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

Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

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

  • #61
    Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

    Originally posted by FlavaDave
    The heat wave truly has hit New York, because you are gulping down Haterade at an alarming rate.

    This "monster talent" you speak of: the difference between that year's team and this year's is Ron Artest. We've added Stephen Jackson, David Harrison and Danny Granger, and the main players have gotten older. Are you telling me that the difference between those three players and Artest is so huge that it makes the difference between being average and a "monster talent"ed team?
    You had a backup PG who could fill in when Tinsley was hurt. Two of them actually.

    And then there was a guy by the name of Reggie Miller - I can see why he'd be easy to forget. Wasn't an impact player at all.

    Not to mention Artest.

    Not sure what heat in NY has to do with anything - let me know about that, would you?
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

      Originally posted by FlavaDave
      The heat wave truly has hit New York, because you are gulping down Haterade at an alarming rate.

      This "monster talent" you speak of: the difference between that year's team and this year's is Ron Artest. We've added Stephen Jackson, David Harrison and Danny Granger, and the main players have gotten older. Are you telling me that the difference between those three players and Artest is so huge that it makes the difference between being average and a "monster talent"ed team?
      I don't see any "hate" in his post. Just a large helping of truth about the whole fiasco.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
        Times Harrison's rotation ended early because of foul trouble: too many to count.

        I saw him pulled in the Denver game for flipping his lid and getting a tech, so its not just a myth with no evidence. I haven't even gone into the game logs to see how many times he only got 3-4 minutes and picked up 2-3 fouls in the first half and went to the bench.

        Let's not start pretending that they didn't try or want to use Harrison 20mpg at least. He can't stay on the floor that long because of foul problems AND his temper.

        If you think its a myth then I guess you haven't seen his horrendous Fouls per 48 number for his first 2 seasons. (9.0 last year, with no one else averaging even 6.0 per 48 - 8.5 his rookie year and again no other Pacer even hitting the 6 mark) The dude fouls A LOT and the stats prove it.


        Peja 5 for 63 vs Al 5 for 46 (or 6 for 57.5), so its not $10m difference for 5 years, it's $17m. Peja would be averaging more than $3m a year more than Al.

        I'll take Al and save the money AND get an extra season locked up out of it too.
        You have to let a player play, to expect improvements. You don't call practice like you call a game. The ONLY way he can get better in game, is to actually play him.

        So what if he fouls out in 20mins? Better than playing him 10 and only letting him get 3fouls. NBA refrees get on a personal level with players. They study tapes. They know what he does/doesn't do. Allow him to make his mistakes, because refs will talk to you why it was a foul. The biggest problem David has is his mouth, but he's shown the ability to work hard on things.

        Allow him the opportunity to talk to an official, instead of pulling him out of a game, because that only mulitplies the problem. He's frustrated at the foul, then he's frustrated because he won't get to see the floor again. Most of his techs were when he's walking off the floor, because he says the magical word.

        RC is going to have to let David sink or swim. If he swims, it's gravy. If he sinks, you let him go when his salary is up, which is at the end of this year isn't it?

        The decision needs to be made, either by his play or lack thereof. No one is benefiting by having him sit on the bench, picking up jokes from Scot Pollard.

        Not only are the Ps shooting themselves in the foot, by not letting him figure things out during an actual game, they're shooting the other foot by not hiring a coach for him. Getting someone that actually knows the game from a centers perspective will move him along that much quicker.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
          You had a backup PG who could fill in when Tinsley was hurt. Two of them actually.

          And then there was a guy by the name of Reggie Miller - I can see why he'd be easy to forget. Wasn't an impact player at all.

          Not to mention Artest.

          Not sure what heat in NY has to do with anything - let me know about that, would you?
          We all know that Reggie was a leader who happened to shoot a few times. I am talking about the talent on the team.

          I also forgot Marquis Daniels.

          Sarunas and Armstrong are plenty capable as backups. I think you are confusing the ability to start full time and dominate with the ability to spot start/play 15 minutes a game. PGs are overrated on this board.
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

            Originally posted by FlavaDave
            PGs are overrated on this board.
            There's where you're wrong. The PG player, not who's listed as the PG, is the most important player on most team.

            That's like saying the QB position is overrated in the NFL.

            You can overrate the quality of the PG player, but you can't overrate the position.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

              PG's CAN be overrated on a team full of players who can create their own shot.

              The Pacers aren't that team.

              And when Jamal Tinsley averages 50 games played per season, your backup had better be able to step in as a starter for an extended stretch of games.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                Uh, surely you don't believe you have a shot at a title THIS year do you?

                Don't get me wrong - compared to the Knicks you're The Dream Team. But even with Harrington you have a moderately above average NBA frontcourt and a below average NBA backcourt - and if Tinsley gets hurt it's a well below average backcourt. I'd peg you as a 6-8 playoff seed myself - but not a playoff lock. And if Tinsley gets hurt for an extended stretch it gets worse quickly.

                IMO, unless some miracle happens, you're at least 2 and probably 3 years away from really contending. This isn't like when Isiah was coaching when you had monster talent that wasn't reaching its potential - right now, and even with Harrington, the talent level just isn't there.

                And I don't see why Al Harrington would be a make-or-break item in any plan.

