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

{IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

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

  • #46
    Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    Many years ago, Houston signed Marc Jackson to an injury exception deal after Mo Taylor tore his achilles tendon (the contract was matched by the Warriors since he was a RFA). That's the last time this type of exception was used.

    Yes, you could use the injured player exception as a trade exception if you wanted. Since it's a trade you would have to include something (a pick for example) going back the other way.

    That being said, doing a deal like that means taking on salary without sending any the other way. So you'd be paying for an injured, inactive Dunleavy while taking on additional salary and not sending any the other way. Getting an injured player exception doesn't do anything to mitigate the hit his salary takes on the cap. That's still there.

    As Count said, it's simply not practical for the Pacers or most any other team for that matter, and that's why it's so rarely used.
    Better answer than mine...this is what I get for actually doing work in the middle of responding to a post...I've got to get my priorities straight.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

      Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
      Murph does space the floor nice, but we don't NEED his offense. We have capable scorers from every position without him, however it is nice to have him.

      Murph has had a great year, and I do admire Murph being the first player ever to be in the top 5 of 3ptFG% and rebounds, (only other player to be in the top 10 of those 2 categories was Larry Bird).

      But we really do need a Dale Davis type guy down low. Is Dale retired? Maybe we can coax him to come play with us again


      But who in this league is a DALE DAVIS type player? There are very few left in this league.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

        Hell, I'd be happy with an Anderson Varejao for our 4 at this point.

        Love Troy, he's a very unique player in his skillset, but he's the strange type of player who should be coming off the bench.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

          Originally posted by justinDOHMAN View Post
          But who in this league is a DALE DAVIS type player? There are very few left in this league.
          There were very few when Dale was in his prime.

          People who are saying we need to draft a "dale davis type player" are massively shortchanging Dale. The dude was not some random "one of these in every draft" big men.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

            Would you prefer it if we said we'd like to "draft a glass-cleaning, square jawed bad-***"?

            I'm not short changing Dale, I'm throwing out my 'ideal player'. Double D is the prototype bad-*** PF. Plus he's menacing and has a ..... (anybody remember that line from the Bob and Tom show?)

            But you're right, DD's don't grow on trees. But there are defensive minded PF
            s out there. Heck, we've got one, but he can't block shots.
            Last edited by nerveghost; 04-13-2009, 10:04 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

              With Roy having full NBA experience I'm excited to see what he'll bring to us next season at center. We'll most likely be picking over 10th so who would be left that we could take? I would be happy if Jordan Hill is still undrafted when we make our selection.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                Originally posted by nerveghost View Post
                But you're right, DD's don't grow on trees. But there are defensive minded PFs out there. Heck, we've got one, but he can't block shots.
                I like Jeff a lot, but he's no DD (Peck is choking because of the understatement).

                Does anyone really think that a player like DD is in this draft? Honest question.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  I like Jeff a lot, but he's no DD (Peck is choking because of the understatement).

                  Does anyone really think that a player like DD is in this draft? Honest question.

                  Closest thing to him would be Dejuan Blair or Jeff Adrien.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                    Nastiness???

                    Ok. Bring RonRon back.

                    Granger, RonRon, Rush. With maybe Jack at the PG spot. Throw Hibbert in the middle.

                    I think we could defend with the best of them and would have a pretty balanced offensive capability.

                    Not sure JOB is the right coach for that group, but then again, who knows.
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                      Originally posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
                      With Roy having full NBA experience I'm excited to see what he'll bring to us next season at center. We'll most likely be picking over 10th so who would be left that we could take? I would be happy if Jordan Hill is still undrafted when we make our selection.
                      Hill would most likely be gone by the time we pick. I think we should look at Lawson is hes still available and try to move Ford for some front court help
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                        Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                        Nastiness???

                        Ok. Bring RonRon back.

                        Granger, RonRon, Rush. With maybe Jack at the PG spot. Throw Hibbert in the middle.

                        I think we could defend with the best of them and would have a pretty balanced offensive capability.

                        Not sure JOB is the right coach for that group, but then again, who knows.
                        You said nastiness right? If we were playing teams smaller than us every night maybe. But bigger teams and physical players? Nope, Ron never goes after anyone his own size. A leason we all should have learned all to well when Derrick Coleman layed him out and stood over him.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          Occam's Razor, boys. It's more likely that Kravitz is being sloppy about stringing disparate pieces of information together. He's probably been told that if Dunleavy retires, then we would get cap relief and insurance reimbursement...

                          or...

                          We know from Larry Coon that there will be no cap relief without a medical retirement confirmed by a League Doctor. However, I have never seen the actual insurance policies that get carried by the teams for players. It is not out of the realm of possibility that there are clauses in the insurance policies that would allow teams to collect partial reimbursement for significant games lost, even if it doesn't result in retirement. It would not help the cap situation, but could help the team's cash flow.

