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

Looking to the Future

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

  • #46
    Re: Looking to the Future

    Bird drafted Shawne Williams over Farmer & Rondo big deal. No Big Deal

    Dumars took Darko over Carmelo, Bosh, & Wade. Big Deal

    The reason why this draft is important is very simple it may make or break or franchise for the next two to three years. Odds are we will have a top tier pick this year. We need an immediate impact player.

    Sessions was drafted very late in the second round 56th overall. Bird was not the only GM to miss him. I do not know who to blame him or Donnie Walsh.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Looking to the Future

      Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
      The reason why this draft is important is very simple it may make or break or franchise for the next two to three years. Odds are we will have a top tier pick this year. We need an immediate impact player.
      I am someone who sees drafting well every as important but this draft in particular is not that important, IMO. I think there are some good prospects but nothing all that special.

      Some prospects for the Pacers could be Teague, Clark, Jordan, among others.

      Two guys who really have impressed me latley are Gerald Henderson and DeJuan Blair.

      Henderson just impresses me everytime I see him play. I will never forget the shot he hit on Wake Forest to tie the game. Granted Duke lost but the shot Henderson hit was just awesome. A clutch play. He has a nice game all around. The problem is we have Granger and Rush. I could live with drafting Gerald I would just worry that it sends a message to Brandon that the team doesn't have faith in him.

      DeJuan Blair is only a sophomore according to draftexpress. I thought he was a junior or senior. I just think this kid is tough and would love to take a chance on him.

      I just really hope that you are wrong about this being a make or break draft for the Pacers. Maybe my expectations are just too low but I am not thinking we get an all star out of this draft unless we pick 1rst and take Blake Griffin.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Looking to the Future

        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
        The reason why this draft is important is very simple it may make or break or franchise for the next two to three years. Odds are we will have a top tier pick this year. We need an immediate impact player.
        I'm not sure I agree.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Looking to the Future

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          Now, granted, I haven't seen Thabeet play yet this season. But last season, when I saw him, he looked even slower than Hibbert, so I don't see where people keep getting this "quickness" thing from.

          I think Seth could do a better job of describing Thabeet but the guy is very lean and muscular and crosses the paint to snuff out almost any shot from the weak side.
          He rebounds better than Hibbert but does not have as much insight into the game as
          Hibbert. I believe it is possible Thabeet could play PF with Hibbert or be the second
          center to Hibbert. We all know that if Hibbert starts he will still pick up fouls
          and he will need a back up, and thus in steps Thabeet. Of course he won't be available
          at 8-12. Plus the Pacers desparately need more defense and he brings that.
          If not him I want the best rebounder out there, thus Blair.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Looking to the Future

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            You are right, I stay as far away from the IU fan base as possible. I couldn't even tell you who the players on IU or Purdue are. I will say from what I hear both have good coaches. If they weren't Indiana institutions of higher learning, I wouldn't even know that.
            Then why waste your time trying to make judgment calls on players from those teams? Seems like you're talking out of hatred instead of knowledge, which makes your comments seem less interesting.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Looking to the Future

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              Looking to next season, let's assume that we re-sign Jack and McBob, retain our draft pick in the 8-12 range, and let our other expirings drop off the books in order to avoid paying the luxury tax. This is the most likely scenario.

              That leaves us with a team of:

              C - Foster/Hibbert
              PF - Murphy/McRoberts
              SF - Granger
              SG - Dunleavy/Rush
              PG - Ford/Jack/Diener

              Plus our draft pick, which will likely not be an impact player, considering the lack of quality in this draft.

              So, my question is, how are we even supposed to be as good next year, much less better? If this year's team wins 30 games, then next year's looks to be about a 25-win team on paper.

              It's amazing to me that we can have so few players under contract and still run so close to the cap.
              Well said. Unless this team makes a significant trade before the deadline or over the summer, we will be looking at a similar roster and should expect similar results, although if Dunleavy and the team stay healthy next season they may be closer to .500.

              I don't see a reason to trade the draft picks either, unless it were to bring an important player that is already established and can help the Pacers improve immediately. This draft might very well be considered weak for impact players, but I do believe this draft will produce some significant role players across the league. As far as who they might be, I have no idea.

              Obviously the skepticism about the draft could all change if the Pacers land a top 3 pick, as I would imagine most would be happy with either Griffin, Harden, Jordan Hill and maybe even Thabeet.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Looking to the Future

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                In thinking about a player, I think we need to get a more talented guy at PF than we do at PG. First and foremost, our PF of the future needs to be able to do two things: rebound and guard perimeter-oriented PF's. Even though Rush and Granger both rebound well for their positions, Hibbert's sub-standard rebounding will always be a problem unless we have a stud rebounder at PF. Our PF is also going to have to be able to guard guys like Rashard Lewis and Antawn Jamison. Murphy's killing us this year with his inability to guard those guys. It's forcing us to go small.

                If we can find a guy who can get 10+ rebounds and guard small PF's, what else should they be able to do? I'm stumped on this a bit. I'd like this guy to be an above-average athlete who can make up for Roy's slowness. A guy who's active on the offensive boards and a good finisher would be more important than a guy having a particular offensive skill set (3-pt shooter, low-post scorer, etc.). A Dennis Rodman type would be nice.

                I'd love to hear others thoughts on this. Also, if there's any players available via trade or draft that people think would fit-in nicely.
                Don't forget Josh McRoberts.

