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

9th in the East for the third straight season

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

  • #16
    Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

    I would probably do that trade right now. Rush is the real deal at SG and has the size to boot.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      so because bayless is riding the bench behind more established players on a western conference team with 52 wins, he suddenly can't cut it...i only wish the pacers were in a similar position where they could have benched rush when he was shooting 30% for the first half of the season. the ONLY reason he has been able to put together a few games is because of the minutes and thus experience he's gained. pacers can afford that, portland can't.

      He can't beat out Sergio Rodriguez for the backup spot? Have you seen Sergio play? My grandma plays more defense than him and she's dead.. Get outta here with that logic...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
        blazers need a player like Rush, Webster is out for awhile.
        In all fairness, the Blazers don't really need anyone on the Pacers' roster not named Danny Granger. They're pretty loaded. They really didn't need Bayless or Rush. Either of those guys would be getting dealt some serious pine time on their deep roster this year.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          I don't want this to turn into yet another Bayless thread, but I've said from the get-go that it's going to take Bayless 2-3 seasons to become a serious contributor. Rush is older and was supposed to be much-more NBA-ready than Bayless. And we may very well lose Jack this off-season. We haven't won the trade just yet.
          Well, you just keep your fingers crossed, and maybe it will blow up in our faces.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

            Shade, it's okay. Really.

            The planets in Pacers universe are getting really close to re-aligning again.

            Step back, and take a deep breath.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              In all fairness, the Blazers don't really need anyone on the Pacers' roster not named Danny Granger. They're pretty loaded. They really didn't need Bayless or Rush. Either of those guys would be getting dealt some serious pine time on their deep roster this year.
              Not necessarily true. They are pretty deep in spots and very talented in some of those spots. But pg isnt one of those spots. Remember Blake went down for a spell this season. So Bayless got some play. More importantly he got some legit opportunities to play.

              I still think Bayless is gonna be stuck in no mans land when it comes to either being a pg or a 2 guard. And ironically with Brandon Roy on the team he could actually get by with that as Brandon can handle some of the pg duties, at the very least he allows tremendous flexibility.

              Ive said it before but the absolute best case scenario for Bayless is he ends up like Ben Gordon. Which certainly isnt bad. But Im not sure how likely it is he pans out that good.
              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                Well, you just keep your fingers crossed, and maybe it will blow up in our faces.
                Why would I want that to happen? I'm much, much more of a Pacers fan than a Bayless fan. I hope Rush works out, and he's been playing pretty well of late. But I'm not convinced just yet. It's still way too early.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  But I'm not convinced just yet. It's still way too early.
                  Shade, you're better than that.

                  Your rookie isn't getting garbage minutes. He is starting, scoring and defending. That just doesn't happen and go away. He will continue to get better. This guy isn't Shawne Williams.
                  Last edited by duke dynamite; 04-14-2009, 12:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                    Better than what? Bayless and Rush are both rookies. There is a LOT more to see from both of these guys before making any final judgments on either of them.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      Better than what? Bayless and Rush are both rookies. There is a LOT more to see from both of these guys before making any final judgments on either of them.
                      You've seen Rush play. You've seen him play with your own eyes. You're better than still having that doubt in the back of your mind 9 months later.

                      I can't tell you to make reservations to say in the end that Rush will have a better career. I just don't see Bayless now being anything better than a backup.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                        Why dwell on it? What if Bayless does blow up. Is it going to be all that fun to say that you told us?

                        I understand being upset at the moment, but what does it matter now or two years from now?
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                          Why dwell on it? What if Bayless does blow up. Is it going to be all that fun to say that you told us?

                          I understand being upset at the moment, but what does it matter now or two years from now?
                          I didn't start the Bayless talk in this thread. I'm just cautioning all of those already celebrating over the trade that nothing concrete has yet been determined.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            You've seen Rush play. You've seen him play with your own eyes. You're better than still having that doubt in the back of your mind 9 months later.

