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

D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

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

  • #16
    Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"
    Originally Posted by Jay
    Yes, he's a high energy player.
    He needs to be a high-energy player to make up for all the mistakes HE makes.
    I'm not sure he's still a good enough high-energy player at his age to cover up for all of his own mistakes.
    I'd bring him back as the fifteenth-man and leave him inactive except for whenever one of our top-three PGs is hurt.
    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Glad I'm not the only one saying this. He gambles so often and misses, letting his man go straight down the lane...
    I'm missing something.

    I admit that I spent most of last season working in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (lucky me, huh?), but I don't understand your thinking.

    I've seen you guys post these kind of things about Armstrong, but it just doesn't agree with the perception that I have of him.

    He is old and certainly cannot play heavy minutes throughout a season. That much is a certainty.

    But I've always thought of him as a very decent on-the-ball defender, applying pressure to his opponent over the entire length of the court. I've certainly thought of DJ as a significantly better defender than Tinsley, for example. Since I didn't attend many games at all, and the east coast did not carry many games, I can only rely on statistics... but DJ's assist-to-turnover ratio was 2.55 compared to Tinsley's 2.48... about equal.

    So, I assume the comment made by Jay pertaining to DJ regarding "the mistakes HE makes" should by default extend to Tinsley as well? Consequently, should we just chuck all of our PGs and "start over"?

    Just a thought. Perhaps Banks, Rush and Owens, with McLeod sprinkled in as well. Could they as a group be any worse than what we are relying on now? A little variety in style amongst the four, with the defensive end of the floor definitely covered.
    Last edited by beast23; 07-10-2007, 10:07 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

      Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
      I'm guessing you can see the smoke rising from his still smoldering bandwagon for miles around EnergySolutions Arena..........
      No, that's just me sitting at the wheel smokin' a stoogie.

      Eddie >>> You
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
        No, that's just me sitting at the wheel smokin' a stoogie.
        Smokin' a stoogie?
        Last edited by MagicRat; 07-10-2007, 10:54 PM. Reason: First one probably wasn't very nice....
        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Glad I'm not the only one saying this. He gambles so often and misses, letting his man go straight down the lane, and he chucks so many 3s at a low rate (after NOV at least) that it kills you.

          Normally I would say "no thanks", but then I look at where this team is currently at and I think "what's the difference".

          If he's willing to stay and endure the pain then I'm happy to have him I suppose.

          Yes...I believe we both witnessed this in MANY of the games that we attended last year. If Army stays, I'd hope that this coaching staff would be able to use him sparingly. I know injuries took some options off the table, but it was clear that Armstrong was all used up in Febuary. I'd like to keep D.A. as an emergency/change of Pace guy, but not as any kind of routine back-up.
          ...Still "flying casual"
          @roaminggnome74

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
            Originally Posted by Jay
            Yes, he's a high energy player.
            He needs to be a high-energy player to make up for all the mistakes HE makes.
            I'm not sure he's still a good enough high-energy player at his age to cover up for all of his own mistakes.
            I'd bring him back as the fifteenth-man and leave him inactive except for whenever one of our top-three PGs is hurt.
            I'm missing something.

            I admit that I spent most of last season working in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (lucky me, huh?), but I don't understand your thinking.

            I've seen you guys post these kind of things about Armstrong, but it just doesn't agree with the perception that I have of him.

            He is old and certainly cannot play heavy minutes throughout a season. That much is a certainty.

            But I've always thought of him as a very decent on-the-ball defender, applying pressure to his opponent over the entire length of the court. I've certainly thought of DJ as a significantly better defender than Tinsley, for example. Since I didn't attend many games at all, and the east coast did not carry many games, I can only rely on statistics... but DJ's assist-to-turnover ratio was 2.55 compared to Tinsley's 2.48... about equal.

            So, I assume the comment made by Jay pertaining to DJ regarding "the mistakes HE makes" should by default extend to Tinsley as well? Consequently, should we just chuck all of our PGs and "start over"?

            Just a thought. Perhaps Banks, Rush and Owens, with McLeod sprinkled in as well. Could they as a group be any worse than what we are relying on now? A little variety in style amongst the four, with the defensive end of the floor definitely covered.

            Whew....

            I'm glad you wrote that because I thought it was just me.

            To their credit they have both said that all of last season, I didn't get it then either but I never said anything cause I thought I must be missing something.

            However I am willing to admit one thing, I've seen such crap defense from Tinsley over the past four years that anybody who looks like they give crap about keeping their man in front of them may cause me to have the illusion that they are playing good defense.

            However I did sour on Armstrong for that extremely unprofessional meltdown he had at the end of the season vs. that ref.

            Honestly that turned me off so fast that I was ok if we didn't bring him back just for that reason.

            But I will still say that at the end of the day I was as comfortable with him on the floor.

            However I like McCloud better though.


