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

What SI says about the Pacers...

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

  • #16
    Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

    I think making comparisons between TJ Ford and Travis Best's games is unfair to TJ. TJ Ford is a better player AND a better PG than Travis Best.

    Ford is no Tinsley, but he's a lot better than Travis at sharing the ball and getting other players involved....and I don't think his game has a fatal flaw. I think some forget how bad of a playmaker Best was. He had absolutely no court vision. Ford does not have that problem. Again, he is no Tinsley or Mark Jackson at seeing the court, but very few PG's are that good in that one category. Anyway, Ford's assist totals show he is capable of distributing the ball, along with driving to the bucket.

    Travis' career assist average was 2.7 per game. That's no surprise because Travis' game was dribbling the ball and scoring, not finding guys open. Ford's career assist average is 6.9 and at 25 years old he's not even close to his prime. People seem to forget that Ford is Granger's age, for goodness sakes.

    Travis' "best" scoring year (which scoring of course was his best attribute) is lower than any of Ford's years except Ford's rookie year. This year will be no exception. In fact, no other year will be until TJ is 35.

    Is it possible that TJ Ford becomes an even better PG? Sure, why not? He's only 25. Best improved as he entered his prime too....yet never became as good as TJ Ford is at the present time.

    ...and as for a Tinsley comparison, yes Tinsley in theory could be a more valuable PG than Ford. He simply has a better skill set for the position than Ford. But that just emphasizes how big of a disappointment Jamaal Tinsley has been. What a waste of talent!
    Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-25-2008, 12:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

      Exactly. Tinsley usually wasted his talent, TJ doesn't. He was a potential top-10 PG who actually got there for all of a fraction of a season or two. Whooptie do. It didn't work out, so let's stop pretending that we just kicked Mark Jackson off the team.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

        When Ford is healthy and on the floor he has something that gives him an advantage against almost any PG he faces, his speed. Tinsley even when healthy and motivated never had an attribute that gave him that advantage.


        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

          Tinsley's legend grows as he sits at home. Now I'm seeing Tinsley compared favorably with Mark Jackson.

          Tinsley gave us some tantalizing glimpses that he MIGHT someday be a PG worthy of that comparison but ultimately he took a crap on that vision of his potential and ceiling and instead showed us he never was going to be Mark Jackson in terms of play on the court, professionalism, or leadership.... let alone off the court.

          Tinsley's consistency was woeful. His pouting and drama disconcerting. His injury history (or what was reported as injury history) is just the icing on a very stale cake.

          Tinsley's court vision is overrated. More times than not he simply focused on one (or two players) or thought of himself.

          Yes, he had a few good games... he also had some real stinkers... and plenty where he watched in street clothes.

          Tinsley is no Mark Jackson. Never was... never will be...
          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


          • #20
            Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

            Originally posted by pianoman View Post
            It's nice to hear some positive reviews. They are too few these days.
            Who's fault is that, the writers or the team? I'm no hater but like Anthem was alluding to it's worth listening to outsiders since they see something different and should be bringing no bias to the table.

            Now I will give you this, too often we get bad reviews in that positive or negative they just seem to be talking about a totally different set of players. Maybe "Granger's great passing" or "Murphy's interior defense" shows up in a review and you think .

            This one seems to be on track and suggests a range of wins from 35-40 I'd guess. Seems high to me but not crazy.


            Jay is right about Ford's game, but his flaw and his overall game are much higher than Best/Edny and that's the key. Lots of strong players have flaws in their games. Reggie wasn't all that great going off the dribble and was often only an adequate defender at best, but he wasn't Del Curry either.

            I think Ford is far less of a pounding-nails dribbler than Best was, even if both of them like to push for weak layup attempts in traffic. I think Ford gets to his decision point much quicker and this will keep the offense moving much better than Best did. The problem with Travis was that his overdribbling went nowhere and killed the offensive flow, plus his court vision sucked.

            I can admit that Ford might not be the final answer at PG, but I'd say fixing SG and PF remain the priorities by far now. Dun is too slow for SG and they just don't have a true threat at PF. I love Foster, but his game is role player. Unless Rasho/Hibbert can really start to carry the load Jeff is not going to be enough at PF.

            By the time those issues are fixed (along with the financials of Dun/Troy) then will be able to deal with the PG situation if it still needs upgrading. Heck, if the rest of the team becomes good enough it won't matter anyway.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              I can admit that Ford might not be the final answer at PG, but I'd say fixing SG and PF remain the priorities by far now. Dun is too slow for SG and they just don't have a true threat at PF. I love Foster, but his game is role player. Unless Rasho/Hibbert can really start to carry the load Jeff is not going to be enough at PF.

              By the time those issues are fixed (along with the financials of Dun/Troy) then will be able to deal with the PG situation if it still needs upgrading. Heck, if the rest of the team becomes good enough it won't matter anyway.
              Yes, Ford is not the final answer at PG. This team only has one final answer at one position and that's Danny at SF. The rest of the team is pretty good, but none of these players except for maybe Rush and Hibbert will be starting on a serious contender. Maybe Foster could, but he'd not be the piece you would want in the middle. That's why this team will be around .500 at best.

