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

Personnel Evaluation

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

  • #16
    This team is average

    At the mid-point of this season, this team is exactly average. What I am saying is that since this team is basically playing .500 ball, how can you give anyone in the organization anything over a "C"?

    At the end of the day - you can hand out all the A's and B's that you want, but in the end they are a .500 team. Wins and losses are all that really counts.

    It is what it is, no matter how pretty you want to dress them up.

    I laugh at people giving out mostly A's and B's when the team is "average". Just does not add up to me.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Personnel Evaluation

      Tinsley: C- Horrible, horrible statistics in every department except A/TO.

      Foster: C- Great rebounder, does exactly nothing else.

      Daniels: C- Hopefully more PT is in order, and hopefully he steps it up.

      Granger: B One of few bright spots on this team. Looks capable of 18-20PPG.

      O'Neal: A- He still isn't nearly as efficient as he should be, but he's JO, and his defense has improved.

      Williams: B- Still has a ways to go, but is closer than I thought. Is ready for more minutes IMO. He and Granger are my silver linings for this season.

      Dunleavy, Murphy, Marshall, Diogu, Greene: Incomplete

      Armstrong: C Hustles, but isn't very good. Also he's old so he isn't especially reliable for a backup PG.

      Baston: C Play this guy more. He scores, hits free throws and hustles.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Personnel Evaluation

        Halfway point is a fine time for reflection. Grades are given as a combination of performance and expectations.

        Been Here All Year
        • O'Neal - Has had a very good year. I'd like to see him work more on the "make those around him better" stuff, but I can't fault his play this season. Grade: A
        • Foster - A solid role player willing to do the dirty work. His offense has been quite suspect, but his shot has been improving. Still cleans the glass, provides steals, and does a good job staying in front of his man. I'm interested to see if Foster and Murphy can sub in and keep each other fresh, reducing the chance of injuries. Grade: B
        • Armstrong - Sold to us as a Bandaid for the locker room on his way to being a coach, he has proven a solid energy guy off the bench. Takes risks on defense, but his veteran presence appears to outweigh the negatives. Higher grade for exceeding expectations. Grade: A-
        • Tinsley - Worked hard in the offseason to stay healthy. Has had flashes of brilliance, and moments that make you cringe. I can't fault his effort, and having someone who can bring it up the court and dump it to O'Neal reliably is fine. I look for his play to improve, or get replaced. Grade: B-
        • Marshall - Had one stellar game at the beginning of the season, but little after that. Lost the starting role opportunity presented to him. Still quite young. Grade: C
        • Baston - Slow start to the season, but has provided quality minutes off the bench as a rebounder, shot blocker, finisher, and late game fouler. Could be looking forward to some DNPs, but he has shown us why we went out to get him. Grade: B
        • Daniels - For all his hype, it was a rough start to the season. As of late he has started to shine. I look for him to continue to improve within the system as the year goes on. Grade: B-
        • Granger - Walker "Texas" Granger has continued to win the hearts of local fans with his game. I don't feel the need to justify this grade any more. Grade: A
        • Harrison - Another backup that blew his starting chance. I would like to see him traded while he still has potential. If he can't be packaged with someone, I would like to trade him for a second round pick. Grade: F
        • Williams - An eyebrow raiser on draft day, he is just starting to see some playing time. I look forward to watching his progress, as he hasn't had much time on the court. Grade: B
        • Greene - A defensive point that can't seem to put it together offensively. Could possibly help us in the near future when paired with another creator like Dunleavy or Daniels. Grade: D
        New Blood
        • Murphy - A fresh start will do him good, and pairing him with a real post presence will be mutually beneficial. Grade: B+
        • Dunleavy - I like what he brings to the team. Smarts, fundamentals, and versatility. I look for him to thrive in this system. Grade: B+
        • Diogu - A big "wait and see". I hope he's half as good as the hype would lead you to believe. Grade: C
        • Mcleod - I haven't seen him play, but I know he has more game than Eddie Gill. Grade: I
        Nu Warriors
        • Harrington - Early in the season, Al had some games that made you think "that's why they brought him here". Next game would leave you wondering the opposite. Improved 3pt shooting is a plus, but his work on boxing out, grabbing boards, and defense seemed below expectations. Adjusting to playing 3 different spots on the floor could have lead to some of his faltering. Grade: D
        • Jackson - I was impressed with his all-around game this year. When his shot wasn't falling, he was providing hustle on the other end. Problems off the court haunted him, but it seemed that his maturity level on the court had improved. I'd like to have seen him in a place like Houston where he could be the third option on a slower paced team. Grade: B
        • Saras - I was disappointed with his performance last year, and attribute at least some of it to getting married. I think his fundamentals had improved this year, and it seemed like he was getting closer to turning the corner. Still a problem on defense, but his ineptitude with bringing the ball up under pressure seemed to have improved. For his sake, I hope he ends up with the Cavs or back in Europe. Grade: B-
        • Powell - Best of luck to "like Udonis Haslem, but better". We never really got to see what he could bring. Grade: C
        The Brass
        • Carlisle - Another tumultuous year, and yet we are still above .500. I look forward to seeing what he can do with a group that appears more "coachable". Grade: B+
        • Bird/ Walsh - Making moves in basketball is always a gamble, but I think our management gets the better of most deals. I'm waiting to see what these tight-lipped plotters cook up next. Grade: B+
        The Team
        • Pacers - Exceeding my expectations so far this year. They appear to be improving, and they are fun to watch. Keep up the good work. Grade: B+

