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

Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

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

  • #31
    Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

    For this next season Im am going to convince myself we never had the 11th pick and just missed out on Bayless. But using the 13th pick in the draft we got a proven player that can help now and won a championship.

    Its just too bad Bayless didnt drop down to us at the 13th pick....
    Last edited by CapnBruisin; 06-30-2008, 10:33 PM. Reason: lalalalala I cant hear you *plugging ears*

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

      The only thing I like about the article is the writer was willing to give bad grades. It seemed like ESPN's gave all Cs or higher.

      Regardless, I don't agree w/ the Pacers assessment. JO's value was clearly shown on the market by several teams. I was happy just getting the first round pick. Rasho and TJ were just nice adds.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

        Meh. I didn't love either trade, and I'd still give us better than a D.

        But in terms of JO's value, I'm not sure that we wouldn't have gotten more on draft day instead of dealing 3 days earlier. Ford and at least one other analyst whose name escapes me said that they expected we could get more than Ford/Nesto/#17 for JO.

        I'm also not convinced we got the best value possible for Bayless. But I recognize that I'm in the cheap seats, and it's easy for me to criticize. Plus, we at least picked up guys that I like.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          Wasn't that before they landed Garnett, and signed Posey? And I don't think anyone believed Rondo and Powe would play as well as they did either. He didn't say it was a bad move because of Jeff Green being better than Allen, he said it because they were talking of going young which made aquiring Allen a head scratcher.

          And you should read up on Barac. He actually played surprisingly well last year and looks like a very good prospect. I just doubt we'll ever be able to bring him over.
          I don't really see that as justifying giving the Celtics or Pacers a good grade or a bad grade, but what you're saying perfectly illustrates why draft grades are an exercise in futility. Maybe there is a player Bird sees coming out next year or even someone already in the league who he wants to be our team's star instead of Bayless. Maybe Rush and Hibbert will play exceptionally well this season, like no one expects (apparently). You can pan a team's draft if you want but pundits forget that the draft is a portion of a team's offseason, not the whole offseason.

          As Hicks would say...it's all part of the plan!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
            Hate on Fox all you want (they certainly deserve it)...This assessment might be painfully correct in 18 months.
            It's not like Rush will stop being good in 3 years. So he won't make a huge jump, Bayless doesn't appear to be some mega ace. The ONLY reason I liked the Bayless pick is because he is a solid offensive PG that has the size to actually become the regular PG starter and this team needs that. You downgrade to trying Ford for sure and you add a legit SG to the team. Not exactly a disaster.

            This idea that Bayless was Rose in waiting is nuts. MAYBE Bayless becomes that, but then you could say that for DJ or Rush or Hibbert even. Bayless had all season to blow people away and in the end he was picked 11th and AFTER DJ Augustin and Westbrook. Rush started the year at 25th or worse on all the mocks and went 13th, and not only that but no one was surprised he went 13th.

            So what's that say about him, that he was expected to be a non-entity in the draft in January and continued to climb the boards week after week. He didn't just do a miracle jump with the title run, he was moving up slowly in JAN and FEB too. Then his workout tour was also getting great reviews. I never knew the guy tilll I watched him play in mid JAN. A few games later and I was hooked. By tourney time I wasn't at all surprised by he, Mario or Arthur.


            Hibbert is a risk but it's also the 17th pick and he does have the size and attitude. That's the other part not mentioned, the fact that the Pacers are facing a major PR overhaul and needed not just quality players but also good, solid citizens.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

              From Draft Express
              Taking Hibbert over Kosta Koufos is another one we’ll have to wait and see on.
              Taking Hibbert over... maybe.

              Taking Hibbert over Koufos is not one I think we have to wait and see on.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                Yet another fool caught up in the hype of mock drafts and projections as to where players should fall. I don't care how many ppg a player averages...let's look at whether they are a winner or not. Whether they bring the intangibles to the table that are essential to winning.

                Bayless is a combo guard, pure and simple.....a SG in a PG's body - ala Iverson, Arenas, and Ben Gordon. Sure they are all nice players. Sure Bayless will probably average 20pts a night at some point in his career, possibly make a few all-star games, have a nice shoe contract, and sell a bunch of jersey's. But when's the last time a team won a championship with a combo guard at the helm???? Last time I checked, AI, Gordon, and Arenas were getting trounced in the first round.

