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

Dunleavy

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

  • #46
    Re: Dunleavy

    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
    there is also something to be said about selling high instead of waiting for a player's value to plummet. if there is a market out there for dunleavy you'd have to listen. i don't think we'd trade him easily, but as we learned with a guy like JO it's much better to trade a guy a year too soon than a year too late.
    I agree...though back to the original poster's point...he didn't want to talk about trading Junior. He wanted to know how he'd fit in with the team when he returned.

    All players on the team are available for the right offer. However, I would prefer to see the team come together before trying to tear it apart. It's the reason I find trade and waiver wire threads so tiring. They're relentlessly unrealistic, and, though not always intentionally, they force the discussion to focus on the negatives of what we don't have, rather than trying to figure out what we do have.

    The preponderance of evidence seems to be that a healthy Mike Dunleavy, performing as he did last year, should be of great help to this team. He is another passer, facilitator, shooter, and scorer. However, it is not unheard for the addition of talent to be a negative, an example being Chris Webber's return on that Sacramento team a few years ago.

    I do not consider this to be the case with Dunleavy, but it is a decent conversation.

    As to trading Dunleavy, I probably couldn't say no to a guy like Chris Kaman, as was discussed in the Dunleavy for Kaman trade proposal thread (and it was a Dunleavy for Kaman trade proposal thread, hiding under the fig leaf of a Vecsey article), but I don't think we should necessarily go looking to deal Junior. I'm content to think that the Front Office (now) has a vision for the team that they want to put together. Following that vision, they will keep their eyes open both for players who can help the team, and to continually evaluate how each present player can be used to benefit the team's progress.
    Last edited by count55; 11-12-2008, 03:16 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Dunleavy

      Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
      These two posts together are exactly right. If someone calls with a great offer for Dunleavy, specifically if it provides us a strong PF, we'd have to do it. But I don't see the need to shop Dunleavy around.

      There was an earlier post...don't remember who...that said Dun deserves the chance to make it work or show that it won't. I think it will, and we could definitely use his talent and intelligence.

      It would be nothing short of tragic if we were even quietly shopping Dun and news got out and it screwed up the great team chemistry that is building. All of a sudden we'd be trying to trade a malcontent instead of being able to listen to trade options for one of our top two players.

      He may in fact be the perfect 6th man on a really good team, but the Pacers aren't yet a really good team. That makes him a very important part of our starting line-up.

      --pizza
      I couldn't agree more. The bottom line to me is that Dun will have more then enough time and oppertunity to prove naysayers like myself wrong about his defensive abilities hindering the team as a whole.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Dunleavy

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        of course the racism part was a joke. my god.
        Next time don't even joke.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Dunleavy

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Next time don't even joke.
          I agree. Any type of discrimination should not be accepted because it could be taken out of context, especially on msg board.

          I really appreciate, as many other posters probably do, an admin take a step to notify this....Thank Hicks
          "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Dunleavy

            Originally posted by count55 View Post
            I agree...though back to the original poster's point...he didn't want to talk about trading Junior. He wanted to know how he'd fit in with the team when he returned.

            All players on the team are available for the right offer. However, I would prefer to see the team come together before trying to tear it apart. It's the reason I find trade and waiver wire threads so tiring. There relentlessly unrealistic, and, though not always intentionally, they force the discussion to focus on the negatives of what we don't have, rather than trying to figure out what we do have.

            The preponderance of evidence seems to be that a healthy Mike Dunleavy, performing as he did last year, should be of great help to this team. He is another passer, facilitator, shooter, and scorer. However, it is not unheard for the addition of talent to be a negative, an example being Chris Webber's return on that Sacramento team a few years ago.

            I do not consider this to be the case with Dunleavy, but it is a decent conversation.