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Personnel Evaluation

          im going to use maragin's format, because i liked it... so, with apologies to him...

          Been Here All Year fficeffice" />>>
          • O'Neal – I have to say, I haven’t been ridiculously impressed, but he’s been solid all season. He worried me sitting out with injuries so early in the season given his last few. Defensively he’s shown a lot of improvement. Grade: B+ >>
          • Foster – For years, I wasn’t sold on Foster. I blame Isaiah for that, because I felt Croshere could have blossomed had Thomas not given Foster all the playing time. However, I’m a Foster fan. He’s great on the boards and defensively. I do wish he had a little more offensive talent but... Grade: B >>
          • Armstrong – I have always loved him, and I could never understand why he bounced around so much late in his career. I assumed it was because he couldn’t play anymore (given how few minutes he was getting in ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Dallaslace>). But DA has been fantastic. You can tell he loves the game and loves to play and I think that is contagious. Grade: A >>
          • Tinsley – I am happy he has played 40 games. That thrills me to no end. But, apart from that I haven’t been impressed with his inconsistency. There were a few games in a row where he was quite good, but can’t seem to put a good stretch together anymore. Grade: C+ >>
          • lace w:st="on">Marshalllace> – Good preseason, not enough regular season time to really show what he could be capable of. I can’t fault him totally for lack of minutes. Grade: C >>
          • Baston – Maceo has been impressive recently when he’s had a chance to play significant minutes. I certainly feel he has proved more than Runi why we brought him over. Grade: B- >>
          • Daniels – Quis I believe is the victim of the roster. He wasn’t playing well in limited minutes and had a number of DNP-CDs, part of the vicious cycle of not playing well because he wasn’t getting minutes but not getting more minutes because he wasn’t playing well. But I liked what I saw against lace w:st="on">Miamilace> and I hope he can become the player we hoped he would be at the beginning of the season. Grade: C+ >>
          • Granger – Had a rough start. I’m not entirely sure why. But since moving to the bench and recently has demonstrated why we loved him. He does need to improve consistency and defensively, but he’s making good progress. Grade: B+ >>
          • lace w:st="on">Harrisonlace> – By far, the most disappointing player this season. Hopefully he’ll be moved while he is still worth something. I feel he could flourish with the right coach or with more minutes but his poor play hasn’t warranted more minutes with Baston and Powell playing at higher, more intelligent levels. I think he needs to move on. Grade: D >>
          • Williams – I can’t say really. He had a great first game and then he’s been fairly silent since. I think he needs work but I think he proved that TPTB weren’t crazy for drafting him. Grade: C >>
          • Greene – Lost. Can’t figure out why. Needs more minutes maybe, but so far he’s been disappointing. Grade: D+>>
          New Blood >>
          • Murphy – Hopefully he’ll Brad Miller (circa Pacers) up the place. I’ve been satisfied with his Pacer play thus far but not wowed. Grade: B- >>
          • Dunleavy – So far he has given us a lot of what SJax gave us on the court, the differences being his poor 3pt% and his improved ballhandling / passing / court vision. I’ve been impressed and I certainly like his demeanor more than SJax. Grade: B >>
          • Diogu – I’m not concerned by his slow start…yet. He showed good moments last season with GSW so I think he could develop. From my estimation, he seems to have more sense about him than lace w:st="on">Harrisonlace> so that is cause for hope. Grade: C >>
