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

  • #31
    Re: Looking to the Future

    We still need a massive overhaul. The two major problems of this team is [1] our continued search for a consistant starting 5 (It's been ages since we had a real rotation). [2] Overall team chemistry.

    Obviously Granger is the most stable player in the puzzle. I would also label Ford, Rush, and Hibbert as keepers with Jack and Murph looking from the inside out as long as their contracts remain or become manageable.

    [1] The case for a real rotation - today!
    First, let me begin by saying - I know the Pacers are losing money faster than a bag of cheetos in a weight-watchers convention. Obviously making the playoffs earns the Simon's money. "Cha-Ching" - I get it. However, our focus needs to be on developing talented rookies, Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert. They need experience TODAY so that they can lead us TOMORROW. For some reason, the Pacers refuse to allow this team to die. We have a stubborn notion that we are a "few players away" when in reality we are no where close to real contention; particularly, if we refuse to allow the rookies to get their hands dirty. Therefore, it may not be popular (though it's not like you could hurt attendance anyway) the Pacers need to "cut their loses" and turn to the rookies. Develop a rotation and allow them to bloom.

    [2] Chemistry
    We lack the chemistry necessary to compete. The best way to assess our need is to look at the talent we currently have and seek a true compliment. This is why, the first person the Pacers need to move is Mike Dunleavy. I like Mike - don't get me wrong - he's a solid player... on a different team. While Mike may post good numbers he does not fit well between Granger and Ford. The Pacers need a physical slasher between Granger and Ford. I think Quis proved this as Danny seemed to play his best ball next to the versatile Daniels. That is why the Pacers need to seek a polished, upgraded version of Daniels. I for one have always coveted Andre Iguodola from the 76ers. A player of his caliber, strength, and speed would add an attacker to the offense. While I understand many people dislike this style of play, you must remember that in a speed offense, you can post by attacking the rim. You also create 3pt opportunities and free throw attempts by attacking the rim without relent. The Pacers would be a solid team and Danny Granger would sustain a 24 point average if the Pacers had a player similar to the caliber and style of Iguodala. 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). They will continue to live and die by the three.

    The most obvious need the Pacers have in consideration to there current roster is a true post talent. Bottom line, while we can attack the rim with a physical guard, you have to be able to take advantage of mismatches. We simply can not take full advantage of the post. While I know many Pacers fans would like to see a Dale Davis model, I would prefer an Antonio Davis model. A.D. had the ability to post, rebound, and play defense. An Antonio Davis prospect is certainly not an out of reach "stretch" or financially unobtainable. In fact, I like the Knicks David Lee who is a RFA this summer - which could present a possible sign and trade to the right team. This would also add a smash mouth player next to Roy who will probably need that compliment down the road.

    To me, a well balanced Pacers team looks like this:

    ----Starting----
    C - Hibbert
    PF - "Antinio Davis" Model (David Lee?)
    SF - Granger
    SG - "Andre Iguodala" Model (Or maybe the real deal for a pick, Mike, and Quis.)
    PG - Ford
    ----Bench----
    SG/SF - Rush
    PF/C - Murphy
    PG/SG - Jack
    Last edited by 1984; 02-10-2009, 12:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Looking to the Future

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      I stand by my post.
      I'm pretty sure Bird has all but stated that Lorbek won't be a Pacer, so stand by it.

      Originally posted by mell
      PG: This is the easier of the two. It's the exact type of PG that most people on this board want: A pass-first PG who plays solid defense and doesn't turn the ball over. A guy like Jose Calderon would be a great fit.
      While a Calderon type would be decent on offense, he's in my top 5 worst defensive point guards of the past 15 years he makes Saras look like a capable defender).

