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

SacBee article on Peja

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

  • #16
    Re: SacBee article on Peja

    I don't think that's true at all. Reggie was in the league for six or seven years before he was remotely considered clutch.

    Chuck was the #1 option in the fourth quarter until he was traded, then Detlef until he was traded.

    And then Reggie became one of the best clutch performers of all time. But in his fifth/ sixth seasons with the Pacers, none of us would have believed it would possible for him to grow into that role.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: SacBee article on Peja

      Originally posted by diamonddave00
      It appears by Bird's comments , he wants Jermaine away from the post and compares him to centers Divac and Miller. Could be he sees Danny Granger as more of a pf or even a sg? With Peja and Danny it could be they flip flop spots on both ends of the court. With Granger taking the more active sf or sg on defense.

      Bird is not throwing Danny , to the side he is just saying what his main plans are for the offense. Granger , I believe is seen as a vital cog in the Pacer plans by Bird and Walsh.
      (REBOUNDING!!!!)
      (Danny is NOT going to be chasing guards)
      Take it to the bank.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: SacBee article on Peja

        Originally posted by diamonddave00
        It appears by Bird's comments , he wants Jermaine away from the post and compares him to centers Divac and Miller. Could be he sees Danny Granger as more of a pf or even a sg? With Peja and Danny it could be they flip flop spots on both ends of the court. With Granger taking the more active sf or sg on defense.

        Bird is not throwing Danny , to the side he is just saying what his main plans are for the offense. Granger , I believe is seen as a vital cog in the Pacer plans by Bird and Walsh.
        Inside/Outside. That's the comparison. There's nothing to imply Jermaine out of the post.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: SacBee article on Peja

          Originally posted by Unclebuck
          Which games were those.
          I can't remember which teams, but there were a couple games a week or so ago where we had a lead going into the 4th, and Peja scored like...3 points in the 4th, on 2 shots, or something rediculous like that. It made me nervous at the time, because I knew his reputation, and I wondered if he was shying away from the ball during crunch time, or if it was simply a matter of him not knowing the offense well enough to be trusted with the ball.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: SacBee article on Peja

            Originally posted by Artest is the best!
            i undestand why peja doesnt get the ball in the fourth quarter. he isnt clutch. i know you guys dont wanna hear that and im sorry but if i was a pacer fan i would understand why someone else was taking the shot instead of peja. hes not mentally tough and hes a first 3 quarters kind of player. i know you guys wonder why the best shooter isnt shooting the ball at the end of games but peja isnt the best shooter when its under pressure. dont get me rong peja is still one of my favorite players but i just know the guy is no good in the fourth quarter or playoffs.
            Just because the Kings locked him into that role doesn't mean we have to. What KIND of shots was he getting? He's not a one on one, break you down, player.
            Just like it's not an ABSOLUTE that Artest will implode and take your team with him. (but he will........

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: SacBee article on Peja

              Originally posted by Hicks
              David in low post, JO in the high post, Danny on one wing, Peja on the other, and insert PG here. Hmm. Not bad.

              You know, I think the interesting thing is how truly versatile Danny is. When he was in the draft, and the same was said after we picked him, was that he was versatile enough to play the 3, 2, and even a little 1. Yet he's been a very good rookie playing predominatly at the 4. With that said, I am very curoius to see how accurate the scouting reports were about him being versatile in the OTHER direction. What if he can be as effective at the 2 as he's been at the 4 and 3? If Danny can actually be an honest to God shooting guard, I think we have a hell of a good thing going.

              PG (Tinsley or someone else)
              SG Granger
              SF Stojakovic
              PF O'Neal
              xC Harrison

              Again, if Danny can truly play the 2, and we don't really know yet, but the pre and post-draft reports made it sound like he could, then we are in great shape for the near future.

              Ignoring: David is a weak rebounder for his size. Peja is an "adequate" rebounder for 6'10". Jermaine is good, though he was down some. Danny is EXCELLENT! As he is blocking shots.
              Guard is NOT this guys domain.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: SacBee article on Peja

                Originally posted by Artest is the best!
                i dont think peja can learn to be clutch! lebron isnt a good comparison because this is his third year. peja has benn in the league a long time and if he isnt clutch by now he will never be.
                Keep in mind that Peja has been surrounded by clutch players his entire career. He's never had to take the big shot, so on the rare occasion where he had to, of course he was nervous and choked a bit. Unless the Kings were injury riddled, Peja has always had Webber and Bibby there to take the big shot, and honestly, either of those guys are very solid last-shot guys.

