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

Why David Harrison tells us a lot about our situation

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Why David Harrison tells us a lot about our situation

    *I started writing this as a reply to UB’s thread “Should the Pacers built the team around J.O. or start over completely” (http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...d.php?t=16952), which harkened back to a post by Jay called “This Team is Built for the Regular Season” (http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...d.php?t=10326). It sort of went off on a different tangent though…

    "Because the team hasn’t committed the necessary in-game investment, he won’t be ready to start next season, and he might not even be ready to be a permanent member of the rotation." ... from Jay's post in regards to David Harrison.

    This is something that bugs me more than anything else. I truly haven't felt like we would need to upgrade our 5 spot because I really thought Harrison would be "it." I mean, the guys is the second biggest C out there next to Shaq, and we have definitely seen flashes of him just being a beast in the paint. He would take pressure off of JO on both sides of the floor -- and I think that he would make Foster a better player... David and Foster could even play together at times, and Jeff's hustle would be a really big spark off the bench (like we saw toward the end of last season/into the playoffs... Dale was starting, and Jeff was the huge sparkplug... do you remember some of the ovations he got just for coming in and out of the game! I swear during the playoffs when he had his monster game against the Pistons, I went to the gift shop during halftime to buy a Foster jersey -- and they were sold out from that night alone!).

    But, as Jay forecast months ago -- David is just not ready yet. He picks up too many fouls, leaves his feet too easily (which really should be coachable. He is a mountain in the middle -- why does he need to jump to contest every shot?? He could alter shots just standing in front of the guy with his hands up!), his offense isn't any more polished than it was in his first rookie game, and (perhaps most importantly) his head isn't where it should be. He still is a rookie in mine, and most people's opinions.

    Do you remember the short-handed game against the Magic? Hulk scored 19 points with eight rebounds, two steals and three blocks in a career-high 44 minutes (not to mention only 3 fouls!). David, like 90% of young players in this league, needs consistent minutes to learn and develop. Yes he missed time due to injury last year, but how was that season not a golden opportunity to throw him in there every night and let him get his lumps? Last year David played in 43 games and averaged 17.7 mpg. He played, and started, less than Scot Pollard, btw.

    I think, besides getting injured, what happened was exactly what Jay said. The team did not invest in him enough. He could (and in some minds, should) be starting for this team, and if not that, then should (in most minds) be the back-up C and an integral part of the rotation. But you, me and Rick Carlisle don’t think he’s ready. Why not? I think it all has to do with Reggie. If #31 had retired the prior year after the ECF, and had the brawl still happened, I really think we would not have pushed so hard for a playoff run, and instead tried to bide our time, develop our players, evaluate our pieces, been very happy with a lottery pick and start fresh in 05-06. The lottery pick worked out, but other than that, the only player we developed is James Jones now lighting it up for Phoenix, and we didn't evaluate our team SANS Ron. As everyone here is saying so much of our team is expendable as we really don't know what we have, and we really don't know what fits together and what doesn't.

    When it comes to deciding who on our team is "untouchable" when it comes to re-tooling with the impending trade, there is only agreement on really 3 players... JO, Saras and Granger (some people still might think JO should be traded? Also, ironically, Kenny Smith said he doesn't think that Granger is untouchable). So our max-contract franchise player and two rookies are the only guys we can agree on not trading. How did we NOT get a better indicator of our team from last season -- considering Britton Johnsen and Michael Curry started games for us! (Or is it we just didn't like what we saw?)

    (Total aside on the "untouchable" players... are Eddie Gill and Samaki Walker sweating it right now? They did just get DNP-CDs last night? Should they be looking into hiring a realtor? Does Walker even rent/own a place in Indy? Maybe he just sleeps in the Fieldhouse.)

    I really have to agree with what Jay was talking about in his spring review post. This "retooling - rebuilding - reviewing" (or whatever you want to call it) process should have already happened. Granted, no one could have known how Ron would bring it this season, but we are so freaking clueless about the rest of the team that we don't know who we're willing to give up and what we need in return...

    A healthy and reliable starting PG?
    A defensive minded, speedy backup PG?
    A slashing/score first SG/SF?
    A lock-down defender/spot-up shooter?
    A bruising enforcer at backup PF?
    A scoring C?
    A new head coach that will play an up-tempo game?
    A couple of veterans to calm down our locker-room?
    A hot, young prospect that will become our next star?
    A couple of future first-rounders to pin our title hopes on the '07 draft and landing Greg Oden?

    ... or all of the above in a three-team trade in which we ship our Artest, Tinsley, Jackson, Johnson, Jones, Croshere, Pollard, Bender's contract and bring back Mark Jackson, Travis Best, Reggie Miller, Chris Mullin, Jalen Rose, Antonio Davis, Dale Davis and Rick Smits circa 1999-00?

    I think with JO, Saras and Granger we would have a pretty solid line-up?

