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

Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

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

  • #16
    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

    And from what I've read by people on here, the scheme is different from the one he ran in Philly and Boston.

    I view him as a quick fix, and those hardly ever work. If you're foundation is cracked, it needs fixed first. Replacing the drywall might take away the cracked walls, but eventually the same problems will pop up.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      stupid. just plain stupid. the pacers need to pick the best player available, NOT the players who fit their style. job could be gone in 2yrs, then what? you're left with average players who don't fit the new coach's style. drafting players based on the style of your coach, if you aren't a contender, is just setting yourself up for more failure. always draft the best player available, regardless of style.
      We need PG, SG, and C. I agree with best player available in most cases but this team has way too many SF/PF type of players. I think you only draft one of those if someone really amazing dramatically slips.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        My thing is, I have no idea what that last paragraph is supposed to mean.
        It's poorly written.

        I'm taking it as: "The rules have changed regarding getting prospects into our building for workouts. I'm not sure if it's a good rule or not."
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

          It was poorly spoken. I'm not making a Bird joke. It is the truth. That is why I believe GM's would call to talk to Donnie. That was a Bird joke.

          The NBA is not a system league. It is a player league. Jim is not going to be here long enough to draft people for a system. That isn't a knock against Jim. It is just how long coaches last in the NBA.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

            Phil Jackson's teams use the triangle, right? Larry Brown needs/wants certain types of players, right? Don Nelson?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

              How long has Brown been with one team? Certainly teams are not built around his system. Phil Jackson has won championships having the best players of the era on his team. Nelson I wouldn't say is that great of a playoff coach.

              I believe that players not coaches win championships. What coaches do contribute is leadership/management not a system.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                We need PG, SG, and C. I agree with best player available in most cases but this team has way too many SF/PF type of players. I think you only draft one of those if someone really amazing dramatically slips.
                honestly, if we are left seriously left with the choice of love, westbrook, or augustin and aren't trading out of the #11 slot, i'd take greene, gallinari, and even joe alexander over the 3...at least, imo, the later 3 have a chance to become better than a role player in this league...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                  Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                  honestly, if we are left seriously left with the choice of love, westbrook, or augustin and aren't trading out of the #11 slot, i'd take greene, gallinari, and even joe alexander over the 3...at least, imo, the later 3 have a chance to become better than a role player in this league...
                  Yeah, but you want us to trade Granger. So we don't take your talent appraisals seriously.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                    Based on what Bird said, I'm guessing:

                    Russel Westbrook
                    Kosta Koufos
                    Donte Green
                    Anthony Randolph

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      Phil Jackson's teams use the triangle, right? Larry Brown needs/wants certain types of players, right? Don Nelson?
                      Makes sense. I still think we should draft a legit PG
                      R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Yeah, but you want us to trade Granger. So we don't take your talent appraisals seriously.
                        you ought to take my 'talent appraisals' seriously because unlike most people on this board who are either purely nba fans or who use mock drafts to judge players, i actually watch college games and have a great appreciation for high school basketball/college recruiting. i am usually following these kids as they are still in high school or as soon as they enter as freshman. i would think based on the under the radar names i brought up before the college season began or just as it was getting underway, and seeing how those kids are now being talked about suddenly on this board, you'd think i'd get a little more respect in that department.

                        as for granger, as far as i can see, granger is NOT a franchise player. to be a title contender, this team needs a great player and solid role players. now how exactly are the pacers to get that franchise player by remaining mediocre under granger? they won't. granger is the only player on this team that COULD land us that franchise player. granger is also playing sf in a league jam packed with sfs of granger's ability or greater. sfs are easy to find. shoot, imo dunleavy is a better fit on this team as a sf than granger is, and will cost us $4mil less and is only 2yrs older. compound that with the fact that granger's appeal to other teams will be drastically depleted once he resigns with the pacers for $10-12mil. granger is also not as young as most, i think, understand. he has essentially 5yrs as our supposed leader until he declines in ability. so are we really going to pin the hopes of our franchise for the next 5yrs on DANNY GRANGER? unless we get lucky, very lucky, in the draft, this team is going nowhere with danny. history shows us that teams need top 5 picks to win titles. which means you must be bad in order to be great. pacers will never be bad enough to become great under granger. by trading him at least we have a chance...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                          So let me get this straight. You think we should trade Granger so we can get worse in order to get a higher pick next year.

                          What happens if we trade Granger but still good enough to squeak into 30 or so wins?

                          You're selling Granger short and you never trade away your best player at the chance you'll get a high draft pick and actually draft the right guy.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                            Based on what Bird said, I'm guessing:

                            Russel Westbrook
                            Kosta Koufos
                            Donte Green
                            Anthony Randolph
                            I'm an OSU fan, and my friend was on the team this year so I watched every single game they played.

                            Kosta is the mix of the black hole aspect of Al's game and Troy Murphy. I would cry if we picked him.

                            So we probably will.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                              i'm of the mindset that trading granger for jerryd bayless or oj mayo would drastically improve our chances of becoming good-great and both of those players fill a much more important need on the team...yes, in sports, it can be much more beneficial to the team to be bad than average-good. just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                                i'm of the mindset that trading granger for jerryd bayless or oj mayo would drastically improve our chances of becoming good-great
                                But if Danny's so bad, why would teams give up a top-5 pick for him?

                                EDIT: Top 4, really, since both of those guys might be gone by 5.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X