          • Mcleod – I hear good things. Grade: I>>
          Nu Warriors >>
          • Harrington – Wildly inconsistent. Had brilliant moments and horrendous ones. I don’t know if we should have given up as quickly as we did, but I like what we received in return. Grade: C >>
          • lace w:st="on">Jacksonlace> – Recently began to play a lot better than I’d seen from him since joining the Pacers. He was showing consistency which I appreciated. I was surprised that we moved both SJax and Al together but I did feel it was only a matter of time until something happened with SJax again. Grade: B- >>
          • Saras – I think he’ll be great with GSW. I thought he’d do well in PHX too. He needs to play Euro-ball to be successful. He is a defensive liability but I believe he is a fantastic shooter. I think the system in lace w:st="on">Indianalace> just didn’t work out. I’m not sure who (RC, LB or SarJ) should be blamed for that more. Grade: C- >>
          • Powell – Wish we would have traded lace w:st="on">Harrisonlace> but I don’t think he would have worked in Nellie’s system. Grade: C>>
          The Brass >>
          • lace w:st="on">Carlislelace> – I like Rick. I do. I think he has had to deal with many things other coaches never do while at lace w:st="on">Indianalace>. To me the fact that we’ve been in the playoffs is a testament to both his coaching and the weak East. I think we’re finally going to see what Rick can do now. I can’t give him great marks for obvious reasons, because he shares in some of the blame with players and rotations, but I think we’re lucky to have a coach of his caliber. Grade: B >>
          • Bird/ Walsh – My typical reaction to a B/W trade is “….huh?” Sometimes their moves come out of nowhere and don’t seem logical (like going after Al, and the Peja/NOK trade, SWilliams) but most of the time it doesn’t make the Pacers worse. It may not work but they’re certainly not afraid to pull the trigger. And the Peja/NOK deal was brilliant from my perspective; we never should have had that opportunity…which cancels out the White blunder. Grade: B->>
          The Team >>
          • Pacers – Here we go again… hopefully we’ll hit our stride and avoid any more problems this season. Grade: C>>
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Personnel Evaluation

            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            im going to use maragin's format, because i liked it... so, with apologies to him...
            It's actually quite flattering, thank you.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Personnel Evaluation

              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
              Dunleavy – So far he has given us a lot of what SJax gave us on the court, the differences being his poor 3pt% and his improved ballhandling / passing / court vision. I’ve been impressed and I certainly like his demeanor more than SJax. Grade: B fficeffice" />>>
              I think as Dunleavy's comfort level with the team rises, and he becomes comfortable with his role on the team, his shooting will take care of itself. I don't know why some people classify him as a bad shooter. He has good form, and takes his shots within the flow of the offense. I don't know if we'll really be able to measure him in this capacity for awhile. The big difference with Dunleavy is that even when his jumper is off, he doesn't stop contributing to the team. It seemed with Al and JAX, if their jumpers weren't going, you didn't get much else from them.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Personnel Evaluation

                no i agree... i just said that in 3 games he's been similar to Jax EXCEPT Jax was a better 3pt shooter and Dunleavy is a significantly better playmaker. it was just a 3 game analysis.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment

                Working...
                X