              Anyway, I'm just pleased Diener is not running the point this year. The upgrade at PG is worth a solid 5-8 additional wins. That's why I expect us to be much closer to .500 than last year.

              ....but depending on how things go, Ford may be our starter for awhile. That's not a bad thing because he will help this team make the playoffs.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Tinsley's legend grows as he sits at home. Now I'm seeing Tinsley compared favorably with Mark Jackson.

                Tinsley gave us some tantalizing glimpses that he MIGHT someday be a PG worthy of that comparison but ultimately he took a crap on that vision of his potential and ceiling and instead showed us he never was going to be Mark Jackson in terms of play on the court, professionalism, or leadership.... let alone off the court.

                Tinsley's consistency was woeful. His pouting and drama disconcerting. His injury history (or what was reported as injury history) is just the icing on a very stale cake.

                Tinsley's court vision is overrated. More times than not he simply focused on one (or two players) or thought of himself.

                Yes, he had a few good games... he also had some real stinkers... and plenty where he watched in street clothes.

                Tinsley is no Mark Jackson. Never was... never will be...
                There are not many players that had court vision like Mark Jackson. Jason Kidd obviously had it. Steve Nash. Magic. It's a short list of freaks. I don't even think Stockton had it and I don't think CP3 has it...but they turned out ok. Tinsley does not make that list either of course, but he's well above many decent NBA PG's in that particular category. He also has some skills that Mark did not have...particularly the ability to penetrate with his solid handle. The truth is, Tinsley's biggest obstacle to becoming a Mark Jackson level PG is not the skills his creator handed to him, it's his attitude, maturity and leadership ability.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                  I'd like to think Ford is the final answer for us at pg, if he remains healthy.

                  I'd like to think it's possible that the tendency to shoot first too often was related to his job insecurity in Toronto. If that is not as big as issue here, I see lots of evidence during preseason that T.J. is willing and able to distribute like a longterm, excellent point guard.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Hmmm... maybe I'm not crazy.
                    IMHO in no way can a player beating everyone else down the floor be a bad thing. It does two things. One, puts pressure on the defense thus drawing fouls at least half the time. Two, encourages his teammates (whether they can or not) to at least put forth the effort to get their butts down the floor with him.
                    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                      Originally posted by Indy View Post
                      When Ford is healthy and on the floor he has something that gives him an advantage against almost any PG he faces, his speed. Tinsley even when healthy and motivated never had an attribute that gave him that advantage.
                      I always felt like Tinsleys strengths are his ball handling and passing skills. That, of course, only applies when he keeps it out of the realms of street ball. Had he been healthy, motivated, and straight headed this team wouldn't need a TJ Ford.
                      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        And we're getting rid of a top-10 PG with injury and attitude problems for a top-15 PG with injury risk. I still don't see the "big upgrade."
                        I'd like to see your top 20 list and where you would put Tinsley on that list. I really am curious.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          And we're getting rid of a top-10 PG with injury and attitude problems for a top-15 PG with injury risk.
                          TINSLEY TOP 10 PG! IN RUCKER PARK MAY BE IN NBA NO WAY.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                            I'll admit that I'm feeling pretty sunshiney about the Pacers lately, but I do think this is the best (meaning most fair and accurate) appraisal of the team I've read in the media. The one thing that all of these previews fail to mention is that we were moderately successful with a less talented roster than we have now. For me the debate isn't whether or not Ford is better than Tinsley (my opinion on that should be well known by now) but whether or not Ford and Jack are better than Diener and Murray. They are much better. Sure we lost JO, but if you average his minutes out over 82 games, it equates to losing a solid backup PF. As long as Rasho stays healthy, he will impact a much higher number of games this year than JO did last season.

                            As for Ford, I agree with much of the analysis of his game in this thread, especially the idea that he has flaws but is still a top 10-15 PG. I don't think we can write him off for the future yet, however. He's still pretty young, and many of his flaws could be corrected if he's willing to be coached. I think that JO'B has been good about identifying player's weaknesses and working to fix them. If he can get Ford to become a more consistent shooter and to cut back on his ill-advised 1-on-many break attempts, Ford could be top level Pg for years.

                            Seth makes a good point about the early season schedule. It's a beast. That's one reason I think we should sit Dun down until his knee's right. It's not like we're going to be favored in many of those games even with him.
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                              Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                              I always felt like Tinsleys strengths are his ball handling and passing skills. That, of course, only applies when he keeps it out of the realms of street ball. Had he been healthy, motivated, and straight headed this team wouldn't need a TJ Ford.
                              QFT. In fact, this team would not have even wanted TJ Ford.

                              Tinsley is a tragic waste of talent...and I sincerely hope he gets it someday.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: What SI says about the Pacers...

                                Exactly. Fix Tinsley's head and Ford looks like a speed demon with no court vision and limited passing. What we need is a legit "upper echelon" (which, again, is not MEDIAN) PG with court vision AND without the baggage.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X