      I think we need a very tough, physical, athletic big to pair next to Hibbert. Aside from Blake Griffin in the draft, I have no idea who that could be. Currently in the league and possibly attainable? I have NO clue.
      Last edited by imawhat; 02-10-2009, 01:43 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Looking to the Future

        another big I like is big baby Davis from the celtics, he can post up and hit the jumper
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Looking to the Future

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          And the 2nd round is littered every year with picks that never make it in the NBA.
          I agree but teams have quality picks in the second round. Antonio Davis, Ramon Sessions, Varejo & Carl Landry. Look @ last year's draft they had several second rounders making an impact D Jordan, Kyle Weaver, Mbah a Moute, & Goran Dragic. The Pacers will have a top tier second round pick and we need a good player.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Looking to the Future

            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.

            Comment


            • #36
              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.
              With that roster, expect the same of this year. Give or take a few wins.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Looking to the Future

                I would prefer Thabeet for his defense and decent rebounding and his quickness.
                That would require a higher pick than what the Pacers will have.
                Then I would look at Blair from Pitt. Ferocious offensive rebounder.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Looking to the Future

                  Originally posted by YoSoyIndy View Post

                  You don't have much of a gauge on the IU fan base if you think they're pushing for the Pacers to draft Vaden. And considering Vaden pissed off Purdue fans so much, that leaves very few Indiana basketball fans cheering for a Bailey-like draft.

                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Looking to the Future

                    Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                    I agree but teams have quality picks in the second round. Antonio Davis, Ramon Sessions, Varejo & Carl Landry. Look @ last year's draft they had several second rounders making an impact D Jordan, Kyle Weaver, Mbah a Moute, & Goran Dragic. The Pacers will have a top tier second round pick and we need a good player.


                    Finding a diamond in this draft in the middle or latter part of the 1st round will be an accomplishment let alone getting one in the 2nd round. This is the reason I feel the Pacers should trade their 1st pick. Not to mention my firm belief that Bird is incapable of finding that diamond if it exists.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Looking to the Future

                      Originally posted by owl View Post
                      I would prefer Thabeet for his defense and decent rebounding and his quickness.
                      That would require a higher pick than what the Pacers will have.
                      Then I would look at Blair from Pitt. Ferocious offensive rebounder.
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Looking to the Future

                        Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                        Anybody comment as to whether Earl Clark of Louisville is a Carl Landry type of player?
                        Earl Clark is a SF, and is compared to Danny Granger by some draft sites actually.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Looking to the Future

                          [QUOTE=owl;848774]


                          I would prefer Thabeet for his defense and decent rebounding and his quickness.QUOTE]

                          You have mentioned your desire for Thabeet before. What are you trying to say about Hibbert, since they play the same position?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Looking to the Future

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Finding a diamond in this draft in the middle or latter part of the 1st round will be an accomplishment let alone getting one in the 2nd round. This is the reason I feel the Pacers should trade their 1st pick. Not to mention my firm belief that Bird is incapable of finding that diamond if it exists.
                            Larry has a plan. Keep in mind the Pacers first priority is to win back the fanbase. We are not that far away from having a winning team here in the next two years. This year's draft is very important.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Looking to the Future

                              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post


                              This year's draft is very important.

                              It might be if someone other than Bird was doing the drafting. This is a weak draft for the best NBA execs, so why are you putting so much faith in Bird's drafting expertise to find that gem? Have you forgotten the 06 draft of Shawne Williams and James White so quickly? Or the 07 draft when Bird promised getting a draft pick only to get a 2nd rounder that he used on Stanko when he could have just as easily drafted Dominic McGuire, Ramon Sessions, or if he had to have a Euro player Mark Gasol.

                              Just FYI, Sessions has scored 60 plus points the last 2 Bucks games. What has Stanko done his last 2 games in the NBA? Nothing b/c he's not even in the NBA or ever likely to be in the NBA.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Looking to the Future

                                Originally posted by Quis View Post
                                George Hill is a score-first combo-guard with a terrible assist-to-turnover ratio. I'd pass.
                                .
                                Please, he's got a better AT ratio than Jack.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X