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

Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

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

  • #46
    Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

    Originally posted by Bball
    All bad things are Bird. All good things are Donnie Walsh.

    -Bball
    Who thinks that? One person? Jay?

    Funny how an article by Sam Smith (of all people) can trigger so much silly speculation about what does or doesn't happen in the front offices.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

      Originally posted by bulletproof
      Who thinks that? One person? Jay?

      Funny how an article by Sam Smith (of all people) can trigger so much silly speculation about what does or doesn't happen in the front offices.

      Well, to my credit I used quotes from Bird to speculate on mine.

      Besides, it's never been a question to me. Walsh is the boss & Bird is his high level employee. He may sign off on anything Larry wants but he does have to sign off on it. It's not Birds ball yet.
      --- Edited Follow-Up ---
      Originally posted by grace
      No, Go
      --- Edited Follow-Up ---


      Do you know it wasn't him?

      Nope.


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

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

        http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/...hp?itemid=6195

        A Raptors official made it abundantly clear the team wouldn’t surrender its No. 1 overall pick for Indiana forward Jermaine O’Neal
        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

          JO's trade value just keeps getting lower and lower...

          IndyToad
          Like a bucket of bees

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

            Originally posted by indytoad
            JO's trade value just keeps getting lower and lower...

            IndyToad
            Like a bucket of bees
            Maybe they don't envy shouldering his albatross of a contract.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

              Originally posted by indytoad
              JO's trade value just keeps getting lower and lower...

              IndyToad
              Like a bucket of bees
              That happens when your team loses a supposed second banana leaving the court wide open for you to spread your wings and put your stamp on the team... and the team ends up playing better without you. For two seasons in a row...

              -Bball
              (BTW- The Raptors' comments could be a negotiating ploy... looking for leverage)
              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


              • #52
                Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                This is just a theory, but we've seen several things that seemed very out-of-character for DW.

                Trading Brad Miller (instead of letting him walk away for nothing.) I still would have no problem if TPTB let Brad go to Denver or Utah without compensation, and I believe DW would've let him. I believe it was Bird that said, "we need to get something in return."

                Along that same line, I think it was Bird that insisted on getting "fair value" in return for damaged-goods-Ron during the 2004 offseason. Sure, he was shopped. For Pierce, for McGrady, for Peja. If we had set our sights just slightly lower, maybe we could've avoided the fiascos of the past two seasons. Keeping Ron Artest was not a very DW-like move. Getting the best value one can get and then moving on is more DW-like. I would've been thrilled with an Artest for Posey swap, for example. Many of the rest of you would've *****ed and moaned, but we could've avoided The Brawl and Trade-me Gate and the other crap.

                Further, I think Bird's meddling or indeciviseness or ego-driven insistence on value prolonged the trade process this season.

                I'm not even going to touch on the Saras decision.

                Maybe idiot isn't the right word. But if nothing else he's letting his ego get in the way of good decisions.

                I'm not sure I believe that superstar players can make good GMs. His bball IQ is high, on the court and from the bench. I think "role players" may have a better idea of how to actually assemble a team, however.

                Originally posted by Bball
                All bad things are Bird. All good things are Donnie Walsh.
                I think I've been far too critical of DW lately for that notion to be ascribed to me. Although there may be some truth to it.

                Let's be clear, we'd be better off with just Bird and not the tag-team (mis-)management we've got now. But not much. My theory is that DW has actually prevented Bird from a few other mis-steps, especially on the heels of the Saras/ too many PGs fiasco. But that's just a theory.

                If DW wasn't a year from retirement, keeping him would be my preference. But its time to move on, from both guys.

                Maybe not Kiki. I'm happy to listen to other suggestions.
                --- Edited Follow-Up ---
                Originally posted by Bball
                That happens when your team loses a supposed second banana leaving the court wide open for you to spread your wings and put your stamp on the team... and the team ends up playing better without you. For two seasons in a row...

                -Bball
                They were not better without JO during the brawl season. That's absurd. You may have enjoyed the teamwork and hustle more, but they were not better.

                They were better without JO during the past season because Rick did a better job coaching the TEAM during JO's absence, then reverted to a "throw the ball into JO" gameplan when the rest of the team had become a very bad match for JO - only one true perimter player (Peja), nobody capable or willing to get the ball to JO in the paint (forcing him to face the basket), inept players on the weak side allowing easy double (and triple) teams.

                None of that is JO's fault. If you're blaming Rick for JO's declining trade value, then okay, I agree.

                If Toronto isn't trading for JO then its because they are concerned about whether he and bosh will really compliment each other. If JO is losing weight to play PF, which player is going to sit?