                          The only indicator that would tell me almost definitively that the Pacers are considering Dunleavy's career to be over would be if they put themselves in a position to significantly exceed the tax threshold for next season. That would tell me that they are expected Junior's $9mm+ to come off the books before the 2009-2010 luxury tax reckoning.

                          Beyond that, I'm assuming that they're in the same boat as the rest of us: hoping that he either recovers fully or determines retirement is the only option as soon as possible.
                          That's why I focused on the cap portion. I have no doubt that they might be seeing some insurance compensation, and I would agree that if this were significant enough it might convince the team to spend it on going over the lux tax limit.

                          Go back to the conspiracy angle once again and maybe he's heard that exact plan and confused it with "cap relief", or at least internal speculation.

                          Personally I think Bob gets a lot of his info from Wells, and that leads you into the telephone game so who knows how skewed he gets it at times.


                          Closest thing to him would be Dejuan Blair or Jeff Adrien.
                          I agree. Just worried about Blair's consistent effort. I never could tell if he was lazy or trying to avoid foul troubles. When he gets after it you've got trouble, but often off the ball he stands and spectates.

                          Adrien just isn't as big or talented, but he's an interesting late first, early 2nd caliber guy. He's definitely a physical player.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                            Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                            just off the wall - does anyone have any thoughts on where a young Dale Davis would go in a draft like this one? my guess is he'd easily be a top 10 pick... but then I don't watch enough college hoops anymore.
                            I'd say 8 or 9. But then he wasn't that far off the top 10 originally. He'd be taking Blair's spot.



                            Owl - I hadn't heard that on NJ, but you are right that this would mean Blair is their guy. The mock's this year have been just all over the place so it's hard to be sure what team's think of these guys. Some of them are going to bounce around based on team need because they are so specialized rather than all-around talented. Just look at the top 3 guy Thabeet. Shot blocker only, everything else is a mess. If you need offensive post help he's not your guy, you go for Hill instead.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              You said nastiness right? If we were playing teams smaller than us every night maybe. But bigger teams and physical players? Nope, Ron never goes after anyone his own size. A leason we all should have learned all to well when Derrick Coleman layed him out and stood over him.
                              Hmmmm. Me thinks you missed the whole point. Then again, by this response I think you know that. And while your comment is, for the most part, inaccurate, Ill try to stay on topic.

                              Nastiness, at least as I think is being referred to here, is a certain amount of aggression and intensity. Physical presence and intimidation. Its about imposing your will more strongly than the other guy. Its not about picking fights. Though, at times, it might be about responding to another teams antics with a certain element of force.

                              If you dont believe that Artest brings a physical presence, a degree of intimidation, a high level of intensity and aggression, a feel of force....well then, I would tend to believe you might have lost a certain amount of objectivity due to the past. Understandable??? I suppose so. But whatever antics took place, still doesnt automatically mean that he doesnt bring all these attributes to the court. Because he does. Houston was soft, theyre not nearly so soft now. The point of this article was that we are on the soft side, which I think is a pretty fair assessment.

                              And my comment was simple. RonRon would make us a lot less soft-just as he has Houston-and despite whatever personal feelings you might have concerning the guy, you are going to have a very difficult time objectively disagreeing.
                              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                                Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                                Hmmmm. Me thinks you missed the whole point. Then again, by this response I think you know that. And while your comment is, for the most part, inaccurate, Ill try to stay on topic.

                                Nastiness, at least as I think is being referred to here, is a certain amount of aggression and intensity. Physical presence and intimidation. Its about imposing your will more strongly than the other guy. Its not about picking fights. Though, at times, it might be about responding to another teams antics with a certain element of force.

                                If you dont believe that Artest brings a physical presence, a degree of intimidation, a high level of intensity and aggression, a feel of force....well then, I would tend to believe you might have lost a certain amount of objectivity due to the past. Understandable??? I suppose so. But whatever antics took place, still doesnt automatically mean that he doesnt bring all these attributes to the court. Because he does. Houston was soft, theyre not nearly so soft now. The point of this article was that we are on the soft side, which I think is a pretty fair assessment.

                                And my comment was simple. RonRon would make us a lot less soft-just as he has Houston-and despite whatever personal feelings you might have concerning the guy, you are going to have a very difficult time objectively disagreeing.
                                I don't feel that we are soft at the small forward spot. Danny while not being physical as a defender is certainly no creampuff and I like what he brings to the floor much more.

                                Our problem is not perimater toughness, although one could argue that you can never be to tough at any position and I won't disagree.

                                However I feel as though our problem is in the paint area. Yes, Ron is imposing to Paul Pierce and Micheal Redd and the likes but going down low his is no more tough or imposing than most other power forwards in the NBA.

                                But I guess if you are going to say that Ron would be more physical than Troy or Roy I can't argue against it.

                                As to your statement that we need "physical presence, a degree of intimidation, a high level of intensity and aggression, a feel of force" I couldn't agree more.

                                However I happen to hold a higher standard when it comes to that as I sat through 9 years of one of the best at that. (See the youtube video from earlier in this thread)


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X