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

Looking ahead part 1......

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

  • #46
    Re: Looking ahead part 1......

    BTW, this is one thing I should have added in my first post on this but forgot.

    One of the biggest complaints I have with the stand pat people, in general, is that they very seldom take into consideration other teams making significant moves to get better.

    I'll just give you one small off the wall scenario & in fact it may not be that off of the wall. Next season let's say that Michael Redd signs with the Cavs. & Phil Jackson comes on board to coach. Does anybody here still think that our best three (Artest, Jackson & O'neal) is significantly better than thier best three (James, Redd & Gooden)?

    Even if you do, don't you at least think that this puts the Cavs. a lot closer to us than they already are?

    The Bulls scare the crap out of me. IMO, even if they stand pat they may be better than we are right now.

    I understand people's thoughts about not making change for the sake of change, but I just don't agree. Sometimes a fresh perspective is needed & sometimes a change just for the sake of it is helpfull.


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

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Looking ahead part 1......

      Which is why I can't understand people thinking we could challenge the Bulls 71 win season. Miami couldn't do it with Shaq, Detroit hasn't done it, Phoenix didn't do it and San Antonio hasn't. We aren't any better than those teams.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Looking ahead part 1......

        I would not be against trading anyone on the team. I'm also not against bringing everyone back and seeing what we have.

        It seems everyone has somewhat of a love / hate relationship with Jamal. He is exactly what this team needs (as constructed) when he is healthy and under control. Our offense is so fragile that he is IMO our most important player. Scary thought when he only plays "the right way" for 1/3 a season.

        My main concern is that trading Jamal would also require other moves - I don't see a better playmaker available and that is what our offence (as constructed) needs. Lets say you trade Jamal for a Jason Terry - shoot first - type guard. There is know way Terry, Jackson, Artest, and JO can coexist. Again I'm not against making moves but it is hard to grasp with so many unknowns. Now I could live with Terry, Jackson, Posey, and Oneal.

        I guess I think moving Tinsley means you have to move Artest. Or I suppose Jackson but I'm more inclined to keep him than almost anyone else. Moving Oneal is a seperate issue - regardless of what moves you make we need at least 1 post player that will demand the ball.

        Which lineup is better (or more suited for Detroit): Tinsley, Jax, Artest, and Oneal or Antonio Daniels, Jax, Odom, and Oneal. I assume either Dale, Jeff, or possibly Harrison at the 5 (take your pick). With Carlisle's offensive and defensive schemes, I think I like the latter.

        The short version: If we trade Jamal we must make other moves. Not that thats a bad thing.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Looking ahead part 1......

          Originally posted by Peck
          One of the biggest complaints I have with the stand pat people, in general, is that they very seldom take into consideration other teams making significant moves to get better.

          Next season let's say that Michael Redd signs with the Cavs. & Phil Jackson comes on board to coach. Does anybody here still think that our best three (Artest, Jackson & O'neal) is significantly better than thier best three (James, Redd & Gooden)?

          Even if you do, don't you at least think that this puts the Cavs. a lot closer to us than they already are?

          The Bulls scare the crap out of me. IMO, even if they stand pat they may be better than we are right now.

          I understand people's thoughts about not making change for the sake of change, but I just don't agree. Sometimes a fresh perspective is needed & sometimes a change just for the sake of it is helpfull.
          I know my post sounded like a stand pat! Which it wasn't. I believe we can get a good player in the draft and I believe Artest will be around for the whole year. I am not against making a trade we need to improve the Center position which is our weakness IMHO: Croshere,Pollard,JO,DD and Foster are all power forwards. We need a true Center!

          Another thought Croshere needs to quit shooting the 3, he was a better shooter the first 3-4 yrs in the league. Maybe we can get the knicks to take him they love big contracts.
          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Looking ahead part 1......

            Originally posted by aceace
            I know my post sounded like a stand pat! Which it wasn't. I believe we can get a good player in the draft and I believe Artest will be around for the whole year. I am not against making a trade we need to improve the Center position which is our weakness IMHO: Croshere,Pollard,JO,DD and Foster are all power forwards. We need a true Center!

            Another thought Croshere needs to quit shooting the 3, he was a better shooter the first 3-4 yrs in the league. Maybe we can get the knicks to take him they love big contracts.
            Sorry bout that BB/SG, we both posted close to the same time. My comment wasn't meant to be about your post. It just looked that way.


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

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Looking ahead part 1......

              I am looking forward to the summer - I am a dark-sider. Changes need to be made.
              Heywoode says... work hard man.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                Originally posted by Bball
                I disagree with whoever said history is not a place to look to predict the future. History is an excellent place to look if you are trying to predict the future.

                He who ignores history is condemned to repeat it...

                -Bball
                I did not say to ignore history. You must learn from history but you can not predict the future from history.

                Just because something happened, it doesn't mean it will necessarily happen again. Yes, there are tendencies but that is all they are.

                You must learn from your mistakes and try not to repeat them.

                I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                  I think people need to understand just what a trainer does. From the Mayo Clinic:

                  Athletic trainers evaluate, advise and treat athletes and others who are physically active to assist them in recovering from injury and preventing injuries.

                  Athletic trainers play a significant role in the management, prevention, recognition and rehabilitation of injured athletes. Under the supervision of a licensed physician, athletic trainers administer immediate emergency and follow-up care. They develop athletic injury prevention and treatment programs using their knowledge of biomechanics, anatomy and pathology.