                With Coangelo on board, I'd expect the Raptors to start making smart decisions, like that one. They probably can't get a better player for the #1 pick, but they can get a better FIT.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                  Jay, so essentially JO is without fault in the team's underachievement and the difficult situation in which it now finds itself? I find it hard to believe he is beyond any responsibility. It's a team problem and he is part of the team.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    With Coangelo on board, I'd expect the Raptors to start making smart decisions, like that one. They probably can't get a better player for the #1 pick, but they can get a better FIT.
                    Yes, what they need is a 5 that will do the dirty work for Bosh, and Chris Mihm or Andrew Bynum would be a much better fit there. They also need a good shooter at the 2 spot, but that is a different matter all together.
                    Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                    http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section204

                      They were not better without JO during the brawl season. That's absurd. You may have enjoyed the teamwork and hustle more, but they were not better.
                      Initially... after the brawl... there was a rallying and some heart at play. But reality settled in. We were shorthanded and it showed.

                      BUT... after JO's injury forced him to the sidelines, and we were no longer so shorthanded, IMHO the team played better ball consistently without him.

                      I'm willing to listen to arguments that JO has been misused. In fact, I agree. What I don't know is how much of that is JO's own fault. I know both seasons he has said he wanted the team to keep playing the style it was playing while he was out (when he returned). I think the majority of Pacer fans would agree with his assessment. But talk is cheap. It would be nice if the local media asked Bird, DW, Carlisle more incisive questions regarding the change in play when JO returned.

                      I know people have complained that JO needs to make better decisions with the ball. Perhaps we should be honest and just say "JO frequently makes bad decisions with the ball". Maybe that is what is hurting the flow. Or maybe a bigger issue is Carlisle is too stubborn to open things up and trust his team...

                      Maybe both Carlisle and JO need to trust the player around them more.

                      -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


                      • #56
                        Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                        When Bird was hired, we were told he was in charge of all basketball-related matters. Now, maybe that was a lie, and he's just Boomer for Adults. But then, maybe it's not, and he actually does perform his job description.

                        All I know is, ever since Bird was hired, it's been one **** up after another. The best thing I can say is he didn't screw up the drafts where Danny and David fell in his lap.

                        Lastly, as far as this Simons stuff is concerned, from their track record, it's much more likely for them to fall on the sword and take the blame than it is to involve themselves in the operation of the team.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                          Originally posted by Bball
                          I'm willing to listen to arguments that JO has been misused. In fact, I agree. What I don't know is how much of that is JO's own fault. I know both seasons he has said he wanted the team to keep playing the style it was playing while he was out (when he returned). I think the majority of Pacer fans would agree with his assessment. But talk is cheap. It would be nice if the local media asked Bird, DW, Carlisle more incisive questions regarding the change in play when JO returned.
                          Unlike coaches/ management, I can't imagine why JO would make those comments ("I've just got to fit in with the way the team is playing right now.") in an insincere way. Besides, the team started reverting to post/ isolation ball BEFORE JO returned. Therefore, I blame Rick.

                          Aside - D-BONE, I'm happy to blame certain problems on JO - lack of good passes/ decisions from a double-team for example. But not "gameplan" problems.

                          I know people have complained that JO needs to make better decisions with the ball. Perhaps we should be honest and just say "JO frequently makes bad decisions with the ball". Maybe that is what is hurting the flow. Or maybe a bigger issue is Carlisle is too stubborn to open things up and trust his team...

                          Maybe both Carlisle and JO need to trust the player around them more.

                          -Bball
                          Maybe Carlisle and JO need players around them that are 1) trustworthy and 2) actually compliment JO and the game Rick wants to play.

                          Do you want to do the list again?

                          Tinsley - I trust him and you don't (but I agree he's looking for his own shot too often now that he's learned he can score at will)
                          Fred - Can only be trusted to go right
                          AJ - Can't be trusted to get the ball to JO in the paint
                          Saras - Can be trusted to get the ball to JO in the paint, but can't be trusted to do anything else
                          SJax - can't be trusted
                          Peja - Okay, Peja fits nicely with JO
                          Foster - Can't be trusted to hit open shots on offense or help JO out with post defense. Can be trusted to hustle and chase down rebounds.
                          Croshere - Might be a nice compliment for JO but he's got limitations
                          Harrision - A great fit with JO but can't be trusted to stay on the court
                          Granger - Probably a good fit with JO, need to see him play more when JO is also on the court

                          I've intentionally left out Gill and Pollard. (Am I missing someone? I only count 13 players.)
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                            Hmmm .... as much as things change.... the more they stay the same.

                            This thread could almost be re-used this coming summer.

                            -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