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

PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

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

  • #31
    Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

    I barely mentioned Jack in my post, I wasn't trying to get this thread off track.

    The quick point I was trying to make is that even though Dunleavy's game is underwhelming by itself - compared to Reggie and Jack - it looks even worse. That's it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

      Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
      I cant tell through a computer screen if someone is serious or not.
      Just thought that you could tell by all the accolades that I've been heaping on Jax, especially with me being one of his biggest detractors before the trade.
      .

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Really? Always better? How about from 3pt%? How about REB/48? (in case you didn't notice, that's 1 outside skill and 1 inside skill, so you'd assume each had an edge in one of those categories)

        Even THIS year AC was a 12+ R48 guy while Mike was only at 7.7. AC last year for Indy was an 11.1 R48 guy.

        From 3 both have had better and worse years. AC got hurt 2 years ago and shot 26%. However Dun just put up a 28% spot in back to back years WITHOUT injury. AC put 3 years around that injury season of 39.1, 38.9, and 38.6 from 3 for the Pacers. Dun has had 2 seasons over 35% - a 37% his 2nd year and a 38.8 his 3rd. AC proved over the last 4 years that he was the better 3pt shooter pretty clearly.

        Dun's assists PEAK AT 3.0 in his time at GS this year (by the way, that's BELOW what Jack did in GS, and in Indy Dun was below Jack's Indy assist numbers as well). Croshere is a 1 flat type of assist guy, so Dun gets the nod there. At A48 it jumps to 3.5 vs 2.5 (Dun this year, AC last year with Indy). But is 2.5 really a major impact for assists from the 2-3 spot? AC does 2 things that alter a game, he does hit the 3 and he does crash the boards.

        What does Dun do that seriously impacts a game? Nothing. He does a bunch of modest stuff, bench side-kick stuff, but nothing that by himself alters a game...unless he is smoking hot from 2 on the catch and shoot which did happen from time to time.


        They don't play different positions, they are both tall, slow SFs. AC was so slow they moved him to gimmick 4 and went undersized, and now the Pacers need a SG so bad they rotated Dun around to the backcourt which means he's getting toasted on defense at the 2 like AC (and Dun) gets burned when he plays the 3 (by speed).


        AC was paid 7.3 this year, his FINAL year under contract. Dun got 7.4 with the Pacers on the hook for 4 more years and $37.5m.

        So as far as I can tell the results and facts strongly imply that the Pacers basically gave Croshere a 4 year extension on his bad contract just when it was about to go away for good. Now think about it, if that had been what they literally did (rather than trading for Dun) how would you feel about it? Would you have faith in TPTB?


        Again, I liked AC, I like Dun. I don't like the financial situation or especially now how "they" fit on this roster. I mean it made ROSTER sense to swap AC for another backcourt guy. Can we trade Dun for Quis part deux?
        Just to watch AC and Dun one could see the obvious differences. AC got the same cheap rebounds that Murphy gets, those that don't require much physical contact or the ability to jump. AC could not take the ball to the basket and not lose it. AC had zero ability to run the floor and so you are right he had to become a PF. Dun can run the fast break, dribble the ball and take it to the basket without losing it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

          Mike is better suited for the bench. Unfortunately, he's paid like all-star. It doesn't matter how he compares to past Pacer 2's. What matters is how he compares to the players he'll have to play against now. I can't think of many 2 guards in the East he's better than. He matches up well against other 6th man types. Too bad the same can be said for a few other possible starters on this team.
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

            I agree with Jermaniac that Mike Dunleavy's work ethic is extremely questionable. We haven't talked about that nearly enough.
            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
            RSS Feed
            Subscribe via iTunes

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

              How are you judging his work ethic, specifically? You probably aren't there to watch him practice or work out, so what are you basing this on?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                How are you judging his work ethic, specifically? You probably aren't there to watch him practice or work out, so what are you basing this on?

                His declining statistics, his inability to improve individual aspects of his game, and his overall inability to capitalize on his potential.
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                  The comments about Dunleavy's work ethic being bad --all those comments are complete garbage.

                  So stats are the deciding factor to prove work ethic - garbage

                  I have seen a lot of improvement in his game, in fact I saw a lot just in the 3 months he's been here.

                  As far as his potential is concerned - not sure what you think his potential is, but I think he is almost maxing his potential

                  I'm something different going on here with Mike and some of your coments here. Is it a Duke thing, is it a - I don't know. But this is starting to tick me off.


                  OK, I'm just going to come out and say this right now. I'm starting to think some of you don't or can't appreciate a smart player who is first and foremost a team player.