            As to trading Dunleavy, I probably couldn't say no to a guy like Chris Kaman, as was discussed in the Dunleavy for Kaman trade proposal thread (and it was a Dunleavy for Kaman trade proposal thread, hiding under the fig leaf of a Vecsey article), but I don't think we should necessarily go looking to deal Junior. I'm content to think that the Front Office (now) has a vision for the team that they want to put together. Following that vision, they will keep their eyes open both for players who can help the team, and to continually evaluate how each present player can be used to benefit the team's progress.
            agreed.

            as for jr fitting it -- there is actually something quite appealing (at least in theory) about what speed proposed earlier in the thread

            Originally posted by speed
            Unit One
            TJ
            Marquis
            DG
            Troy
            Rasho

            2nd Unit
            Jack
            BRush
            Dunleavy
            Foster
            Hibbert
            you play mike in a manu role off the bench. like i said, in theory i think this makes the most sense, you mask troy and mike's defensive issues by pairing them with average to above-average defenders but you don't compromise the offense. i know this doesn't work perfectly, especially considering jimmy likes his 9-man rotation (and he likes the TJ / Jack pairing quite a bit, at least for the time being) but it's something to think about.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Dunleavy

              Dunleavy is a glue guy for this team and will continue to be so until Rush develops into the starting SG, which is going to take probably at least a couple of seasons. It works out very nicely because by the time Dun's contract is over Rush will be ready.

              I don't want to trade Dunleavy because barring LeBron becomes available I like the team just the way it is. We have all of the necessary ingredients to win except an excellent PF, but basically we're set or we're going to be set at every other position assuming everyone continues to develop the way we are seeing them develop right now.

              And it's not like we have to have a potential All-Star at every position.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Dunleavy

                I think all this "demise of Dunleavy" talk is very premature. Last year, imho, he was the most valuable Pacer on the court. Everyone expects Granger to improve every year (and he has) but no one expects Mike to do the same.

                We have 2 very good swing players when Mike comes back, and most NBA lineups have at least 2 swingmen on the court at any given time. If Rush turns out to be 70% the player Mike is, then he will have been a very good pick for us. Lets not go giving Mike's job away until someone else earns it.

                If we do at some point decide to use Mike as a 6th man, I would hope it would be in the Spurs and Manu mold, who is a 6th man in name alone.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Dunleavy

                  Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                  there is also something to be said about selling high instead of waiting for a player's value to plummet. if there is a market out there for dunleavy you'd have to listen. i don't think we'd trade him easily, but as we learned with a guy like JO it's much better to trade a guy a year too soon than a year too late.
                  I completely agree with this, but it makes threads like this a little pointless. No one here has any idea at all what sort of value Mike has to GMs in the NBA. We may be getting offers of Mike straight up for LeBron, or Mike + 3 firsts for Starbury. While the truth lies somewhere in the middle, we have no way of ever even guessing his "true" value.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Dunleavy

                    I think everyone would be willing to trade Dunleavy for the right trade. But I really don't believe his trade value is that high - we'll never get what I think he's worth - so a trade is highly, highly unlikely. Unless we get a starting power forward who can score in the low post, rebound, defend, and is athletic - then we should not trade mike

                    Granger on the other hand has really high trade value - so maybe he should be the one traded. (I don't really believe he should, but if you want to sell high, Granger is a lot higher than Mike) if DG can get the type of player I describe above then maybe he should be traded
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-12-2008, 04:29 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Dunleavy

                      Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                      there is also something to be said about selling high instead of waiting for a player's value to plummet. if there is a market out there for dunleavy you'd have to listen. i don't think we'd trade him easily, but as we learned with a guy like JO it's much better to trade a guy a year too soon than a year too late.

                      Very valid point about keeping a player too long. I'm not advocating trading Dun, but it is something that has to be considered.