                  For athletes, athletic trainers also provide a vital communication link between the injured athlete, the physician, the coach, and sometimes the athlete's family, to determine when it’s right to return to practice and competition.
                  Does that have anything to do with Bender? Hardly, he's a freak of nature, and there's nothing that can be done to prevent him from having ****ty knees. And remember, Bender finally came in looking like a physical stud this year, and it didn't change a god damn thing.

                  Tinsley? He came into this season in the best shape ever. Besides giving him a flu shot, I don't know what could be done here. His foot was misdiagnosed by a physician, and David Craig treated him accordingly based on that diagnosis.

                  O'Neal? Again, JO came into the season in great shape. Sure, you can argue he was carrying too much muscle, but that was his choice. Regardless, I don't think that had anything to do with tearing up his shoulder.

                  Jeff? How is a trainer supposed to prevent ****ing up the joint socket of your hip during a summer pickup game?

                  Reggie/AJ/Freddie? A broken hand is a broken hand. Only thing Craig could do is get them to wear boxing gloves while playing, which, theoretically, might alter their shot a bit.

                  If you want to revamp our medical staff due to misdiagnosies of JB and Tinsley, that's perfectly understandable. But that has nothing to do with our training staff. We just had a run of bad luck.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                    And it begins ...

                    As the perennial anti-dark-sider, I suppose I should put in my worth.

                    First off, help me to understand one thing. I think a perusal of our posts during both the Boston series and the Detroit series showed we basically all agreed that we were best when we moved the ball around a lot and got it into the middle for an easier shot, while we were worst when we tried to either constantly iso JO or iso a perimeter player leading to a bricked jump shot.

                    Yet, the "dark-siders" are saying we need to go to a point guard who spends less time distributing the ball and more time on isolation trying to create a shot?

                    How does that work unless we completely blow up the team into a run-and-gun Western Conference-style fast break team? That'd take about a dozen trades and a new coach. Besides that, it seems far riskier to come up with a team that depends on beating other teams to offensive rebounds considering who we have to beat in our division and conference. I suspect we'd drop to lottery land faster than you can say "Jerry Krause" - except our chances of ever getting first pick would be nil.

                    I can't argue with the premise that a great player who is injured is worth less than an average player who is always on the floor. On the other hand, I don't really believe that certain players (other than He Who Shall Not Be Named) are necessarily injury-prone.

                    Personally, I think this season was as much of a fluke as the seasons some years ago where we didn't see a single major injury. Therefore, the prospect of Jamaal being "always injured" isn't a major consideration for me.

                    Besides, we have to have one person on the team who can see the court and get the ball to the right player at the right time. That isn't Jax, and it certainly isn't JO (his biggest flaw, in my opinion).

                    Upgrading our backcourt is vital, but I believe it starts at 2 guard, not at 1.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                      Originally posted by BillS
                      Yet, the "dark-siders" are saying we need to go to a point guard who spends less time distributing the ball and more time on isolation trying to create a shot?

                      How does that work unless we completely blow up the team into a run-and-gun Western Conference-style fast break team?
                      Detroit plays our deliberate style, doesn't have a true pass first point guard, and their ball movement is better than ours. I think that is the model to look at.

                      Having more players on the floor that have to be respected offensively and not having 2 players who completly dominate the ball may help the offense. Right now our offense only runs well when the "good" Tinsley is healthy and playing. The other 2/3 of the season (and playoffs) we struggle because the offense does not function without him. Either he has to be healthy and "good" or we need a change.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                        Originally posted by rm1369
                        Detroit plays our deliberate style, doesn't have a true pass first point guard, and their ball movement is better than ours. I think that is the model to look at.

                        Having more players on the floor that have to be respected offensively and not having 2 players who completly dominate the ball may help the offense. Right now our offense only runs well when the "good" Tinsley is healthy and playing. The other 2/3 of the season (and playoffs) we struggle because the offense does not function without him. Either he has to be healthy and "good" or we need a change.
                        Can't that change be a Tinsley clone.

                        If the "offense does not function without him", why not move AJ & fine someone that can move the offense when he is in the game?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                          I've only skimmed this thread, but put me down as wanting to keep Tinsley. PG and Centers are the toughest positions to fill, and I don't have a clue where we would get a replacement.

                          Would you trade him for another PG? How are you going to upgrade with a straight up trade. Every PG in the league with JT's talent makes much more money.

                          Trade to get someone in the draft? PG's don't usually come in and set the league on fire, and the NBDL is littered with first round draft picks that could not make it as NBA PG's.

                          I would be really hesitant to trade Tinsley. He is not overpaid and when healthy is one of the top 5-7 PG's in the league. He has had some injuries, but I think you have to take the risk. Everybody gets injured. O'Neal missed a lot of time, Reggie missed some time, Pollard, Foster, Harrison, etc.

                          Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a scenario where the Pacers lose Tinsley and improve as a team, unless they go for a short term fix by trading for Jason Kidd or something

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Looking ahead part 1......

                            Originally posted by Jose Slaughter
                            Can't that change be a Tinsley clone.

                            If the "offense does not function without him", why not move AJ & fine someone that can move the offense when he is in the game?
                            I just don't know who that would be. There seems to be so few pass first PGs. And none that I can think of that would be available and not be a significant downgrade from the "good" Jamal.

                            If there is someone available and 75% the player the "good" Jamal is, I'm all for it.

                            Andre Miller maybe ? Is he available?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X