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

Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

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

  • #16
    Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

    [QUOTE=NuffSaid;843370]

    Still, he's a better 3-pt shooter than either Ford OR Jack, and he doesn't turn the ball over nearly as much as either of them./QUOTE]


    I knew what you were thinking 39. I just don't want him as a starter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

      The best starting five without a doubt in my mind is Ford, Dun, Danny, Troy and Jeff

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        The best starting five without a doubt in my mind is Ford, Dun, Danny, Troy and Jeff
        X2

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          The best starting five without a doubt in my mind is Ford, Dun, Danny, Troy and Jeff
          X3

          To start a game and attempt to get us on the right track out of the gate, I don't think any other combo is even close.

          The only thing that would change that lineup would be if one or two of these players were traded prior to the deadline for a post man.

          I would ditto some of the comments I've read lately considering Graham. I hope he's here next season; I'd like to see how he develops.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            The best starting five without a doubt in my mind is Ford, Dun, Danny, Troy and Jeff
            I was taking the "good chemistry/if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. Clearly, Quis was more productive when he was starting in place of Dun, and Dun is still struggling a bit. Hence, the reason I'd rather see Quis at the Starting 2-Guard spot right now....that and I still think the 2nd Unit needs a leader among them. To that, Dun would do a much better job of keeping things going among the reserves than Quis, IMO.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

              Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
              I was taking the "good chemistry/if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. Clearly, Quis was more productive when he was starting in place of Dun, and Dun is still struggling a bit. Hence, the reason I'd rather see Quis at the Starting 2-Guard spot right now....that and I still think the 2nd Unit needs a leader among them. To that, Dun would do a much better job of keeping things going among the reserves than Quis, IMO.


              23 points the 1st half tonight says he shouldn't be coming off the bench.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                23 points the 1st half tonight says he shouldn't be coming off the bench.
                Touche', Justin.

                Here's hoping he finally got his shooting touch back and that last night wasn't just a fluke.

                Sidenote: Maybe the thing to have done was to move Dun from SG to SF where he had more success last year. Dun may not be the best on-the-ball defender, but playing from SF allows him to be more versatile and lets his athleticism shine through. He just seems to play better from SF than SG.

                And speaking of flukes...

                PF - Murphy/Baston = 12 pts (4-6FG/FT)

                Granted, it was against the Heat who don't have much of a front-court, but still you gotta give Maceo his props for his performance last night. I wonder if we'll see more of this rotation in the near future?
                Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-31-2009, 11:21 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                  Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                  And speaking of flukes...

                  PF - Murphy/Baston = 12 pts (4-6FG/FT)

                  Granted, it was against the Heat who don't have much of a front-court, but still you gotta give Maceo his props for his performance last night. I wonder if we'll see more of this rotation in the near future?
                  I don't give a damn how many points Maceo scores. There is absolutely no reason to play him. There is by my rough estimate about a 0.0% chance that he will be a Pacer next year. Why play him now? Does he give us that much better of a chance then a younger, more athletic guy like McRoberts, or a 1st round pick 7 footer like Hibbert?

                  It makes no sense for Maceo to be playing. Hibbert needs to get 25 minutes a game or at least as long as his 6 fouls allow him to stay. The minutes that Maceo is getting would be far better served to McRoberts. I also believe that there is no reason we should send Rush to Fort Wayne. He needs to be playing in Indy. He needs to get the minutes that Graham is getting. We aren't going to win the championship this year. That's no secret. But playing the younger guys gives us virtually as much chance to win every game while also developing players who could still be around for years to come.

                  It needs to happen.
                  Last edited by WetBob; 01-31-2009, 11:51 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                    Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                    I don't give a damn how many points Maceo scores. There is absolutely no reason to play him. There is by my rough estimate about a 0.0% chance that he will be a Pacer next year. Why play him now? Does he give us that much better of a chance then a younger, more athletic guy like McRoberts, or a 1st round pick 7 footer like Hibbert?

                    It makes no sense for Maceo to be playing. Hibbert needs to get 25 minutes a game or at least as long as his 6 fouls allow him to stay. The minutes that Maceo is getting would be far better served to McRoberts. I also believe that there is no reason we should send Rush to Fort Wayne. He needs to be playing in Indy. He needs to get the minutes that Graham is getting. We aren't going to win the championship this year. That's no secret. But playing the younger guys gives us virtually as much chance to win every game while also developing players who could still be around for years to come.

