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

Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

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

  • #16
    Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    oh and Joe Alexander may be one of the most overrated player in this draft. Bringing him to a team chock full of small forwards makes no sense.
    most who have watched joe extensively this past year at west virginia would disagree wholeheartedly with such an assessment.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

      Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
      Croz24-

      You make a decent point (particularly on Speights). But frankly, if
      Westbrook would be only a 6th man on a very good team, that
      might well make him the Pacers 2nd best player in fairly short order.

      Seperately, but relatedly, other than Alexander who you've been
      pushing for weeks now and Rose/Beasley, who do you really like
      in this draft that might be there at #11 ?


      It's a good question.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        most who have watched joe extensively this past year at west virginia would disagree wholeheartedly with such an assessment.
        Joe Alexander's a reliable outside shot away from being a big-time player. He may be without it, but if he gets it, look out.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

          Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
          IMF-

          I think that DW trades the pick unless Mayo somehow slides
          to #6 which ain't gonna happen. Wouldn't surprise me if he tries
          to trade back a few spots and takes Augustin.
          I agree with this - somewhat. I think he'll wait and see how the early picks go. If it's a trade I see us making a pick and doing one of those "trades the rights to."

          It's unlikely, but possible that Bayless or Mayo will be there. DW will wait on that.

          I think he may also try to trade up. Not sure if David Lee and the 6 can get us up to 3 or 4 or not. I like Lee but defensively he's a tweener.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
            I agree with this - somewhat. I think he'll wait and see how the early picks go. If it's a trade I see us making a pick and doing one of those "trades the rights to."

            It's unlikely, but possible that Bayless or Mayo will be there. DW will wait on that.

            I think he may also try to trade up. Not sure if David Lee and the 6 can get us up to 3 or 4 or not. I like Lee but defensively he's a tweener.
            I thought Bayless was a lock to go 6 as well, but with Crawford and Robinson already there, its hard to see them wanting Bayless or Augustin. It really depends on how they view those two current players.

            I'm guessing they would love Kevin to get by Memphis at 5 but will settle for Gianialli when he doesn't.

            If Phoenix trades up to 7 I wonder if they prefer Gordon or Bayless to replace Barbosa.........probbaly Bayless.

            Milw chooses between gordon and Alexander.......I still think its Alexander.

            Charlotte probbaly chooses the player Seattle passes on at 4.......either Lopez or Westbrook.

            Jersey then takes Gordon or whichever big they like best.............they could even choose Donte Green if they move Jefferson.

            Leaving us to choose between Augustin or Gordon or a big.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

              Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
              I thought Bayless was a lock to go 6 as well, but with Crawford and Robinson already there, its hard to see them wanting Bayless or Augustin. It really depends on how they view those two current players.

              I'm guessing they would love Kevin to get by Memphis at 5 but will settle for Gianialli when he doesn't.
              I'm still guessing Alexander for these reasons:

              -Nobody in NY is talking about him at all
              - He's been in for workouts. Twice.

              It'll depend - if Mayo or Bayless are somehow around it'll be different but DW never picks the guy everyone expects.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                Walsh takes Gordon, Alexander woulds be a good pick at about 17. Pacers make a trade before the draft (JO gone) we pick earlier.
                "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                  D-Knick-

                  I only mentioned Augie because he'd be a great fit at PG in D'A's
                  system. On the contrary, I don't think Bayless fits very well at
                  all. He's a LONG way from having the instincts at that spot req'd
                  in that system.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    I'm still guessing Alexander for these reasons:

                    -Nobody in NY is talking about him at all
                    - He's been in for workouts. Twice.

                    It'll depend - if Mayo or Bayless are somehow around it'll be different but DW never picks the guy everyone expects.
                    He wouldn't be a bad pick. I'm pretty convinced the top 5 will be :

                    Rose
                    Beasley
                    Mayo
                    Lopez
                    Love

                    So the Knicks hold the cards for everybody else in the lottery.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                      Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                      He wouldn't be a bad pick. I'm pretty convinced the top 5 will be :

                      Rose
                      Beasley
                      Mayo
                      Lopez
                      Love

                      So the Knicks hold the cards for everybody else in the lottery.
                      NY has needs at SF, PG, and less so, a post player.