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

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              According to the SI payroll page DA is slated to get 1.2 million next season. Pretty cheap insurance for the PG position.
              Yes and the NBA pays a good third of that.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

                DA is a great player for this team... as long as he only sees the court about once a month. Otherwise there's nothing not to love about him.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

                  I didn't think DA was all the detrimental out there. I felt his positives were more than his negatives. That's not a stat thing, but a gut/observational thing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

                    I agree Mal, even when he wasn't on the floor I thought he had an awesome impact by being upbeat. I really had hoped he would come back this year as the third point guard and then be an assistant coach the following year. I think you keep good guys like DA who have a passion for the game in your organization in some way.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

                      A very low salary guy who wants a shot, is young, better that this point than DA, and perhaps better than McLeod

                      is John Lucas III.

                      He seems to be the odd man out in Houston and can likely be had for next to nothing.

                      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4958536.html


                      July 11, 2007, 1:53AM

                      Summer league is not for Lucas
                      Rockets also may not be part of guard's plans

                      Summer league has been good to John Lucas III.

                      For a week last summer, he was a star. He had the ball in his hands, all the shots he could want, and soon, a three-year contract with the Rockets, the team for which his father had starred and he had been a ball boy.

                      The Rockets wanted him to reprise last summer's performance, particularly with a new coaching staff and offense to learn. Lucas, however, preferring to stick to his training routine, decided to go another way. And with the Rockets seemingly overloaded at his position, he sounds ready to keep going.

                      Looking elsewhere

                      "I want to go somewhere I'll have the opportunity and a shot to play," Lucas said. "We have a lot of point guards: Mike James, Rafer Alston, myself and Aaron (Brooks). That's a lot of competition. I don't mind competition. I'm looking forward to next year. I'm looking forward to playing. If they move me, I'll go to another team and contribute any way I can.

                      "We're talking to try to see what's best for me. It is a business. I want to play. Last year, I was miserable. It's a situation I had never been in. I never stayed on the bench before. I don't want to go through anything like last year. I'm waiting for my chance. I just want to play. That's my whole thing."

                      Asked if he had requested a trade or to be waived (which, unless he were picked up, would require the Rockets to pay him the $770,610 guaranteed on his contract), Lucas said: "I just want to play.

                      "I don't know what's going on. Right now, I'm a Houston Rocket. They deal with my agent. I have to take care of what I have to do on the court. I have not taken a day off since the season ended. When we lost Game 7 (to the Utah Jazz), I went to work the next day and have been in the gym every day since."

                      Because he has lived in the gym so long, Lucas chose not to leave it to start over in another gym. The Rockets, however, wanted to have him work with their coaches, and when they announced their summer league team, he was on it.

                      "The communication wasn't very good," general manager Daryl Morey said. "David (Falk, Lucas' agent) probably thinks I dropped the ball. We spoke about him spending a week in summer league.

                      "He said he thought it wasn't a good idea. I said I thought it was. We got up to that point (the team was announced). We can't reach John. David calls the day before (summer practices began) and said, 'He's out.'

                      "I guess when he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that meant he wasn't coming."

                      Lucas, as a third-year player, had the option to play or not play in summer league. The Rockets could have demanded that Vassilis Spanoulis, a rookie last season, play, but chose not to take that step. But because two of their young point guards are not participating, they added one Tuesday.

                      With Spanoulis out, the Rockets brought in Luis Flores, the player they drafted to trade for Spanoulis during the second round of 2004.

                      Improving at home

                      Lucas hoped by sitting out the summer league, he would improve as much as when he played in it.

                      "You usually only play two years of summer league," Lucas said. "You play if you're not on a team or trying to make another team. I'm under contract for two years, a year guaranteed. I feel, individually, I need to get stronger and get better.

                      "I can fit in any system. I'm a quick learner. I can fit in in a day.

                      "Playing every day against NBA players like T.J. Ford, Earl Watson, Steve Francis and Damon Stoudamire, working with Sam Cassell, to me I feel will make me better."

                      Whether that will be with the Rockets remains to be seen.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 07-11-2007, 09:14 AM.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

                        Lucas might be somebody worth looking at. But I am so sick of talking about backup and third-string points. It all comes down to Tinsley. If he plays well, they won't matter. If he fails again, they aren't gonna be good enough to make a difference.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: D. Armstrong ""I'm not old. I could still play another couple more years"

                          I didn't realize you all were expecting a point-by-point comparison of DA and JT.

                          So here it is:

                          DA is a very similar player to Tinsley, high risk and high reward. Both players gamble too much on defense, attempt passes they shouldn't, and have terrible shot selection. DA is a better shooter, but can't see the floor or run the offense. Tinsley can't even finish at the rim, but is an excellent distributor. DA hustles to cover up for his many mistakes and turnovers, thrives off of (phony) crowd reaction, and his fans praise his hustle and ignore his flaws. Tinsley seems to have a quiet personality, probably plays better on the road, and his fans praise his court vision while remembering that he's fragile (physically) and just plain awful at stopping dribble penetration.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X