership abilities out of that position....

          and i have a feeling that new jersey isnt gonna be to helpful when it comes to trading kidd to the pacers...even if he wanted to come here-which, although we definitely are title contenders, i dont think indy is jasons kind of place....

          i assume the pacers wouldnt trade artest and jo in any scenario barring a garnett deal....so im not sure of any trade that begins with tins(byc) and anyone else would excite jersey at all...though i could see them somewhat being interested in tinsley if they had to give up kidd...as tins is kinda a poor mans jason kidd...he distributes the ball first and has great court vision and an average at best outside shot....

          again...all this is speculation...just throwing thoughts out there...also wonder about guys like McInnis, brevin knight, bobby jackson, jason williams, jay williams, sam cassell, antonio daniels....

          and as i type this, i find myself wondering....are any of these really viable scenarios for making the team better?? after all the pacers did just sign both tinsley and johnson to fairly long term deals....who knows...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

            BYC... long term deals... etc...
            Don't let that stuff distract you. IF Donnie Walsh WANTS to move a player he will find a way to do it IF that player has any trade value at all.

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

            ------

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

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

              Seriously...what about Marbury?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                Originally posted by cramerica
                Seriously...what about Marbury?
                Starbury??????? cmonnnnn.....

                actually hes a great talent....seems to have a serious attitude problem....seems to become very discontent....remember, he chose to leave kg-that is very hard to imagine....

                he rarely plays defense....i think the term cancer gets thrown around way too much...but he seems to have a number of issues wherever he ends up....he is a helluva weapon though....not really sure how he would fit in with this team....and i have serious concerns about how he would get along with carlisle and his tendency towards structure....

                he makes alot of money....and i find the concept of isiah doing a deal with bird a little hard to fathom....and isiah would want artest....ive said before the knicks would love to get artest...but im really not sure of anyone on their team id want in return....

                if they wanna take bender and croshere for marbury, then fine...or even pollard and one of the other 2....but not even zeke would do that...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                  The only PGs that would be worth trading Tinsley for are Hinrich, Ridnour, Arenas, Nash, or Kidd. None of those would happen anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                    Ok if we get Starbury I will not be able to watch the Pacers any more. With Reggie retired and Steph on the team there would just be nothing for me to watch.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                      Give Tins a break. He has to improve on the maturity front. He has this street ball ego thing on some plays and that definitely hurts. But to give up on some one so soon would be disaster later. He is the one who got us into the second round and made us take Detroit to 6.

                      When his head is fine, he is top 5pg in the league. We don't know if he will be that way consistently. To find out I am willing to wait another year. Then he won't be a base year player and his salary is reasonable for other teams to bite on a trade.
                      ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                        Originally posted by Ragnar
                        Ok if we get Starbury I will not be able to watch the Pacers any more. With Reggie retired and Steph on the team there would just be nothing for me to watch.
                        If you could find a coach who'd get Marbury to play defense and cut down on his outside shots you'd have an absolute monster player on your hand because he's very good at running an offense.

                        I don't know if that coach is out there. If he is, it's probably either Rick Carlisle or Larry Brown. I'm hoping Herb Williams is but I have my doubts.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                          Originally posted by Ragnar
                          Good point he will be base year this year.

                          Hey if we trade Pollard and Jones for a top notch PG AND keep Jamaal I would be happy as could be. I want us to have 2 good point guards not just one.
                          That or getting that 2nd "good" point guard via trading up in the draft is exactly what I hope we'll do. Playing a draftee at a veteran team does bring major risks on the short term though. On the other hand on the longer term, 2 years and up, it might very well be the best thing to do. I haven't really decided this issue for myself yet.

                          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


                          • #43
                            Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                            Originally posted by Mourning
                            That or getting that 2nd "good" point guard via trading up in the draft is exactly what I hope we'll do. Playing a draftee at a veteran team does bring major risks on the short term though. On the other hand on the longer term, 2 years and up, it might very well be the best thing to do. I haven't really decided this issue for myself yet.

                            Regards,

                            Mourning
                            call me crazy, but i have a hard time picturing rick playing a rookie point guard much....remember...tinsley was the third guard behind kenny anderson and aj at the beginning of last year...given ricks propensity to not play young players, im fraid a rookie will sit most of the time...that why i was kinda hoping that we draft a point guard with our pick, but more to be the 3rd guard as i have a feeling that would be the best that rick would allow....and theres a ton of depth in this draft at pg...i think the jack kid has been mentioned and might be an interesting pick...dunno...i just cant see rick playing a rookie pg much....then the question becomes do u use a draft pick on a pg that really probably doesnt have much of a future here

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                              Originally posted by foretaz
                              call me crazy, but i have a hard time picturing rick playing a rookie point guard much....remember...tinsley was the third guard behind kenny anderson and aj at the beginning of last year...given ricks propensity to not play young players, im fraid a rookie will sit most of the time...that why i was kinda hoping that we draft a point guard with our pick, but more to be the 3rd guard as i have a feeling that would be the best that rick would allow....and theres a ton of depth in this draft at pg...i think the jack kid has been mentioned and might be an interesting pick...dunno...i just cant see rick playing a rookie pg much....then the question becomes do u use a draft pick on a pg that really probably doesnt have much of a future here
                              I aggree on doubting that Rick would play that PG pick a lot of minutes in his first year. I mentioned that too on another thread around here by Peck that deals with our point guard position. That's why it might be CRUCIAL to deal AJ so Rick HAS to play this new player. However, that brings the real risk of Tins playing in what I consider too many minutes again and thus bringing into danger his durability again as I want Tins to be playing between 28 and 32 minutes a game. So, maybe Larry and/or Doony should apply some pressure on Rick on this.

                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Montieth: Pacers need to upgrade point guard position

                                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                                If you could find a coach who'd get Marbury to play defense and cut down on his outside shots you'd have an absolute monster player on your hand because he's very good at running an offense.

                                I don't know if that coach is out there. If he is, it's probably either Rick Carlisle or Larry Brown. I'm hoping Herb Williams is but I have my doubts.
                                I agree.

                                But that is one risk I don't want the Pacers taking.

                                What about Crawford, DK? How's he at PG?
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X