                      Gallinari, Alexander, Bayless, Westbrook would be in play.

                      First guess would be Bayless. Second would be Gallinari.

                      PG is very important and I think if possible, they would address that need first.

                      Guess it could be Gallinari if he is that good and Walsh thinks Starbury will respond to D'Antoni...

                      Alexander is going to be good. I feel more certain about him than Gallinari, which I've not seen much of...

                      Bird in the hand is worth....

                      welcome plax80... you come here from indystar?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                        I've been saying since February that the Pacers will have the option of drafting Gordon. This scares me. He reminds me so much of Freddie Jones it's scary. They are both undersized 2 guards.
                        "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                          Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
                          I've been saying since February that the Pacers will have the option of drafting Gordon. This scares me. He reminds me so much of Freddie Jones it's scary. They are both undersized 2 guards.
                          The one thing Gordon does have over Freddie is his love for basketball. May sound silly but it seems guys who just love the game seem to produce in the NBA. If it was all about the money then I would be scared.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                            Even with Gordon's shooting slump, I'd have to say he's a much better shooter than Freddie.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                              Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                              D-Knick-

                              I only mentioned Augie because he'd be a great fit at PG in D'A's
                              system. On the contrary, I don't think Bayless fits very well at
                              all. He's a LONG way from having the instincts at that spot req'd
                              in that system.
                              Your guess is as good as mine. Nobody really knows what anyone's going to do - and we won't until tomorrow night. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is the Bulls taking Rose - which means they'll probably take Beasley.
                              Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 06-25-2008, 09:13 AM.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chad Ford's latest rumors. Tuesday 6/24

                                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                                that bolded text is pretty much what i've been saying for the past year. and yes, the vast majority of the pfs in this draft are stiffs. you have people on here dying for the pacers to draft a pf who hardly played his freshman year, and then averaged just solid numbers on a bad florida team. pacersdigest needs to stop overvaluing decent players who's teams went far in the tourney (arthur, chalmers, augustin, westbrook) and those who were on god awful teams which allowed them to put up the numbers they did (speights).
                                I'm in agreement with you. Many of the guys I like I wasn't thinking of as #11 picks, and chasing Westbrook's everyman/McKey-at-SG game into the top 5 seems silly. I still view him as a Fred Jones type, and it's not even like that's a big knock. Freddie stuck in the NBA and got serious, helpful minutes for the Pacers in the playoffs - recall the Boston and Miami series in 2004 for example. It was his energy and scoring burst that broke open a few of those games. When smart and selective with his 3PAs he's a solid shooter, capable of holding an Eff FG% around 50%.

                                Where the problems came was when he was asked to be a PG or expected himself to be a serious starter. So if Westbrook is expected to be a nice swingman punch off the bench for energy and defense and scrappy play then great. If you want to spend #11 to get that then fine.

                                Just don't draft guys on what you are really hoping they are going to be even though they've never been that before. And that's double for the bigs. There's a lot of helpful players in this draft as long as you realize they only bring a couple of NBA aspects to the table and probably won't round out into a big time starter.


                                My one "disagreement" is that I don't value Chalmers for his tourney run. I value Chalmers because he did it all year. He and Rush were OFF THE BOARDS to start the year, 2nd round or coming out next year. They climbed all year long and had moved up long before the tourney. The value on Chalmers isn't to hit a miracle 3, it's to get a steady PG with decent size who can score for himself and will keep the offense going well if you have some plays in place for him to work with. He's not a 1 on 1 answer ala Rose but IMO that style of offense stinks.

                                But I think he gives you a lot of what DJ does and is a pretty good character guy himself and perhaps a better all-around PG. #11 pick? All year I had him as about #25 or so. Some guys dropped out so I can see that going to 18-19.
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-25-2008, 10:10 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X