                    It needs to happen.
                    I been saying this for weeks now, people are so desperate to go to the playoffs that they are willing to risk the future
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      I been saying this for weeks now, people are so desperate to go to the playoffs that they are willing to risk the future
                      I want to see the Pacers in the playoffs as much as the next guy but I think its highly unlikely. We're still tied for 2nd to last in the conference. We've got a chance to go on a bit of a run, but what we also need about 5 teams to start sucking.

                      It's most likely not going to happen, at some point you need to start thinking about ping pong balls and the future. I don't even think what I'm suggesting makes us that much worse in the short term, and it definitely helps in the long term.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                        Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                        I want to see the Pacers in the playoffs as much as the next guy but I think its highly unlikely. We're still tied for 2nd to last in the conference. We've got a chance to go on a bit of a run, but what we also need about 5 teams to start sucking.

                        It's most likely not going to happen, at some point you need to start thinking about ping pong balls and the future. I don't even think what I'm suggesting makes us that much worse in the short term, and it definitely helps in the long term.
                        I agree
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                          Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                          I want to see the Pacers in the playoffs as much as the next guy but I think its highly unlikely. We're still tied for 2nd to last in the conference. We've got a chance to go on a bit of a run, but what we also need about 5 teams to start sucking.

                          It's most likely not going to happen, at some point you need to start thinking about ping pong balls and the future. I don't even think what I'm suggesting makes us that much worse in the short term, and it definitely helps in the long term.
                          I think you are viewing it from only a single perspective.

                          Yes, it is important to gain experience for those players that you believe will be a part of your long-term future. But, if they play more, at least in the immediate games ahead, we probably lose a few more games than we would have by playing our more experienced players.

                          The biggest thing that I see is that players that we may want to part with in trades are seem to be playing very well. Quis looked very good earlier in the season. Maceo just had a great game last night off the bench. Graham (although I would like to see him back next season) is playing very well. Murphy and Foster have been pretty steady players for what is expected of them. And hopefully last night's game offered a hint that Dunleavy is finally turning the corner.

                          In other words, a trade deadline is looming. It's not like we were giong to trade one of our youngsters, but if we are able to work a trade, it will involve one or more of our veteran players. Why not showcase them in opportunities against lesser competition that is likely to make them look good.

                          What I personally want is for some GM somewhere to look at last night's game and say "Wow, what a pleasant surprise. Maybe I'll watch a few games and see if Baston can continue performing like that. Maybe he's somebody that can help me off the bench and I know I can get him cheap."

                          Then, combine Baston with a couple of other players and let's see what we can get.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Could this starting 5 get it done for us?

                            Beast23,

                            Take a bow. You get it!

                            It's about playing the most experienced players you have. I like McRob and I think he has a rather decent upside, but he's raw. You can see it in the way he plays. Baston, on the other hand...well, let's just say he's rusty...as rusty as a player who hasn't seen much playing time can be. But in those few games I have seen him in not only this season, but while he was w/the Raptors and his stink here just one year ago, I thought he performed very well w/the right group of "energy" players. He's not going to do much in the half-court, but get him in a high-octane offense and he'll surprise you as he did last night.

                            I never would have expected he'd score in double-figures, and while 12 pts isn't much it IS alot for him! Put him in w/the 2nd-Unit that consists of Quis, Deiner, Dunleavy, and Murphy and you have a lineup that will run. Defense would be a problem, but you'd get some offense for sure. But more to the point, it's about using those players who have NBA experience who can help move the team forward.

                            I'm all for developing the younger talent - I really am! But not at this stage when the team still has a chance to make the post-season. If this were the Celtics, Cavs, Magic or Lakers and we had any of their records right now, I'd say put some of that young developing talent out there in garbage time or maybe even in some game-time situations where they can get some experience like what JOB did for BRush last night. But when you're only 2.5 games out of the 8th seed and you have 35 games remaining, the time for "developing" young talent on-the-fly is over.

                            Baston, Graham and Deiner all need to be on the court contributing, not wasting away on the bench. McRob, BRush and Hibbert will all get their opportunities to really show what they can do in due time. For now, I'd rather see the vets out there and that's odd for me because I'm ususually the guy who's all for putting the best players out there whether they're vets or rookies. At this point, I just think Baston fits better than McRoberts @ PF because he plays under control. McRob, while a high flier, still plays as if he's out on the playground...instinctive, not within an offensive scheme. Sometimes, you need that uncontrolled edge, i.e., Dunleavy's dunk last night! (WOW! I'm still impressed by that play), but most often you need to play at a high IQ level, and I just don't see McRob there yet though I must admit I do like his energy!
                            Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-31-2009, 06:05 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X