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

Rays of Sun in the Offseason

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

  • Rays of Sun in the Offseason

    Much of this may have already been said, but I've been on vacation and I haven't had time to keep up with everything. Here's my thoughts on everything so far.


    To agree with much of what I'm going to say here, you've got to agree with one basic premise or assumption: Larry Bird and the Simon's have come together and decided that a “tear it down and rebuild from scratch” model is not in the best interests of the franchise. While many might disagree with their conclusion, it's understandable from both perspectives. The Simons want the Pacers to be a profitable business. They are, first and foremost, businessmen who are highly motivated by profit. Undergoing a long and slow rebuilding process doesn't make sense for a team that had the worst attendance in the NBA while gunning for a playoff spot. From Bird's perspective, rebuilding is always a risky proposition for a GM. Also, he hates to lose. I have no doubt that the last two seasons have been incredibly painful for him.


    For those reasons, they decided that the best approach for the Pacers was to be a better team next year than they were this year while trying to build for the future in the process. A “rebuild on the fly”, much like Walsh did in the 90's. The major difference this time is that character will be a primary concern in evaluating players.


    With this in mind, we have two questions to answer when evaluating the offseason moves: Will the Pacers be better next year? Has the trade diminished the team's future prospects for success?


    Both of those questions can be answered with a resounding yes when evaluating both the Portland and Toronto trades.


    1. The Pacers are no longer relying on injury-prone/unreliable players.


    For the past two seasons, the Pacers success has been tied to the health and effective play of O'Neal and Tinsley. These two players have proven that this is a bad strategy. Last season JO played in 42 games, and played less than 30 minutes in 23 of those games. Tinsley played in 39 games. Any team in the NBA would be hampered by losing 2 of it's 4 most talented players for at least ½ the season. Since both players have a well-documented history of unreliability, Bird has made an excellent decision in no longer choosing to count on these guys.


    O'Neal is off to Toronto and Tinsley appears to be the 4th string PG right now. I don't think there's anyone who expects him to be on the roster at the beginning of the season.


    2. The team has improved at 4 positions this offseason.


    PG: With the additions of TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack, PG has gone from a position of weakness to a position of strength. It's the strongest group of PG's the Pacers have had since Mark Jackson and Travis Best. Even if TJ Ford misses a few games, which should be expected, Jack has missed only 6 games in 3 seasons. With Ford out, a Jack/Diener backcourt is still a dramatic improvement over what we had last year. Jack is also the exact type of PG that people like Tbird were saying needed to be paired with Ford. He's big, strong, reliable and a good defender. He can hold his own against big PG's like Billups and Deron Williams, and, while he's not nearly as creative as Ford, he's still an asset on the offensive end of the floor.


    SG: Brandon Rush is an upgrade over any back-up SG the Pacers played last season. He'll quickly prove to be a more effective player than his brother, Marquis Daniels, and Flip Murray. In addition to Rush, Jack has the ability to play SG if he needs to. At 6'3”, he's a bit undersized, but his strength and defensive intensity generally make up for his lack of height.


    SF: While no SF's have been added to the roster, the addition of Rush will likely mean more minutes at the SF position for Dunleavy. Also, Rush is big enough to play SF.


    C: The Pacers were a very effective team last year when David Harrison played well. Harrison is likely gone, but Nesterovic and Hibbert will both prove to be more effective players.


    O'Neal only played 30.6% of the avaialble minutes at the PF position last season, so his loss shouldn't be too substantial. Also, Troy Murphy is arguably 2nd best PF in the Central division right now, behind only Rasheed Wallace.


    Other reasons to like the moves, thoughts on Rush, Hibbert, Bayless, and Diogu:


    The perimeter defense will be much, much better with Ford, Jack, and B. Rush.


    We won't have to see Daniels, Murray, or Tinsley play PG for the Pacers again.


    Troy Murphy will no longer be played as a center.


    I really like Brandon Rush. I think he's a good player now who has more development potential than most people expect. I'd compare him to Granger that way. Danny had a fairly well-developed and polished game coming out of college, but his hard work and smarts have helped him to become a better player than most people would have ever projected. Rush has a similar work ethic and intelligence level. I think he could become a Shane Battier type player (or better) who isn't a star but who undoubtedly helps his team win games. One thing that Jonathan Givony pointed out about Rush on the NBATV draft preview show is that he was coming off a knee injury last year and is potentially a more explosive and athletic player than we saw during the season.


    I also like Hibbert. I see a lot of Brad Miller in Hibbert. I just hope that he develops Brad's mean streak. Hibbert is a highly skilled player. He's got a good jump shot and is a good passer. His lack of rebounding worries me a bit, but that could be due to the system he played in.


    I liked Ike, but apparently Larry and Jim had decided he was never going to amount to anything in this system. If that's so, I'm glad they moved him along.


    I was never that impressed by Bayless last season, but I only watched a couple of games. I was excited when we drafted him, but not upset with the trade at all.


    I'll end with a couple of guarantees:
    1. Brandon Rush will be more important to the Pacers in 08-09 than Jerryd Bayless will be to the Blazers.
    2. Jarrett Jack will be more important to the Pacers in than Ike Diogu will be to the Blazers.
    Last edited by OakMoses; 07-03-2008, 12:55 PM.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

    Good post, but help me understand this:

    With this in mind, we have two questions to answer when evaluating the offseason moves: Will the Pacers be better next year? Has the diminished the team's future prospects for success?

