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

An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

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

  • #46
    Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

    Just a little screwed. To my measure two good trades are in order.
    One involving the obvious, sg/sf, the other one i have been convinced
    on, the defending pg. With Saras developement and clear ability to lead
    i see him being the back up under Tinsley barring a trade.
    The consistent scorer at either sg or sf is a must. Jax has
    proved to everyone that he isn't it and the trade of Ron
    had better involve offense.
    The most important trade i think we can do is appease RC with
    a defender at the point. He can be a sg or a pg to me but
    as long as we get some disruption from perimeter our interior
    defense should hold its ground.
    I like FJ, i like Tinsley and Jax
    but we are here to build a team and their strengths don't
    mask the others weaknesses.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

      Originally posted by Peck
      This is actually a good point.

      How much of the turmoil right now is beause the Artest thing is up in the air.
      Very little...

      We weren't all that good of a team before Artest bailed. UB was already talking about it but saying he couldn't put his finger on what the problem was. We all had some question marks. The Artest thing has just overwhelmed and overshadowed everything else.

      BTW... I'd like to add a longer response to this thread when I have more time later tonight. I'm not dodging the question(s).

      -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


      • #48
        Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

        I think another thing to keep in mind is that all teams, even great teams are flawed.

        Look at our Pacers championship teams

        PG- Jax couldn't defend.
        SG- Reggie couldn't defend.
        C- Smits couldn't rebound.
        PF- Dale Couldn't shoot.
        SF- Derrick McKey wouldn't shoot.

        But, the sum of the parts was something magical. (Sigh) The benefit of chemistry solves so many ills.
        “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
        motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
        Reggie Miller

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

          Problem is that our players don't mask the others weaknesses.
          We have a good passer in Tinsley but slashers who think
          they don't need it. WE have no spot up shooter, no consistent 3
          point threat. Slow defense on the outside. Average at best
          rebounding and one post up player. This isn't a team you
          can win with. A good defender on the perimeter and a good shooter
          from anywhere on the floor will cure some ill's. That probably
          won't be one guy like Artest but that means you can move
          more head cases for some talent to fit RC scheme which i am
          not sure he has one with this current team.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            I don't buy for a second that Rick is holding DH back, DH is doing it to himself. That is enough about him. I hope he's traded along with Ron, Jax and Tinsley as I said 12/13.
            I don't understand how you can still say this. What have we seen out of Rick this season that suggests that if a player is playing big minutes, he has earned them, and vice versa? This is the guy that has completely abused Sarunas is favor of Anthony Johnson. Danny is the best and only SF on our team yet he isn't starting. (Limited minutes yesterday too) And he continues to play an absolutely horrible Jeff Foster (started yesterday even).
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

              "And while we're at it, get more freakin' movement on offense. I don't care if JO's got the ball in the post, if you're standing around, you'll be sitting down.

              And rebound, dammit. Send at least one more guy to the boards.
              ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

              1--Trade Artest for some draft pick in the top ten next year/and a player

              2--Draft Shelden Williams for defense and rebounding

              3--Start Saras at point or at least as a back up/for movement on offense


              owl
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                Originally posted by Peck
                I guess the question is this.

                Do you think this team is fundamentally flawed?

                If your answer is yes, then how flawed is it?

                This team is fundamentally flawed. I believe part of the problem goes back to '99 when Mr Walsh decided the team was finished and needed to rebuild. Then we went to the Finals in spite of his observation but the seeds were already planted and the mold cast. I'll never believe trading Dale was a super stroke of genius and planning as much as a trade for convienence (Dale, got angry, Dale got traded). It didn't even fit with what were doing (why did we re-sign Cro at all if we were going to be trading DD for JO?). And why trade AD for only a schoolboy if you have to KNOW Smits is ready to retire at any minute?

                Some called it rebuilding on the fly. Well, in the end it was probably closer to not fully committing to the rebuilding process.

                So off the bat we had a flawed team. And we hired a flawed coach (Thomas) who had no business even being asked to coach a team like that. We wasted 3 years with Thomas never truly knowing what we had due to the fact the team was flawed and he had no idea what to do about it.

                It probably wasn't helped having the most patient management in all of pro sports at the helm totally refusing to address anything until it absolutely had to be addressed.

                So we ended up with a team so flawed Walsh had to pull the trigger on a mid season deal or risk making the playoffs (which IMHO would be missing his one true and overriding goal).

                And here we are with nothing to show from that.

                Again. A flawed team. So how does this happen? It's because we absolutely refuse to deal with mistakes/problems until we absolutely have to. The media doesn't help. We don't just refuse to move on from problems, we compound them with patience and loyalty beyond all reason. And contract extensions.

