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

Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

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

  • #76
    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

    Originally posted by Hoop View Post
    Of course there are no guarantee's, duh. I love Granger too. Are we contenders now? Hell no! Will Granger or Williams make us contenders in the near future? Maybe, maybe not, I'm betting the odds are better with AI. What if we lost JO for the playoff? Oh poo, what if the sky falls, or the NBA folds, or Granger or Williams have a career ending injury. What ifs will drive a person crazy.


    It is important to remember that if Granger ends up being very good (and at this pace, he will be very good), then we have over a decade of greatness ahead of us. That is nothing to sneeze at.
    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe via iTunes

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
      It is important to remember that if Granger ends up being very good (and at this pace, he will be very good), then we have over a decade of greatness ahead of us. That is nothing to sneeze at.
      I like Granger too. Being very good would be nice, but it doesn't make him a HOFer , one of the all time greatest scorers, a league MVP, an almost guaranteed 30 ppg 7-8 assists per night, 3 to 4 great years left. That's a big enough window for me.

      I think we're over estimating Granger and under valuing what Iverson can do right now. AI did not have anyone as good as JO when he took Philly to the finals. We have plenty of depth so we can still field a good team around JO and AI. Depth is way over rated anyway, we can give up just about any 3 guys to get AI and still have a solid contending rotation.
      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

        Originally posted by Hoop View Post
        I like Granger too. Being very good would be nice, but it doesn't make him a HOFer , one of the all time greatest scorers, a league MVP, an almost guaranteed 30 ppg 7-8 assists per night, 3 to 4 great years left. That's a big enough window for me.

        I think we're over estimating Granger and under valuing what Iverson can do right now. AI did not have anyone as good as JO when he took Philly to the finals. We have plenty of depth so we can still field a good team around JO and AI. Depth is way over rated anyway, we can give up just about any 3 guys to get AI and still have a solid contending rotation.
        Yeah, at this point I'm really hoping that Denver or GS or someone is overpaying and that we couldn't have gotten AI by just including Danny. As good as he is and might be, AI is one of the best players in the NBA.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

          Originally posted by Hoop View Post
          I like Granger too. Being very good would be nice, but it doesn't make him a HOFer , one of the all time greatest scorers, a league MVP, an almost guaranteed 30 ppg 7-8 assists per night, 3 to 4 great years left. That's a big enough window for me.

          I think we're over estimating Granger and under valuing what Iverson can do right now. AI did not have anyone as good as JO when he took Philly to the finals. We have plenty of depth so we can still field a good team around JO and AI. Depth is way over rated anyway, we can give up just about any 3 guys to get AI and still have a solid contending rotation.
          Your point here about Danny is spot on. I don't know where people get the idea that Danny will be a superstar. He will be a very good overall player, but not one that will excel in one area enough to make a great impact. He is an above average defender, an above average mid range shooter, an above average rebounder, etc... However, he is not great and has yet to show flashes that he will be. I want a great player to put with JO so that he can be #2. I want a Kobe, a Wade, a Lebron. You know, the type of player that this franchise has never had in its NBA years. AI would be all that.
          Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

            Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
            Your point here about Danny is spot on. I don't know where people get the idea that Danny will be a superstar. He will be a very good overall player, but not one that will excel in one area enough to make a great impact. He is an above average defender, an above average mid range shooter, an above average rebounder, etc... However, he is not great and has yet to show flashes that he will be. I want a great player to put with JO so that he can be #2. I want a Kobe, a Wade, a Lebron. You know, the type of player that this franchise has never had in its NBA years. AI would be all that.
            Compare him to Pippen his first year, hes got the potential to be a cornerstone player. And truthfully JO hasn't shown he can do it. And AI is to old to be one.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

              Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
              Compare him to Pippen his first year, hes got the potential to be a cornerstone player. And truthfully JO hasn't shown he can do it. And AI is to old to be one.
              Scotty was never a superstar, he was a second banana. We all know what you think about JO, but I think that he would be great as a second option. We need get that first option from somewhere. Maybe AI is too old, but the only other option would be to tank the season and draft Durant. But that is a crap shoot. I just want that one transcendent player.
              Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
              http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                Philly doesn't want shop and neither do we.. so Jack won't go. Tinsley and Foster have been included with Daniels who is availible Friday to be traded. I haven't heard AL mentioned, but he falls under the Daniels category and maybe that's why Iverson hasn't been traded (doubt it though). My guess is sixers want Granger and that's not going to happen

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                  I just saw on NBA TV, Peter talked 10 mins about which teams are today IN the "AI hunt", he said that Billy King is looking at his offers tonight and maybe will do something tonight... He said that the 76ers want mostly Draft Picks / Young Players, they want to clear out salary space after Chris Webbers contract is up.

                  He said pretty many teams that are still "in it" and are still interested today:

                  Warriors: Will not trade Andres Pietrus, which is the guy the 76ers want, so there is nothing much going for them.

                  Clippers: Will not trade Shawn Livingston, which is the guy the 76ers want, so there is nothing much going for them either.

                  Bobcats: Will not give up Felton or May or Gerald Wallace, so they are probably out of the race...

                  Boston: Are very agressive and the most agressive, he thinks that AI might end up there since AI wants to play there and since the Celtics are willing to give ANYTHING for him... except maybe Paul Pierce.

                  Miami Heat: Are also very agressive, 76ers wants also to trade him to a powerfull team with a powerfull Coach like Riley who can handle AI very good.. they want to give Jason Williams and many other players.

                  Minnesota Timberwolves: Are not in it anymore at all....

                  He ended with the words "There is NO other teams", he didnt even mention the Pacers or any other team, he is 90% sure that AI will end up in Boston....