                Like Jay said, clutch comes with experiences in the clutch. Will Peja be one of those guys? Maybe, he's certainly got the tools. Time will tell, and Kings fans will be LIVID if he becomes a solid game-winner for us, I can tell you that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: SacBee article on Peja

                  Originally posted by PacerMan
                  Ignoring: David is a weak rebounder for his size. Peja is an "adequate" rebounder for 6'10". Jermaine is good, though he was down some. Danny is EXCELLENT! As he is blocking shots.
                  Guard is NOT this guys domain.
                  DH may not actually get the rebound, but he prevents his man and usually another opposing player from getting it as well.

                  He is the BEST box out player on the pacers, bar none. He's even starting to get multiple fouls called on his man because they hold him from behind or try to pull him down to get around him.

                  You're terribly misrepresenting what he does to the rebounding game.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: SacBee article on Peja

                    Originally posted by Artest is the best!
                    i dont think peja can learn to be clutch! lebron isnt a good comparison because this is his third year. peja has benn in the league a long time and if he isnt clutch by now he will never be.
                    Peja is going to get a LOT more OPEN looks once Jermaine comes back, than he ever got as a King. You had no low post threat that everyone KNEW was going to take that last shot. Now if the defense collapses on Jermaine, Peja is going to get CLEAN looks.
                    I'll live with that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: SacBee article on Peja

                      Originally posted by PacerMan
                      Ignoring: David is a weak rebounder for his size. Peja is an "adequate" rebounder for 6'10". Jermaine is good, though he was down some. Danny is EXCELLENT! As he is blocking shots.
                      Guard is NOT this guys domain.
                      There's no reason he can't grab a lot of boards as a 2. There have been many SGs who have averaged 8 boards per game. And it's not like Peja is a horrible rebounder, forcing Danny to be under the basket. Finally, just because he's starting at shooting guard, doesn't mean he's going to be getting all of his minutes there. When Peja goes out, Granger slides over to 3 to make room for Jones (or whoever). It's not an ideal solution, but there's nothing horribly wrong with it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: SacBee article on Peja

                        David Harrison does what only a handful of players in the NBA can do.

                        He makes it very, very easy for his teammates to get rebounds.

                        He must be double-teamed to keep him off the board, especially if he's got inside position.

                        Because of his small hands, he'll never put up "sexy" rebounding stats - he'll probably never even average double-digit rebounds. But the team will always be a better rebounding team with him on the court. You can't measure it, but you can see it. And its 100% true.

                        Compare that to our best individual rebounder, who *can* get double-digit rebounds but does nothing to help his teammates get rebounds if he isn't able to chase them down.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: SacBee article on Peja

                          Originally posted by Since86
                          DH may not actually get the rebound, but he prevents his man and usually another opposing player from getting it as well.

                          He is the BEST box out player on the pacers, bar none. He's even starting to get multiple fouls called on his man because they hold him from behind or try to pull him down to get around him.

                          You're terribly misrepresenting what he does to the rebounding game.
                          No I'm not. He does box out well, and that's important for sure. But the results are GETTING the ball, and for his size, he doesn't do a very good job of that.
                          We all HOPE and many of us agree that he'll improve. But for now, he's weak in that area. The POINT is that we need Granger up front. That's not going to change any time soon.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: SacBee article on Peja

                            Peja may not grab as many rebounds as your typical 6'10" guy, but he's an above-average rebounder for a SF, which is where he plays all of the time. So to me that's a non-issue.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: SacBee article on Peja

                              Originally posted by PacerMan
                              No I'm not. He does box out well, and that's important for sure. But the results are GETTING the ball, and for his size, he doesn't do a very good job of that.
                              We all HOPE and many of us agree that he'll improve. But for now, he's weak in that area. The POINT is that we need Granger up front. That's not going to change any time soon.

                              Wow, just wow.........


                              This whole post is about as far off from truth as can be. You're totally lost on the concept of rebounding from a team stand point.

                              From the immortal words of Billy Madison's HS principal:

                              "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: SacBee article on Peja

                                Originally posted by PacerMan
                                Peja is going to get a LOT more OPEN looks once Jermaine comes back, than he ever got as a King. You had no low post threat that everyone KNEW was going to take that last shot. Now if the defense collapses on Jermaine, Peja is going to get CLEAN looks.
                                I'll live with that.
                                what! webber and divac werent low post threats? i know peja can make shots if hes open thats not the point, the point is he cant make them when it matters most.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X