                Maybe Artest isn't the real true problem.... or certainly not the only problem. Maybe when Reggie said "Ron Artest is not the bad egg" we should've taken him at face value. But shouldn't those closest to the program KNOW who "the bad egg" is and KNOW what is causing problems and do something about it before it festers into a public explosion? Do they ever? ...Or do we just put on a happy face and hand out bigger checks than any other team would to otherwise mediocre (average) players?

                I realize other teams make mistakes too but how many other teams don't work hard to do something about it? I really think we create some of our chemistry problems by failing to address other problems and nipping them in the bud to begin with.

                Why don't these other 'well ran' franchises have these problems and why are they able to ebb and flow and find themselves back in contention without the drama?

                a. Totally screwed, needs to start all over
                b. Just a little screwed, we need to make one good trade
                c. Not really screwed, time & patience will right the ship
                It's "A" more than anything.

                I don't think it's possible to make "one good trade" if you mean Artest and filler for a piece that rights the ship right away. I don't think we have any leverage to do that and we're close to the only team that was willing to take a chance on Artest... There are plenty who would try him, if they can get him on the cheap. And rest assured, wherever he goes will not take this long to decide if he's good or bad for their team and move on if they need to.


                Now how would you improve this team.
                Team players first and foremost. Anyone not in the program gets the bench. Management has to show some willingness to bounce players and get the coach's back. Sinupoutinitis, boneheaded shots, breaking the offense, lack of defense, etc should get you buried on the bench. And the coach should get full support of management to do that. If the bench doesn't lead to an attitude adjustment then management needs to move in and make a move. Players should never feel too comfortable on a team IMHO.

                If there's a mutiny against the coach brewing, then address it by moving the cancers or moving the coach (the coach can be a cancer as well).

                Today: Put a sign in on the desk of Bird and Walsh that says "Do not reward players who have not earned it".

                Would you build a team that Carlisle can use to his own devices or would you put together a team that you liked & force Carlisle to either change or get rid of him?
                My first thought is to build a teamaround my coach. Don't force him to use or NEED players he'd prefer not to be playing.

                I really don't like the idea of trading solid, yet unspectacular players, just so the coach won't over rely on them.

                I'm not convinced Carlisle hasn't worn out his welcome with this bunch so much of this could be moot.

                You can't develop players if they are on the bench. And if they are needing extra work there's the NBDL or retired players you can hire for their coaching ability for individual workouts. But at some point, either the coach needs to use them, or if he can't find the answer and fix it. New coach or trade the players and get players that can help you. A player can't help if he can't get off the bench.

                Tinsley should've already been gone IMHO. If Carlisle is the coach I don't think there should even be any question in that.

                I tried to give Sjax the benefit of the doubt after 11/19 but he's made that very hard.

                I guess the pessimist in me wonders if there's not more we should know about JO as the centerpiece of this team. Is that really where the fatal flaw lies... in the center of the foundation? Lord knows if that is the case, with the patience and unwillingness of our management to admit a mistake and move on, it could be a LONG while before that would be addressed. So let's hope there's no problems there.

                All things considered, I'm not convinced Artest and JO would've made it thru LAST season if 11/19 would not have happened. We may have been farther from a championship last year than some of us want to believe.

                I'm ready to see our best TEAM players taking the court and playing TEAM basketball at their natural positions. Take our lumps. Make some trades of malcontents and bad fits. Develop who we can. Move who we can't develop. And in 2 or 3 years down the road we can see where we need to tweak and maybe get back to where we were in 98...99...2000

                IOW... it's time to FULLY commit to that rebuilding process we've been trying to avoid.

                -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


                • #53
                  Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                  I've read most of the 3 pages and agree with alot of it. my 2 cents:
                  1. We just played 2 very good teams on their court, games that we may have not won even with RA and an in-shape Foster.
                  2. We need to get RA traded as most everyone agrees with.
                  3. I agree with Peck(?) that AJ and Freddie are nothing more then role players on a second unit. Freddie is too small to play the 2 or 3 and not good enough with the ball to play the 1. He would be good on a team like Phx.
                  4. Foster is not in shape and won't be for another month. Give him time.
                  5. We are still a top ten franchise (barely) and it will be interesting to see who DW/Bird trade for and may give us a little insight into the future plans.
                  6. Sarunas is in a shooting slump, he can hit the 3 and proved it early on.
                  7. Granger will be good but not for a few more years.
                  8. We need a rebounder.... Anybody seen Dale Davis lately. Detroit signing him might have been as much about keeping him away from us.
                  9. We need 2 quality players now with experience to get back to the top and both need to be big guys. I like Odom and maybe a Chris Wilcox, hopefully we can do a 3 for 2 deal and be ready in April.
                  10. We need to trade Jax for another 2 before February deadline but not now.
                  Nice thread guys... its why I come here.
                  "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


                  • #54
                    Re: An open honest discusion about the Pacers....

                    I figured this thread would go on for days....



                    -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

                    Working...
                    X