                  From everything I know, everything I hear, everything I can determine on my onw, Mike is one of the hardest workers on the team without question.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                    people, why compare Dunleavy with Croshere? 2 different players man, Dunleavy is decent at 2 in the offense, just dont like his defense, but i seriously think he is by far so much better than Austin Croshere man. Croshere is more of a role player, a typical 6th man on a good day, but dunleavy man, he has been a starter like all his NBA career, except for the Time Don Nelson experimented him to be a 6th man till he got traded.
                    I just dont think its fair to compare him to AC

                    Dun Averaged PPG 12.8 RPG 5.30 APG 2.8 this whole year but averaged 14.0 points and 5 rebounds as a Pacer in 43 games

                    just dont be lookin for his scoring each game, cuz that aint his game, he is a complimentary player and a solid starter

                    SJAX has more Play-offs experience therefore now he is mentally tougher, if only Dun is assertive enough in the offensive end, he could be so much better, i think he thinks too much in the court and this becomes a negative for him cause it affects his game, not letting the game flow naturally.

                    SJAX right now is playing great for the DUBS, he is a perfect fit with Nellie, great camaraderie with Boom Dizzle which shows a lot in the game.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                      His declining statistics, his inability to improve individual aspects of his game, and his overall inability to capitalize on his potential.
                      Dunleavy's stats INCREASED when he got to Indiana.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        The comments about Dunleavy's work ethic being bad --all those comments are complete garbage.

                        So stats are the deciding factor to prove work ethic - garbage

                        I have seen a lot of improvement in his game, in fact I saw a lot just in the 3 months he's been here.

                        As far as his potential is concerned - not sure what you think his potential is, but I think he is almost maxing his potential

                        I'm something different going on here with Mike and some of your coments here. Is it a Duke thing, is it a - I don't know. But this is starting to tick me off.


                        OK, I'm just going to come out and say this right now. I'm starting to think some of you don't or can't appreciate a smart player who is first and foremost a team player.


                        From everything I know, everything I hear, everything I can determine on my onw, Mike is one of the hardest workers on the team without question.
                        UB:
                        I'm with you on this one. Except I don't think Dunleavy is maxing his potential yet. I think defensively he has the ability to improve with some added strength.

                        I'm just not sold on him at the 2 guard.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                          Originally posted by Cobol Sam View Post
                          Dunleavy's stats INCREASED when he got to Indiana.
                          They would increase for me too if all of a sudden went from coming off the bench to shooting as much as the #1 option.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                            Dun Dun is shooting as much as the nr.1 option (JO)? I doubt that. I haven't looked up the statistics, but I really seriously doubt that.

                            Regards,

                            Mourning
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              The comments about Dunleavy's work ethic being bad --all those comments are complete garbage.

                              So stats are the deciding factor to prove work ethic - garbage

                              I have seen a lot of improvement in his game, in fact I saw a lot just in the 3 months he's been here.

                              As far as his potential is concerned - not sure what you think his potential is, but I think he is almost maxing his potential

                              I'm something different going on here with Mike and some of your coments here. Is it a Duke thing, is it a - I don't know. But this is starting to tick me off.


                              OK, I'm just going to come out and say this right now. I'm starting to think some of you don't or can't appreciate a smart player who is first and foremost a team player.


                              From everything I know, everything I hear, everything I can determine on my onw, Mike is one of the hardest workers on the team without question.
                              UB...I think it comes down to those that value individual play higher than team play. Sometimes I think some types of fans could care less if the P's went 0-82 as long as their personal fav averaged a double-double.

                              As far as Dun is concerned. Most of the games I saw were pre-trade so I have to go by what I saw on TV instead of the actual flow of the game. IMPO he appeared to be working hard and trying. He appeared to be staying with the gameplan and not breaking plays. Question...foot speed v. basketball IQ. Is he just not fleet afoot or is he slow to react? I honestly haven't determined that yet, I'll know better for myself after I see him in person. In the meantime, I like him off the bench as a 6 or 7. As to his being overpaid, it doesn't come out of my pocket so it only affects what we can do as far as player movement. Right now we don't know what that effect is because nobody can make any movement until after the PO's. Some may speculate that we can't (won't) do this or that because of this salary or that salary, but until we get there we can't know what TPTB will or won't do. So why get so worked up over what you THINK might happen?

                              At least we haven't had any PR nightmares with this guy and for a team in PR Hell that is worth something. Like it or not, we're in Indiana...middle America....the Bible-belt. Character DOES mean something to a large percentage of the population. And so, acquiring a player that doesn't make a spectacle of themselves and embarrass the team does have value to TPTB.

                              (sorry for the rambling disjointed nature, short night)
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: PD Referendum - Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                                Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                                UB...I think it comes down to those that value individual play higher than team play. Sometimes I think some types of fans could care less if the P's went 0-82 as long as their personal fav averaged a double-double.
                                That is SO true and Í think it deserves an own thread. There are too much fanboys of certain players here who only praise their favourite players and have a certain disdain for other players. It looks like some of us just don't care for the Pacers enough, and I feel it's creating a split between the team fans and the players fans.
                                Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X