    Both of those questions can be answered with a resounding yes when evaluating both the Portland and Toronto trades.
    Are you saying these moves have diminished the Pacers' chance of success in the future?

    It seems incongruent with the overall upbeat attitude of your post, which I find impressive and largely agree with.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      Good post, but help me understand this:



      Are you saying these moves have diminished the Pacers' chance of success in the future?

      It seems incongruent with the overall upbeat attitude of your post, which I find impressive and largely agree with.
      No, It's a question to use when evaluating a trade. It should read "Has the trade diminished the Pacers' chance of success in the future?"

      I don't think either trade has.

      Thanks for pointing it out, I'll edit the original.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        No, It's a question to use when evaluating a trade. It should read "Has the trade diminished the Pacers' chance of success in the future?"

        I don't think either trade has.

        Thanks for pointing it out, I'll edit the original.
        I thought that's the question you were asking, but when you say "the answer to both is a resounding yes", you're actually saying "Yes, the trades have made the Pacers better" and "Yes, the trades have diminished the Pacers' chance of success in the future."

        However, I think you're actually trying to say that yes, the trades improved the Pacers, but No, the trades did not diminish the Pacers' chance of future success.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

          Good points, although Ford is an injury risk. I think we improved our PG dramatically and SG situation as well. Our front court situation is a little less clear...and probably depends on how much Hibbert contributes. We already know what Rasho can do.

          All things considered, I expect this team to be better than last year primarily because of our improvements in the back court. TJ Ford is a guy who could make a significant difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

            I think we'll be better because our main guys will probably play. Just the cohesion will be enough for 5 wins, I'd think.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

              Dunleavy and Granger should be better than last year, too.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                I'll end with a couple of guarantees:
                1. Brandon Rush will be more important to the Pacers in 08-09 than Jerryd Bayless will be to the Blazers.
                2. Jarrett Jack will be more important to the Pacers in than Ike Diogu will be to the Blazers.
                Your second guarantee is not too earth-shattering. Diogu is not even a sure thing to make the Blazers' roster, and is a longshot to get much playing time.

                Your first guarantee is crazy and unlikely to come true. Bayless will be counted on for less because he has far superior teammates than Rush has. Despite that, Bayless has a good chance to become an NBA star, while Rush is a Rush, meaning that there's a good chance that he won't live up to his pre-draft hype, just like his brothers.

                I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot. Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                  Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                  I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot. Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.
                  I'm sorry but I think some people around here are over-estimating Bayless. I'm sure a guard with "CP3 skills and a better shot" wouldn't have slipped to number 11 in the draft.
                  New Zealand's Number 1 Pacer Fan!! Visited Conseco Fieldhouse Feb 10 2006

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                    Roy M-

                    Without attempting to weigh in on the Rush v Bayless contrast, I
                    don't see how anyone can even begin to compare Bayless with
                    Chris Paul. It's ridiculous.

                    Paul is a prodigy at the PG spot in terms of innate instincts, decision
                    making and elevating the play of his teamates, etc. If he had, say, the
                    size and raw athleticism of Rose, he'd have a legit shot at ending up
                    as the best PG ever. As it is, he's the best in the NBA right now.

                    Bayless has barely even played the position. He's years away from
                    being anything close to Chris Paul in those areas. And since he
                    likely won't be asked to do much other than score and play off
                    of Brandon Roy in Portland, he has almost no shot of ever
                    developing at PG to anywhere near that extent.

                    I expect Bayless to be a very nice NBA player. He may end up being
                    a more well rounded Ben Gordon or a Marbury with a brain. But he's
                    not gonna be on a level with Chris Paul.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                      Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                      I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot.
                      This is perhaps the silliest thing I've heard in a long, long time.

                      Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.
                      I don't see what his tattoos have to do with this.
                      Last edited by count55; 07-03-2008, 09:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post

                        I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot. Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                          Originally posted by NZPacer View Post
                          I'm sure a guard with "CP3 skills and a better shot" wouldn't have slipped to number 11 in the draft.
                          Not that I totally agree with Roy, but it's still hard to believe Paul slipped past #1 on draft night.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                            Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                            I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot. Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.
                            This may be one of the most ignorant things I have read on a message board.

                            Chris Paul is a pure point guard, the hope is that Jerryd Bayless can become a point guard. The best aspect of Bayless' game is his jumpshot, while that was the main concern (other than size) surrounding Paul when he was drafted.

                            They couldn't be more different players, other than the fact that they are both fast.

                            TJ Ford is a heck of a lot more like Paul than Bayless.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Not that I totally agree with Roy, but it's still hard to believe Paul slipped past #1 on draft night.
                              Exhibit A - 7-footer (people are stupid about 7-footers)

                              Exhibit B - The Atlanta Hawks

                              Williams and Paul were an interesting debate at the time. I was a Williams fan, and I think a lot of people liked him because of his size. I'm still a huge Deron Williams fan, but it's clear that Paul has become the better player (and better than I ever expected).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X