                On the flip side, let's look at the dominant teams of the past few years......Detroit, SA, Boston, LA, etc. All these teams won rings and had a well rounded SG who played defense, had good size, had a high basketball IQ, and brought intangibles to the table. Guys like Rip Hamilton and Manu may not have the hype of Arenas and AI, but they have rings....that's a fact. They're winners! Too many people (including myself at one point) get caught up in the hype surrounding players.

                If Bayless was so good, why did Arizona not even make the NCAA tourney??? He even had two other 2009 lottery picks on his team (Budinger & Hill) . Anyone watch Arizona play UCLA this year?? Russell Westbrook made him look like a chump on both ends of the court.

                Rush has a championship. He may not give you 25 ppg, but he does everything well (kinda sounds like another wing on our roster). The fact that Bird swept up the perfect backup to Ford in the process is icing on the cake. Kudos to him.

                Getting Hibbert at 17 was nice. 7'2" 285 pound centers with basketball smarts, solid work ethic, and good character don't grow on trees.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Meh. I didn't love either trade, and I'd still give us better than a D.

                  But in terms of JO's value, I'm not sure that we wouldn't have gotten more on draft day instead of dealing 3 days earlier. Ford and at least one other analyst whose name escapes me said that they expected we could get more than Ford/Nesto/#17 for JO.

                  I'm also not convinced we got the best value possible for Bayless. But I recognize that I'm in the cheap seats, and it's easy for me to criticize. Plus, we at least picked up guys that I like.
                  I'm with you on this.

                  I hated the trade at first , but I'm getting more on board with it as time goes on.

                  I hated the Brandon Rush trade........and still do, but at least we picked up Jack in the process. I just don't see Rush becoming a premium talent and I don't see him as ever being better than Mike Dunleavy............so what's the point.

                  I know there was a logjam at F when we took Granger and things changed in a hurry with that one..........but those circumstanes were not manufactured......and this time I think Bird is going to have to make changes just to give Rush an opportunity. And I still say that if you based playing time on merit alone.........Rush would never see the court for at least 2 years while Quis is still here.

                  Bayless should have been kept .......at least he's only 19..........and he will only be 22 when Ford's deal expires.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                    "Taking Hibbert at 17 was also a mistake as he's limited athletically, and will be nothing more than a solid center."

                    I'm trying to figure out what makes this a bad thing.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                      Getting a "solid center" at pick 17 would be a stroke of genius. If that happens Bird should be GM of the year. Usually all the "solid centers" are gone by pick 11

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                        I've been stuck on the 'solid center' line myself. I'm thrilled to no end if we got a solid center at 17. I'd be thrilled if we got a solid center at about any pick.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                          trying to rebuild now is the reason we will never win a championship.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                            trying to rebuild now is the reason we will never win a championship.
                            Are you saying that Bird should have waited longer to try to rebuild?

                            As I've stated, and other have as well, this is a process rebuilding the franchise. It doesn't happen overnight. What Bird did was improve the team now, but more importantly set the P's up for 2 years down the road when they have the cap space to pull in that superstar so many of us covet. We've got some great talent and potential talent on this team. Granger is going to get better, as are Jack and hopefully Ford stays healthy. We've got two great prospects in Rush and Hibbert (I'm cautiously optimistic with Hibbert - I have my doubts), and there's veteran leadership in Dunleavy, not to mention talent. Let these guys play together for a couple of years, then add a solid stud in this league to that roster and see what happens. The key to whether all of this was a success or not will be two years from now after the FA period ends. If Bird doesn't put the P's over the top, then this was a complete waste.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                              rebuilding is not a one year process like bird seems to think. judging by his recent trades, he feels he's able to rebuild on the fly while remaining somewhat competitive. that just will not work. where will the top talent come from then? the only way this works is if we capitalize on any and all players who fall into our laps (ex. jerryd bayless). i have 0 faith in bird.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                                All of the criticizm really means they didn't trade Granger for 19 year old maybe, right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X