    PG - Jackson - Best - Saras
    SG - Miller - Saras
    SF - Mullin - Rose - Granger
    PF - O'Neal - Davis - Granger
    C - Smits - Davis

    Ok, well maybe I should move those last three paragraphs to the Trades thread (all of those ‘needs’ being something that someone iterated here in the forum in the last few days of craziness). But back to my original point... I agree with Jay that this team was not evaluated like it should have been over the course of last season and this summer to better prepare us for A) this year's campaign and B) what to do IF Ron didn't work. I tried to say that I think part of this problem was that Reggie's presence meant we had to make one last run -- and by no means do I place any blame on Miller or anyone in the organization. I think that was the right call, and because of it we all got to enjoy several Miller moments and truly appreciate how talented this guy still was at 39. But I contend that we would be in a much different place had Reggie not been on the team during the brawl season.

    The other culpability is short-sidedness I guess at DW and LB. Talk radio this summer in Indy was centered around -- next season our Big 4 will be JO - Ron - Jax - JT: can a team co-exist with those personalities, and if not, who should be moved. DW and LB rolled the dice that it would either work, or that they could re-tool on the fly. They get their chance now, and if many people in this forum got their way, only JO of the four would remain. How did we (the Pacers org) not see this coming, and not have a better plan for it?

    My biggest fear is that TPTB still haven’t done this evaluating, and the trade is going to just ship out Ron without moving any other significant pieces (Bender’s contract and/or an expiring Pollard don’t really count… does anyone expect them to be on our team past the trade deadline? Anyone?). I, like some others, think that this team needs more of a shake-up than that (although depending on who comes back in the trade, it might not be as necessary). But what do LB and DW think?

    Within the next week we'll find out if there was a "Plan B."

    (If you did, thanks for sticking with me on that rant)

    PS: So what do I think we should do? I can’t really complain without offering a solution, can I? On Full Court Press they were talking about dealing with Sacto – but for Brad Miller, not Peja. Along with many others, I would love to see Brad back. He was an excellent compliment for JO, shores up everything up-front, and I really think that he could solve some of our perimeter problems, too… having two-inside scoring options will take the pressure off of JO and create better spacing outside. Brad is also so good at playing the high post and setting screens that Jackson and Jones would really benefit, IMO. I wish I could say that this was more than a pipe-dream, although there were some Sacto fans that called in that wanted to be rid of Brad Miller, for what its worth. He just answers so many more questions for us than Peja does (who is still a nice player, and a better trade than many that have been bandied about). Although this rumor for Shane Battier is interesting…

    PPS: Oh, and David Harrison should play more, too.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Why David Harrison tells us a lot about our situation

    Very nice post.

    Brad Miller indeed does fill the void however you are going to have to answer one question to his main critics (we're about to hear from the west coast on this part btw so be prepared).

    What good is Brad Miller if he is going to break down every year come playoff time?

    I'll be honest with you, I don't have a good answer for that other than to throw back in thier face that Jermaine, Jamaal & Jon are always injured come playoff time too. But that's not an answer, it's just a rebuttal.

    I'm like you, I wish that we could get back Brad as well. But it's not going to happen.

    You really have to wonder about Walsh & Bird in this case. Did Bird really think he could control Ron or did Walsh actually believe he would change.

    My opinion of Bird in this matter has plummeted & my thoughts on Walsh on this have improved.

    Walsh doesn't need my praise in the matter but I do think that he is being a standup guy & I am not happy that we have not heard from Bird.

    I know they have a mutual respect for each other & I'm sure that Walsh told him to stay & finish his job of scouting but I would have at least liked to have heard something from him at this point.

    It should be clear to all involved & reading that Walsh is the one handling the trade of Artest, not Bird.

    But I just wanted to thank you for your wonderfull post. Keep up the good work.


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

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Why David Harrison tells us a lot about our situation

      At some point (soon) the team will need to reassess their position. Are they playing for 'now' or the 'future'? Whether it is a 'future' 2 months from now or two years from now they will have to act accordingly, start developing young players, quit playing people out of position as a band aid, accept some losses to rebuild and re-establish the system and start seeing where we are down the road.

      If, OTOH, it is about 'now' then we can probably win more games but I'm not sure long term we'll be the team we need to be to get back in the hunt.

      The fans may have to accept and come to terms with some things one way or another (minutes, trades, losses, etc)

      It won't be hard to get to the level of pretender.... it will be much harder to get to the level of contender again.



      -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

      • #4
        Re: Why David Harrison tells us a lot about our situation

        Originally posted by Peck
        My opinion of Bird in this matter has plummeted & my thoughts on Walsh on this have improved.

        Walsh doesn't need my praise in the matter but I do think that he is being a standup guy & I am not happy that we have not heard from Bird.
        OK, Peck, have those pills you took in desperation Saturday night still not worn off?
        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

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X