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

2009 Rookie Watch

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

  • #61
    Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    Did Brandon Jennings **** in your cheerios? What is your problem with the kid.

    Oh and to answer your question, Jennings is averaging more assists per game at 5.5 than any other rookie point guard... thats just because hes playing more minutes, you say. Oh, ok, well he is also averaging more assists PER 40 than any other rookie PG...

    PER 40

    jennings 6.4 assists

    Flynn 4.6 assists

    Lawson 5.7 assists

    Evans 5.1 assists

    That is while he is scoring a rediculous 25 points per game, and not to mention, he isn't exactly surrounded by a lot of offensive talent. Yea, I would say his passing is just fine. He is the only reason that team is 5-2 right now.
    Of course he's picking up his fair share of assists. It's inevitable with the way he's completely dominating Milwaukee's possessions. What's more telling is that he's averaging 4x as many shot attempts as he is assists. By comparison, Ford averaged 2.3 FGA per assist last season and we never heard the end of how selfish he was. Either way, I don't see your point. No one's talking about Jennings because he's averaging 5 assists per game.

    For the record, I haven't been negative towards Jennings, only the Jennings bandwagoners trying to rub his play in the others faces.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      Of course he's picking up his fair share of assists. It's inevitable with the way he's completely dominating Milwaukee's possessions. What's more telling is that he's averaging 4x as many shot attempts as he is assists. By comparison, Ford averaged 2.3 FGA per assist last season and we never heard the end of how selfish he was. Either way, I don't see your point. No one's talking about Jennings because he's averaging 5 assists per game.

      For the record, I haven't been negative towards Jennings, only the Jennings bandwagoners trying to rub his play in the others faces.
      So let me get this straight... Jennings, with the ball in his hands, is scoring a lot of points, distributing the ball to his teammates, and his team is winning. Where exactly is the problem? Is that not exactly what a point guard is supposed to do? Part of the reason his attempts are so high is because of the lack of offensive talent on that team, yet he has still managed to distribute the ball fairly well and get his teammates involved.

      I don't need to rub anything in anyones face, I just don't know where the criticism is coming from when it comes to this kid. He is playing really freaking well right out the gate, and has proven his doubters wrong so far. Good for him.
      "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


      • #63
        Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
        So let me get this straight... Jennings, with the ball in his hands, is scoring a lot of points, distributing the ball to his teammates, and his team is winning. Where exactly is the problem? Is that not exactly what a point guard is supposed to do? Part of the reason his attempts are so high is because of the lack of offensive talent on that team, yet he has still managed to distribute the ball fairly well and get his teammates involved.

        I don't need to rub anything in anyones face, I just don't know where the criticism is coming from when it comes to this kid. He is playing really freaking well right out the gate, and has proven his doubters wrong so far. Good for him.
        No one is criticizing Brandon Jennings.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

          Come on, man. You just sound bitter.

          If Hansbrough had a 55 point game, was 8th in the league in scoring (ahead of Danny Granger by the way) and had near triple-double games wouldn't you be on these boards telling everyone about it? I know you would never let Seth hear the end of it.

          I just don't understand the need to discredit him.

          Also, all the things you're saying about Jennings now... only good perimeter player on a bad team, takes all the shots, FGA to ast.... all these things were said about Danny last year.
          2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

            Originally posted by tbabyy924 View Post
            Come on, man. You just sound bitter.

            If Hansbrough had a 55 point game, was 8th in the league in scoring (ahead of Danny Granger by the way) and had near triple-double games wouldn't you be on these boards telling everyone about it? I know you would never let Seth hear the end of it.

            I just don't understand the need to discredit him.

            Also, all the things you're saying about Jennings now... only good perimeter player on a bad team, takes all the shots, FGA to ast.... all these things were said about Danny last year.
            At no point have I been negative towards Brandon Jennings. He's playing great and the Bucks are winning. As I stated at PD2:

            Amazing that the kid could look so pathetic in inferior Europe and like a bonafide All-Star in the NBA.

            It looks like the Bucks have finally found a stud after years of botching their drafts. Joe Alexander, Yi Jianlian, Bogut over Paul, etc.
            and in response to someone asking "Is his team winning?"
            The Bucks are 5-2 and have the 4th best record in the East.

            I don't expect it to last, but their current .714 winning percentage extrapolates to 58 wins on the season.
            The comment about his FGA-to-assist ratio was in response to Infinite MANforce trying to downplay the fact that it's Jennings scoring, not his passing, which has fans talking.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
              All I am getting at is this. People keep bringing up "attitude" concerns with Jennings, when there was nothing to substantiate it. I was saying this at the time, I am saying it now. I think a single comment about Rubio was about the only thing anyone had to go on with this whole "attitude" angle. I just never understood it.
              Oh, how quickly we forget:

              http://ballhype.com/video/brandon_je...y_rubio_chris/

              I'm not sure I should be linking that due to the colorful display of language, but basically it's that video with Jennings proclaiming, "F the Knicks, F Ricky Rubio." That is enough to substantiate the attitude concerns.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                If I played for the Bucks I would not want Jennings to bring the ball up the court as there is a high chance he aint gonna pass it but rather call for screens until the defense breaks down so he can shoot a runner. For now I will put his recent games on him controlling the ball ( you cant tell me that someone who scores 29 in a Q aint being a ball hog ).

