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

A slight dissapointment

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

  • #16
    Re: A slight dissapointment

    Originally posted by Shade View Post


    And McRoberts sucked during it.
    Didn't Shawne suck two out of three games?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A slight dissapointment

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Ok by no means do I want to start off the season on a down note but I want to express one small dissapointment so far in the pre-season. Well it's not really not just in the pre-season it's more of an overall thing.

      I am really dissapointed that we are beginning the third season of Shawne Williams career and he is already an after thought. Let's be honest even if there was a glowing piece in the paper about him almost everybody would assume that it was a puff p.r. piece to make everyone feel comfortable with him.

      It's just a real dang shame that he allowed himself to get into this position. I never bought into the hype that he was going to be better than Granger but I honestly thought that by this season he would be a lock for our 6th man spot. As it stands I don't even know where he is in the rotation. In truth if he had done some physical work he should also be considered for our p.f. spot.

      I would really have liked to have turned on the news and heard O'Brien raving about how Shawne was the hardest worker in camp or how he is pushing everybody to the next level. But with his history, even if this were said, I'm afraid I would be skeptical.

      It's not a downer on the team, per say. I just am dissapointed because this time two seasons ago I honestly thought that by now he would not only be on his way but would be dang close to arriving.

      As it stands right now, the only other player I've been more disappointed with was Bender (through little fault of his own).

      Shawne clearly has more ability than anyone else on the team, and I still believe that. He has a great shot, can drive, post up, pass, rebound, he's active...there is very little he can't do. But he doesn't appear to have the focus and drive, and that's what is going to separate him from Granger.

      I'll admit to being one of the people who thought we should trade Granger before trading Shawne, but I've definitely changed my stance (without considering value we could get in return). It all started mid season last year when he stopped receiving playing time in favor of more time for Murph and Daniels. He lost a lot of confidence and never truly recovered.

      To be honest, I 100% expect him to be gone before the start of the season, whether it's via trade or release. I'd love to see him get his act together somewhere else, but I don't think he'll ever mature.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A slight dissapointment

        I think Shawne's play has regressed (at least last year, obviously I haven't seen him play this year). I thought last season he looked somewhere between lost and uninterested.

        -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


        • #19
          Re: A slight dissapointment

          On a semi related note, Obie said on Friday that Marquis Daniels would get 30 minutes a night if the season were to start today. This would cut down on Williams or BRush being in the rotation I think. Unless Shawne is intended to play minutes at the PF rotation.

          http://www.1070thefan.com/insider/bl...tryID=10009861

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A slight dissapointment

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            On a semi related note, Obie said on Friday that Marquis Daniels would get 30 minutes a night if the season were to start today. This would cut down on Williams or BRush being in the rotation I think. Unless Shawne is intended to play minutes at the PF rotation.

            http://www.1070thefan.com/insider/bl...tryID=10009861
            This is the single most discouraging thing I think that I could possibly hear, short of "Danny Granger's run off to join the Hungarian circus" or "In the interest of a real training camp battle, we've decided to give Jamaal another shot at the starting job."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A slight dissapointment

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              This is the single most discouraging thing I think that I could possibly hear, short of "Danny Granger's run off to join the Hungarian circus" or "In the interest of a real training camp battle, we've decided to give Jamaal another shot at the starting job."
              I find it interesting, part of me hopes Marquis really has maybe got it and is ready to consistently contribute from his off season work. The other part of me thinks that Marquis hasn't changed but no one else has stepped up to take some minutes.

              Either way, I tend to agree with you to an extent. I'd rather B Rush get some minutes under his belt or to see if Shawne can take another step in his progression. Playing Marquis 30 minutes in November doesn't make you a better team in April, nor does it help let you know what you'll have 2 years from now.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A slight dissapointment

                Well, hopefully they view Rush and Daniels as both being capable of playing the 2 or 3. If that's the case, and Shawne is out of the picture, there are plenty of minutes to be had.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A slight dissapointment

                  Yeah, my discouragement is surrounding the threat in PT to both Rush and Jack, not Williams.

                  My disappointment in Williams is another matter entirely.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A slight dissapointment

                    I agree with count55. I've had nightmares about Marquis Daniels playing a large role on this squad. Am I willing to give the guy one more chance? Just barely. Though I'd rather not, if given the choice.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A slight dissapointment

                      In all of my "give minutes to Jack, Rush, Granger and Hibbert" rants, I've never contemplated Daniels as part of the mix.

                      My estimate of 29 wins this season and 38 next season may both be waayyyyy too high if Rush has to sit on the bench and watch Daniels play.

                      Just as I don't like the idea of either Granger or Dunleavy playing SG, I don't think either Rush or Daniels would be very effective at SF.

                      - - - - - - - - -

                      I sincerely believe this comment was made to showcase Daniels for inclusion in a trade. I don't see any purpose in playing Daniels, Williams or Foster this season and think they are worth more to the Pacers in a trade (even for draft picks) than to take minutes from the young core that will be here in coming seasons.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A slight dissapointment

                        Couldn't it just mean that Rush has no experience, has had a couple of days to learn systems, and "today" Marquis is a whole lot better?

                        JOB may simply be trying to motivate Rush.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A slight dissapointment

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          Obie said on Friday that Marquis Daniels would get 30 minutes a night if the season were to start today.
                          Lord, beer me strength.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A slight dissapointment

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            I sincerely believe this comment was made to showcase Daniels for inclusion in a trade.
                            I sure hope so.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A slight dissapointment

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              I've consistently wondered what people see in him.

                              He obviously has the potential to be a decent back of the rotation guy (ala Luke Walton, Matt Barnes, Ime Udoka, or Bostjan Nachbar type impact) and Jay is clearly delerious if he thinks the kid wouldn't be a 30 mpg guy in Conference USA at this point...but the idea of him being a starter in this League, let alone an actual difference maker, has honestly never really crossed my mind while watching him play.
                              I'm a big fan. He's extremely athletic going to the rim, more so than Granger, and has been the best break finisher on the team. A lot of guys running the fast break have struggled when it's even mildly defended but Shawne has no problems changing tempo or giving it that extra pop on the step or jump to get over/past them for the throw down or at least protected layup.

                              Then add to this a great outside jumper and general good athletic ability on both ends and what you have is a guy that looks similar to Danny but just painfully weak when it comes to game awareness. Heck, he's even shown more confidence with his own game than Danny did in his first two seasons.

                              Let's keep in mind that Shawne is still well behind Danny. He was a one and done, not a 4 year, and he came out a year after Danny also. I really think he could be coached into something and I think either JOB or Bird agree with that view. I think Bird's motivation in possibly moving him is to just be done with all the PR issues. I'm surprised he hasn't pushed to dump Quis more too.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: A slight dissapointment

                                I think Shawne's play has regressed (at least last year, obviously I haven't seen him play this year). I thought last season he looked somewhere between lost and uninterested.
                                Hard not to think that the off court stuff was having an impact, and not just his own PR situation. If that dude was wedging into his life and compromising his situation it had to bother him at least a little. Everyone was so quick to see Shawne as driving to Memphis to pick up a killer that he helped with a murder and then hide him out as one of his best boys, sneaking food to him and helping lie to the FBI or something. Maybe the dude was popping into his life ala Entourage and while semi-tolerant of it for old time's sake he was also struggling with what to do in his own mind.

                                People get put in compromising situations all the time. It's uncomfortable and tough to know what to do. Even more when you are that age.

                                Of course if he just keeps flattening out or going backward I'd be the first to admit it didn't work out and he flopped a bit, though let's not get nuts with a #17 pick. They aren't usually a Granger quality player.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X