                      Seems like TPTB waited too long b4 trading Artest. IIRC, it should have been done the year b4. Personally, I think we were da** lucky to get what we got for JO due to keeping him too long. Very valid point atc. JMOAA

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Dunleavy

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I think everyone would be willing to trade Dunleavy for the right trade. But I really don't believe his trade value is that high - we'll never get what I think he's worth - so a trade is highly, highly unlikely. Unless we get a starting power forward who can score in the low post, rebound, defend, and is athletic - then we should not trade mike

                        Granger the other hand has really high trade value - so maybe he should be the one traded. (I don't really believe he should, but if you want to sell high, Granger is a lot higher than Mike) if DG can get the type of player I describe above then maybe he should be traded


                        Have you turned to the darkside mentioning Granger and trade in the same sentence? Please delete your post b4 Croz reads it.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Dunleavy

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          I agree...though back to the original poster's point...he didn't want to talk about trading Junior. He wanted to know how he'd fit in with the team when he returned.

                          All players on the team are available for the right offer. However, I would prefer to see the team come together before trying to tear it apart. It's the reason I find trade and waiver wire threads so tiring. They're relentlessly unrealistic, and, though not always intentionally, they force the discussion to focus on the negatives of what we don't have, rather than trying to figure out what we do have.

                          The preponderance of evidence seems to be that a healthy Mike Dunleavy, performing as he did last year, should be of great help to this team. He is another passer, facilitator, shooter, and scorer. However, it is not unheard for the addition of talent to be a negative, an example being Chris Webber's return on that Sacramento team a few years ago.

                          I do not consider this to be the case with Dunleavy, but it is a decent conversation.

                          As to trading Dunleavy, I probably couldn't say no to a guy like Chris Kaman, as was discussed in the Dunleavy for Kaman trade proposal thread (and it was a Dunleavy for Kaman trade proposal thread, hiding under the fig leaf of a Vecsey article), but I don't think we should necessarily go looking to deal Junior. I'm content to think that the Front Office (now) has a vision for the team that they want to put together. Following that vision, they will keep their eyes open both for players who can help the team, and to continually evaluate how each present player can be used to benefit the team's progress.

                          Thank you for remembering the intent of the thread.

                          I agree that Dunleavy has to be given a chance to see how he can play. I firmly believe he should not be automatically given the SG starter spot once he comes back. He needs to get comfortable with how things are. I believe Dun is the type of player who understands this and has no problem with it.

                          But if for some reason, whatever it might be, Dun can't fit, then it's up to Bird to pull the trigger, and not let the situation get out of hand to cause a major problem with the team. JMOAA

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Dunleavy

                            wow, leave it to millertime to mention on and on bout a trade.. even though the o.p said NOT to discuss trading him ..lolz
                            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Dunleavy

                              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                              this board is racist...it's ok to hate on the white guy dunleavy and hope he gets traded, but heaven forbid somebody say anything negative about the savior granger...racism i tell you.

                              Wow , PD has it's very own Al Sharpton .. heh j/p
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Dunleavy

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                The Pacers need Dunleavy - they need his passing, his playmaking, his team defense, his shooting, his three point shooting, his intelligent play........I could go on and on. IMO I think Dunleavy is as valuable as Granger or Ford.

                                Mike will fit in perfectly with this team - the offensive system is made for him, plus he's the smartest player on the team.

                                I am a little surprised - no make that very surprised - that these threads keep coming up.

                                And yes he'll start whenever he's healthy enough - he needs to be on the court around 35 minutes per game

                                Someone will ask where will his minutes come from. Good question. Mainly Daniels, but also some from Granger, Jack, Rush and also one of the big guys, because I expect Mike will play some small forward with Granger playing the 4. You can never go wrong with having too many playmakers. There was a reason why the Pacers were most effective in the last game when they had TJ, Jack and Daniels on the floor. Having multiple playmakers in todays NBA is vital

                                AMEN ...

                                While we may not agree on some things...

                                The majority of your posts are usually amongst some of the most intelligent on the board....
                                Last edited by Kemo; 11-12-2008, 04:50 PM.
                                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X