                Hansbrough is playing almost as well as I expected him to early in the season. I can tell that he still has some jitters and rust though ( one look at this FT% will tell you that ).

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                  Look on the bright side. The legendary Jrue Holiday also had a bandwagon prior to the draft. Just be thankful you hopped on the winning ride.
                  I am a Pacer fan, not a Brandon Jennings fan. I merely was "on the Jennings bandwagon" because that is who I wanted the Pacers to get. I saw enough of his abilty to create offense (whether it was for him self or others, his own scoring counts in that) with his speed, ball handling, and athleticism. And he also carried that p word that so many Pacer fans seem to be scared of now because of Bender 10 years ago.

                  Hoping for the best for the Pacers is not bandwagon jumping. I'd much rather have Hansbrough be a star than Jennings (if either were to become one). It's not because I'm on the "Hansbrough wagon" it is because I'm a Pacer fan.

                  Your whole argument is childish...grow up.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                    For what it's worth, I was on the Holiday bandwagon too and I am not ready to give up on him. We all knew he wasn't ready yet, but I still think he can be really good. It's going to take him time.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                      Originally posted by Psycho T View Post
                      If I played for the Bucks I would not want Jennings to bring the ball up the court as there is a high chance he aint gonna pass it but rather call for screens until the defense breaks down so he can shoot a runner. For now I will put his recent games on him controlling the ball ( you cant tell me that someone who scores 29 in a Q aint being a ball hog ).
                      Let me first say that I'm not pro or anti-Jennings. I don't have any clear ideas about how much of a ball hog or distributor he might turn out to be because it's just too soon to know...check back with me at the All-Star break and I may have some preliminarily ideas.

                      But I will say that I can tell you that someone who scores 29 in a quarter is not necessarily being a ball hog. The kid shot 21-34 for the game and an even higher percentage in that 3rd quarter - that's pretty efficient offense for his position. In my opinion it's simply good strategy to ride the hot hand in that situation. Now if he had shot a bad percentage in route to getting those points then I'd get on board with the ball hog assessment for the game/quarter.

                      I don't know what the future holds for Jennings, and I'm stating that again because a lot of the recent tension on the board seems to center around perceptions about whether not someone is making a long-term claim based on too little evidence. I just know the kid had a really good game and a great 3rd quarter.
                      "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                      "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                      "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                        If someone can shoot 21/34 from the floor, they can be a ball hog all they want.

                        As far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as a bad 55-point outing.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                          The problem with Jennings, as pointed out, was that he was so unproven. He couldn't even get on court overseas.

                          It really is amazing he is producing so well. I know his production is likely to drop off some and maybe his attitude isn't the greatest and maybe he is a ballhog I really don't know for sure on those things but what I do know is that he can play and is NBA worthy.

                          Jennings was the first American to go from High School or Professional overseas. It will be very interesting to see if/when other Americans make that same jump and how well they do in the pros. My guess is that most won't find the same success as Jennings has early on but it will be interesting to look at this in 5 years or so and see how Brandon Jennings affected player's decision to play pro overseas and GM's decision to draft those players when they come to the NBA.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                            If you shoot 21/34 you're hurting your team to NOT be taking that many shots. That's just a studly night. Anyone saying ball hog to that has no idea what they are talking about.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Oh, how quickly we forget:

                              http://ballhype.com/video/brandon_je...y_rubio_chris/

                              I'm not sure I should be linking that due to the colorful display of language, but basically it's that video with Jennings proclaiming, "F the Knicks, F Ricky Rubio." That is enough to substantiate the attitude concerns.
                              I did forget about that, of course this was later and after the draft. It was also supposed to be a private, and somewhat joking, conversation between supposed friends... before that guy put it up on the internet. His friend (a knicks fan) was clearly egging him on, and they were pretty much just talking some junk to each other. Context is important here.

                              That said, this was enough to convince a lot of people he had an attitude problem. I don't really see it as anything out of the ordinary for a 19 year old to talk a little junk to his friend. Some people disagree.

                              If he had said that stuff publicly I would feel totally different about it.
                              "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


                              • #75
                                Re: 2009 Rookie Watch

                                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                                I did forget about that, of course this was later and after the draft. It was also supposed to be a private, and somewhat joking, conversation between supposed friends... before that guy put it up on the internet. His friend (a knicks fan) was clearly egging him on, and they were pretty much just talking some junk to each other. Context is important here.

                                That said, this was enough to convince a lot of people he had an attitude problem. I don't really see it as anything out of the ordinary for a 19 year old to talk a little junk to his friend. Some people disagree.

                                If he had said that stuff publicly I would feel totally different about it.
                                It was on like a video or radio blog, so it at least kind of public. I don't hold it against him, I'm just stating that signs of character issues were there.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X