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                    yeah im about 90% sure that Indiana is indeed out of the running for AI
                    If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                    [/center]
                    @thatguyjoe84

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                      This makes me mad. Not that we are out of it but that Miami is still in it. AMAZING. How is this possible. They have basically nothing! Jason Williams?! Really? Christ! If Iverson goes to Miami then I will be convinced that there is some conspiracy at work here.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                        It still could be misinformation, but it would sound like to me , that it would be misinformation purposely being leaked from the TPTB.
                        I doubt it. How does it help their case?

                        How it helps Philly to leak Indy's name - increase feeling that it's a seller's market and that competition to get AI is fierce. Leaking fake deals is the same as a salesman saying "someone was just here and is planning on coming back to make a bid, it might not be here if you don't buy it now" vs "honestly, no one has been interested in this yet and I haven't had a single person look at it in days"


                        How it helps AI to leak deals - again, generate buzz with other teams. AI wants out and that means he needs there to be interest in him.

                        Also it helps to leak names of teams AI is interested in going to in order to get their phones ringing. DW hears the rumor (which he knows if false) followed by the alleged reaction that AI would like to be moved to Indy and that Indy has pieces that Philly wants and Walsh decides to make a phone call to find out.


                        Meanwhile the Pacers have been infamous for not leaking info as much as possible.


                        Maybe AI is too old, but the only other option would be to tank the season and draft Durant.
                        Wow, what a fan. The 2 options are get AI or give up on the year? Something about that sounds wrong to me.

                        I think we're over estimating Granger and under valuing what Iverson can do right now
                        You mean miss a bunch of 3s every game, turn the ball over 4-5 times and take 15 more shots. Not sure if "value" is the word I would associate with that. And I bet if we asked Danny nicely he'd be willing to do that.

                        Iverson is shooting 3.5 attempts PER GAME from 3 at a disgusting, horrifying TWENTY-THREE PERCENT. 23%. Read it over and over.

                        Danny in contrast has shot 3.9 per game at a 42% rate. Nearly DOUBLE AI's 3P%.

                        And it's not like AI doesn't have options. Korver is at 48% from 3 this season taking 3.5 per game himself. Maybe Philly would win more if AI dropped his 3PAs back to 1 and gave Korver those extra 2.5 attempts instead.

                        JACKSON is shooting the 3 BETTER than AI right now (think about that) AND Jack has a BETTER A/TO ratio than AI right now.


                        People keep saying "but it's more than numbers". No, it's not. They don't make the numbers up, those are just someone adding up the stuff a guy does. AI misses a lot of shots, he controls the ball most of the time on offense, and he turns it over a lot per game, especially compared to how many assists he gets.

                        You ignore stats in the face of "intangibles", as in good chemistry guy, good character guy, or perhaps a role player who does all the little things that don't get totaled in the box score.

                        What AI does usually is in the box score, because most of his success is based on how many points he scores. But that comes with how many shots he takes and it's always a TON, even when he has other quality options on the court with him.



                        Who here would like to see Jackson SHOOT MORE, turn the ball over more and refuse to pass to Granger when he's open? That's what AI is doing in Philly right now except sub Korver for Granger.

                        That's results, not pretend numbers someone made up.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          People keep saying "but it's more than numbers". No, it's not.
                          Derrick McKey. Iverson is no McKey, but it is more than numbers.

                          (in my opinion) Iverson's intensity affects the game more than McKey's intangibles, and that's just his intensity. That doesn't include dribble penetration and the amount of defensive attention that other teams have to pay him, which creates easier shots AND more second chance opportunities by getting the defensive out of position for rebounds.

                          I can't statistically measure Iverson's intensity and his other intangibles, but I can look at the consistently low level of talent he's been surrounded by, look at his team's inflated results, and assume that he's the reason his teams have overachieved.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                            Seth, I was only commenting on the Pacers' options to get that one transcendent wing/guard that most championship teams seem to have. I want the Pacers to win every game. I really like the current mix of players. I am a Tinsley fan. I even like Jack. I love JO and I would be really upset if the Pacers traded him for anyone. However, I would like us to have that superstar that can take over a game from the perimeter.

                            I have been arguing against tanking the season all year. I got into an argument with Since86 about the draft where I posited that Al was a better bet than any draft pick in any draft. However, I have had the feeling that we have had a long succession of role players since I have been a fan of this team and I had a hope for a superstar. Just for once, I want the other team to stay up late trying to figure out a way to stop our guy.
                            Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                              Here are some stats from http://basketball-reference.com


                              There is a ratio that calculates a team's offensive rebounds against their opponents defensive rebounds. Here are the 76ers league ranks:

                              95/96-19
                              96/97-3
                              97/98-7
                              98/99-2
                              99/00-4
                              00/01-2
                              01/02-4
                              02/03-7
                              03/04-15
                              04/05-29
                              05/06-22


                              Recently they haven't been that good, but they improved dramatically in Iverson's first year. (95/96 was the year before Iverson).

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                That's results, not pretend numbers someone made up.
                                I argue that using this year's numbers from 15 games that he has played mostly while frustrated and not wanting to be there as a case against Iverson's game is a very flawed and disingenuous argument.

                                You clearly don't like how the guy plays the game. And that's fine. I disagree, but I understand your argument. I just don't think using this year's stats to make your points is at all valid.

                                Last year, Iverson took fewer threes (3.1 per at 32%), had fewer TOs (3.4 instead of 4.4) and shot much better (44.7% instead of 41.3%). These were all close to career bests, so I imagine you don't believe they'll hold up, but when you look at the year before last, the numbers began trended that way. It started happening right as he was turning 29 and 30 years old, which is the exact time most players hit their playing prime and their mental and physical games both are at their peak.

                                15 frustrated games is not a proper sample size to use.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X