                            I can't tell you to make reservations to say in the end that Rush will have a better career. I just don't see Bayless now being anything better than a backup.
                            well no ones really seen much of Bayless. Even when hes gotten mins, they have been limited. And its been his rookie season.
                            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                              I was just telling Shade to enjoy the fruits of the draft, and look forward.

                              I just came in here, I kind of thrown into the Bayless junk. My intentions were that there is no shoulda' coulda' and not dwell on it.

                              My original post was to console Shade in his time of...well, sadness. I guess someone assumed that I was talking about Bayless from the get go.

                              My apologies for stirring the pot.
                              Last edited by duke dynamite; 04-14-2009, 12:44 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 9th in the East for the third straight season

                                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                                so because bayless is riding the bench behind more established players on a western conference team with 52 wins, he suddenly can't cut it...i only wish the pacers were in a similar position where they could have benched rush when he was shooting 30% for the first half of the season. the ONLY reason he has been able to put together a few games is because of the minutes and thus experience he's gained. pacers can afford that, portland can't.
                                But Bayless apparently isn't on the bench due to his offense (though his assists per 48 are drastically low for a PG). He's on the bench because of defense, the exact same reason why Rush continued to get PT when his offense wasn't there yet.


                                And "behind established players" is pretty relative, it's freaking STEVE BLAKE holding him back, not Brandon Roy. Is Blake really a lot more established than Jack and Quis? Seems to me the Pacers had plenty of other guards to work at SG, especially considering how much JOB liked to go small ball.

                                Rush could have been benched because Rush was benched. It had nothing to do with "we have no choice", it had to do with defensive ability. Bayless brought that question with him, people knew he didn't defend well.

                                Plus the Pacers top need last summer was perimeter defense. Jack and Rush were both meant to address that, while Bayless would not have.


                                I didn't start the Bayless talk in this thread. I'm just cautioning all of those already celebrating over the trade that nothing concrete has yet been determined.
                                Of course it has. There is no going back for a redo of this year. So 1 year in and Rush has the lead. That's hella more than the jack squat results you were ready to kill yourself over last summer. Let's call it the inverse celebration you were doing, and much much earlier in the process.

                                WHEN (if) things change then people will acknowledge that. In the meantime just acknowledge that SO FAR after real NBA games have been played that Rush/Jack combo has a monster advantage over Bayless. It's not just Rush alone here you know.

                                You got all uptight at the time and now its stuck to you and you feel invested in it. I get that. But there's less shame in being worried back then than trying to justify what Bayless has been so far. It's really pot-kettle for you of all people to caution others about rushing to judgment on this trade, and denying the first year's results doesn't help your case.

                                I agree that it's not done for Bayless because personally I thought he was more talented than Augustin. I was fine with the Pacers getting him. I simply liked the trade better. And as I said to the guys tonight, I would have liked it even more if they used that 13 to get someone else and then got back in to get Rush later (my dream was a Dun for Rush deal as a 18-22 pick). It wasn't even my perfect scenario.


                                Rush is older and was supposed to be much-more NBA-ready than Bayless.
                                And I keep saying this isn't true (the ready part). Who said that? Bayless was a top 5 pick all year and then suddenly dropped during workouts. The rumor was attitude. Insider info here suggested an injury concern and lack of defense.

                                Whatever the case, he was right behind guys like Rose, Beasley, Mayo and Lopez and never with a qualifier like "not ready yet, but someday". He was just as much the man at AZ St as Mayo was at USC or Rose was at Memphis.

                                Heck, if anything it was Rose who looked rougher early on last year while Bayless showed polished NBA-caliber moves. Rose just kept improving while Bayless/Budinger flopped their way to underachievement. But Bayless was seen as a guy ready to play right away, as much as any top tier PG prospect.


                                Now Rush wasn't a kid obviously and thanks to injury he'd seen a long NCAA career, but still this is like saying "oh, Kevin Love was so young and Hibbert was so mature, Love was supposed to need time while Hibbert was ready to go".
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-14-2009, 01:28 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X