                Personally, this whole, "Let's get Al" move has more a feel of doing something to make the fans happy than anything, because he just isn't that good.
                Getting Al is obviously not enough. But it would be decent progress. If we get Al I think it's safe to say that our front court is OK. Our problems will stem from our "lottery" back court.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                  Originally posted by hoopsforlife
                  I don't see any "hate" in his post. Just a large helping of truth about the whole fiasco.

                  Oh, and I just wanted to dust off the haterade phrase. But it did come off as an overly pessimistic view from a fan of another team.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                    Originally posted by rexnom
                    Getting Al is obviously not enough. But it would be decent progress. If we get Al I think it's safe to say that our front court is OK. Our problems will stem from our "lottery" back court.
                    Your frontcourt is probably OK either way - like you say, it's the backcourt that's the problem. And yeah - Harrington would be a piece - sort of.

                    I was just curious about CKC's: make 1-last run at a Championship with "JONeal and Friends" and then blow everything up if it doesn't work.

                    To me that sure sounds like making a title run THIS year, then tear it apart. IMO you're a long, long way from contending this year. Way too many gaping holes. OTOH - you have enough pieces, and those pieces are young enough, to maybe fill them in a couple of years.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                      Originally posted by Since86
                      There's where you're wrong. The PG player, not who's listed as the PG, is the most important player on most team.

                      That's like saying the QB position is overrated in the NFL.

                      You can overrate the quality of the PG player, but you can't overrate the position.
                      The great PGs of our generation:

                      Steve Nash
                      Jason Kidd
                      Gary Payton
                      John Stockton

                      The title winning PGs of our generation:

                      Jason Williams
                      Chauncy Billups
                      Tony Parker
                      Derek Fisher
                      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                      RSS Feed
                      Subscribe via iTunes

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                        Originally posted by Since86
                        The PG player, not who's listed as the PG, is the most important player on most team.
                        Jason Williams is listed as the PG, but his duties fell to DWade when it mattered. Same Fisher.

                        And if you don't think Tony and Chauncey aren't way above average for a PG, then you're smoking crack.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                          Originally posted by Since86
                          Jason Williams is listed as the PG, but his duties fell to DWade when it mattered. Same Fisher.

                          And if you don't think Tony and Chauncey aren't way above average for a PG, then you're smoking crack.

                          Exactly who did DWade pass the ball to? I would say he was the opposite of a distributor. Same with Kobe.

                          Are they (Tony and Chauncy) above average? Sure. Are they great? No. And I don't see much wiggle room between above average and great. Parker and Billups are above average PGs with great teamates.
                          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                          RSS Feed
                          Subscribe via iTunes

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                            Your frontcourt is probably OK either way - like you say, it's the backcourt that's the problem. And yeah - Harrington would be a piece - sort of.

                            I was just curious about Seth's: make 1-last run at a Championship with "JONeal and Friends" and then blow everything up if it doesn't work.

                            To me that sure sounds like making a title run THIS year, then tear it apart. IMO you're a long, long way from contending this year. Way too many gaping holes. OTOH - you have enough pieces, and those pieces are young enough, to maybe fill them in a couple of years.
                            I don't think we're making a title run THIS year. I think we're slowly getting the pieces...and Al is going to be one of those pieces. Slowly building ourselves up. We're definitely rebuilding but this is the way we're doing it.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                              Originally posted by FlavaDave
                              Exactly who did DWade pass the ball to? I would say he was the opposite of a distributor. Same with Kobe.

                              Are they (Tony and Chauncy) above average? Sure. Are they great? No. And I don't see much wiggle room between above average and great. Parker and Billups are above average PGs with great teamates.
                              I agree with you about Tony Parker, but Chauncy has passed into the great category. He is the glue that holds that great team together and afterall that is what makes a PG great.
                              Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                              http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Think about the unthinkable....what do we do if we don't get Big Al?

                                Originally posted by FlavaDave
                                Exactly who did DWade pass the ball to? I would say he was the opposite of a distributor. Same with Kobe.

                                Are they (Tony and Chauncy) above average? Sure. Are they great? No. And I don't see much wiggle room between above average and great. Parker and Billups are above average PGs with great teamates.

                                You're PG, doesn't mean the passer. Look at the list of best PGs, that we've voted on.

                                #1 Steve Nash
                                #2 Allen Iverson
                                #3 Gilbert Arenas
                                #4 Chris Paul
                                #5 Chauncey Billups
                                #6 Jason Kidd
                                #7 Tony Parker
                                #8 Kirk Hinrich
                                #9 Jason Terry
                                #10 Mike Bibby
                                #11 Sam Cassell
                                #12 Baron Davis
                                #13 Andre Miller
                                #14 Stephon Marbury

                                All those bolded, 9 out of the 14, are scorers. So what if they don't pass? When it came down to cruntch time, who handled the ball? Jason Williams didn't. Derek Fisher didn't. The inbounds pass went directly to Kobe/Dwade.

                                They made the next decision. They ran the team, and PGs run the team.

                                A team has to have a player than can dominate the ball when it matters. Whether it's setting up their teammates, like Nash, or scoring the ball like AI. It doesn't matter. You have to have the player capable of getting the ball where it needs to be.

                                Look at the list. The best teams, have the top players. The worst teams, have the worst players. That's not a coicidence.

                                EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Dwade averaged 6.7 assists/game compared to Jason Williams'4.9, and Kobe averaged 4.5 (his worst since the 99-00 season) compared to Smush Parker's 3.7.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X