                Mcbob has superb quickness for a bigman, and his one on one defense can be very good... He isn't the strongest guy around, but not weak either. His jumping ability is also very impressive... Which is another reason he could be an excellent shot blocker. I think there was one game where he had like 4 blocks and he only played 15 minutes or so. I don't know about his rebounding but he certainly has the necesary athleticism. The potential is there.

                It seems like Mcbob had a rep for being soft coming out of college, but that is not at all what I have seen of him this season.

                So if you are pairing someone with Hibbert, You want someone who is quick, can rebound, gaurd quick 4s, and block shots. Mcbob can do all those things, He can also handle the ball and pass very well. I doubt Mcbob will ever have much of a post game offensively, but they are working with him on that jump shot, and I think ideally he might be better utilized drawing defenders away from the paint to allow Hibbert to work in the post on Offense. I like pairing a jump shooter with a post player when it comes to bigman tandems, like Brad Miller and JO.

                He is still raw at this point... but this is one reason I am more interested in PGs in the upcoming draft. We have two young bigs who are gonna need development time already without adding another one in there, I would like to see Mcbob get some burn next season and see if he is merley an "energy guy" or if he projects to be a bit more.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Looking to the Future

                  Originally posted by ryheathco View Post
                  By adding more one dimensional jump and 3pt shooters, the Pacers would not find any balance (Ergo, who was the great 3pt shooter who played next to Reggie).
                  Chris Mullin? Travis Best? Byron Scott? Jalen Rose? Heck, Mark Jackson shot 40% in 2000.

                  I agree with most of your points though, especially about playing the young guys more.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Looking to the Future

                    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                    Don't forget Josh McRoberts.

                    Mcbob has superb quickness for a bigman, and his one on one defense can be very good... He isn't the strongest guy around, but not weak either. His jumping ability is also very impressive... Which is another reason he could be an excellent shot blocker. I think there was one game where he had like 4 blocks and he only played 15 minutes or so. I don't know about his rebounding but he certainly has the necesary athleticism. The potential is there.

                    It seems like Mcbob had a rep for being soft coming out of college, but that is not at all what I have seen of him this season.

                    So if you are pairing someone with Hibbert, You want someone who is quick, can rebound, gaurd quick 4s, and block shots. Mcbob can do all those things, He can also handle the ball and pass very well. I doubt Mcbob will ever have much of a post game offensively, but they are working with him on that jump shot, and I think ideally he might be better utilized drawing defenders away from the paint to allow Hibbert to work in the post on Offense. I like pairing a jump shooter with a post player when it comes to bigman tandems, like Brad Miller and JO.

                    He is still raw at this point... but this is one reason I am more interested in PGs in the upcoming draft. We have two young bigs who are gonna need development time already without adding another one in there, I would like to see Mcbob get some burn next season and see if he is merley an "energy guy" or if he projects to be a bit more.
                    This is why I've been so upset to see Maceo trotted out night in and night out.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Looking to the Future

                      If we land the top pick do we automatically take Blake Griffen?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Looking to the Future

                        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                        If we land the top pick do we automatically take Blake Griffen?
                        Hmmm.......he's the consensus #1 pick ( for now ) and plays a position of need.....I'm not sure.

                        I guess the real question would be whether would fit into a JO'B Small Ball rotation?

                        If he doesn't, then the answer is no...we would pick the best GF available.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Looking to the Future

                          Although it did appear to be a given at the start of the 2008-2009 season that we would likely resign Jarrett Jack to be one of the key backup PG/SG in the roation, given the way that he has played ( most notably with Ford ); I'm wondering whether resigning Jack is our best option after this season ends.

                          Since I think that we won't have too many Trading Assets at our disposal that other Teams would be clamouring for AFTER the 2009-2010 Offseason ( remember, Rasho and Marquis will likely be gone after this season ), I think that our best bet would be to sign a Backup PG Free Agent as opposed to trading for one.

                          What PG Free Agent options do we have ( whether it be Jack or not ) that we can try to sign in the 2009-2010 Offseason?

                          When answering this....please be sure to take into consideration that I think that there is a small chance that Ford will be moved before the start of the 2010-2011 seasons ( partly cuz of his Contract that expires AFTER the 2010-2011 season ) and he will likely be used as the Starting or Backup PG for the next 2-3 seasons.

                          Now, if there are no other decent PG options out there that we can reasonably sign and Jack is the best bet...then I'm fine with it....I'm just trying to figure out if we have other options out there.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 02-12-2009, 02:43 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Looking to the Future

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I guess the real question would be whether would fit into a JO'B Small Ball rotation?
                            Yes, he does. He could play center.

                            He can't shoot the three, so I suppose that's a consideration.
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Looking to the Future

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                              Now, if there are no other decent PG options out there that we can reasonably sign and Jack is the best bet...then I'm fine with it....I'm just trying to figure out if we have other options out there.

                              Ramon Sessions

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Looking to the Future

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                Hmmm.......he's the consensus #1 pick ( for now ) and plays a position of need.....I'm not sure.

                                I guess the real question would be whether would fit into a JO'B Small Ball rotation?

                                If he doesn't, then the answer is no...we would pick the best GF available.
                                Griffen "fit" is not the Q here, the bigger Q would: Does JO'B fit into the Pacers '10 rotation
                                Griffen would be a lock. JO'B.... not so much.
                                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X