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

Pacers need a starting PG bad

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    Oh, there are plenty of examples, such as Rondo instead of Shawn.

    Why didn't you mention Shawn? Are you being "fare"?
    No, just forgot. A lot of wasted picks out there cluttering my mind.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

      Problem with drafting any players let along Point Guards is it's a crap shoot. Jennings went 10 with a ton of question marks and is playing great so far. Acie Law went 11 and is a transient or barely in the league.

      I'm fairly certain Ty Lawson would have been a Pacers if TH wasn't there, so I think they are looking at it. When you are as bad as they are, you have to take best available, period.

      My point is this, it is their biggest problem to me and I agree with Buck, in that you need to get one in the next two years, for sure. You just have to be careful and no more stop gaps.

      As for AJ, out practicing aside, I've really liked his on court persona and how he's played. I said persona, cuz he looks like he did at UConn, comfortable. He's not afraid to play. Right now there seems to be a bunch of guys afraid to be the man to close a game. I don't see that in AJ, but I haven't seen him in that situation in the NBA either. I'd like to.

      If I wasn't desensitized to it, I would have gone through about 20 TVs the last few games from lauching my remote...remotely at TJ for an end of game bonehead play.

      Right now, Danny doens't wilt to those moments and I'd have to say the only guy after him is probably Tyler Hansbrough. TH isn't passive or afraid to win or lose a game. He'll make the max effort, take the shot, and let the chips fall where they may. Who else even shows that kind of gumption. Jarret Jack wasn't afraid of this either.

      All I'm saying with AJ is give him a shot and see if he's willing to be a guy who rises to those situations. Right now you have a bunch scared little role players who aren't up for the moment. Thats sad.

      Lastly, I think they should be in that, what can it hurt-mode.

      Play AJ, the worst he'll do is play like the current Point Guards are.
      Last edited by Speed; 12-23-2009, 12:24 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Who knows if Price is the answer and if anyone says they know either way - they aren't being truthful - no one has seen enough of him to have any idea.

        But the last thing I want at point guard (which is the most important position on the floor) is a stop-gap player. I don't want someone who we know is only an average or slighhtly above average NBA point guard. Trying to get just an okay point guard is how we got into this mess to begin with. Pacers need to draft a star at point guard - they are generally available every draft, the pacers need to draft one of them in the next two years. (unless they think there is a star point guard sitting on the bench somewhere that they can trade for)

        OK, this discussion about Price outplaying Ford and Watson in practice means very little if anything to me (assuming it is even true) Remember how Bender used to "outplay" everyone in practice. But even if it is true for a rookie who doesn't play, practices are his games, he isn't sore from the last game he isn't tired, it isn't a real game or a game at all, so I don't put any stock in it. The coaches need to look into it though, but as a fan, who knows what is true, JOB just threw the comment out there and some of you are acting like it is gospel and we have a hidden gem sitting over there if an only if the "stupid" coach would play him. If JOB thought Price would play well enough and help the team win thuis saving his job he would play Price

        I think someone should call JOB tonight on his show and ask him what he meant by the comment
        Someone should.

        Someone should also ask him why he said he was going to give Price time every game, and Price has had about 8 DNPs since? How come he said he was going to play TJ at crunch time, and then THAT DAY did not? I could come up with a ton of these.

        and no, I don't think JOB would play Price if it would help him win. Honestly, in the few times Price has played, he's played well. Ford has played well in like one game this season.

        Not saying there's a hidden gem. Saying there's a possibility, and I'm also saying that what is happening now isn't working, and there are other options that JOB refuses to use. And my issue is that if a kid comes in, plays well in a game, in a situation which is hard to handle for any player, never mind a rookie (filling in after not getting consistant time), in fact..clearly outplayed the starter. Apparently outplays the vets in practice. Always gets positive comments from JOB (which is different from the rest of the youth on the team) and yet he doesn't get time to prove he can do anything. At this point Why not give him some time?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          Problem with drafting any players let along Point Guards is it's a crap shoot. Jennings went 10 with a ton of question marks and is playing great so far. Acie Law went 11 and is a transient or barely in the league.

          I'm fairly certain Ty Lawson would have been a Pacers if TH wasn't there, so I think they are looking at it. When you are as bad as they are, you have to take best available, period.

          My point is this, it is their biggest problem to me and I agree with Buck, in that you need to get one in the next two years, for sure. You just have to be careful and no more stop gaps.

          As for AJ, out practicing aside, I've really liked his on court persona and how he's played. I said persona, cuz he looks like he did at UConn, comfortable. He's not afraid to play. Right now there seems to be a bunch of guys afraid to be the man to close a game. I don't see that in AJ, but I haven't seen him in that situation in the NBA either. I'd like to.

          If I wasn't desensitized to it, I would have gone through about 20 TVs the last few games from lauching my remote...remotely at TJ for an end of game bonehead play.

          Right now, Danny doens't wilt to those moments and I'd have to say the only guy after him is probably Tyler Hansbrough. TH isn't passive or afraid to win or lose a game. He'll make the max effort, take the shot, and let the chips fall where they may. Who else even shows that kind of gumption. Jarret Jack wasn't afraid of this either.

          All I'm saying with AJ is give him a shot and see if he's willing to be a guy who rises to those situations. Right now you have a bunch scared little role players who aren't up for the moment. Thats sad.

          Lastly, I think they should be in that, what can it hurt-mode.

          Play AJ, the worst he'll do is play like the current Point Guards are.
          I agree. This team is going nowhere fast. Time to use this season to see what we have in Hansbrough, Rush, Price and Hibbert. Go young, experience some losses, and use your young talent to evaluate what is needed in the next two drafts and after our big contracts come off the books.

          As I see it this will be our roster (for the most part) for the next two seasons. After Murphleavy comes off the books and we have two (hopefully high) first round picks come in we can start moving forward.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
            I agree. This team is going nowhere fast. Time to use this season to see what we have in , Rush, and Hibbert.
            ChicagoJ said the exact same thing (minus hans and price) about this time last year.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

              I know it isn't a long term solution, but I would like to see travis as the back up to watson and get a few mins for ford as the shooting guard maybe 12 to 14 mins each.

              I remember some games last year where travis really ran the team better than anyone else.
              Good is the enemy of Great


              We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
              -- Frank Vogel.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                Andre Miller. The Blazers desperately need to trade for a big guy. Miller doesn't fit in with the team because Brandon Roy is incapable (or unwilling) of playing without dominating the ball. Miller is still good.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                  Miller for Foster.

                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                    Andre Miller will be 34 later this year. He is the opitome of a stop gap solution.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      Miller for Foster.

                      I'm afraid Fosters done. He's had these lingering injuries since last year, and he's out indefinently; which probably means he's given up the basketball ghost. Poor guy.

                      That leaves us with no one to trade for Andre Miller. Of course there are other options. There's that Ramon Sessions guy that everyone drooled over last year, theres the playmaker Luke Ridnour, Jordan Farmar is a nice player, Jarrett Jack is arguably outplaying Jose Calderon, so eventually he could be a possibility. Kyle Weaver could be on the block with Maynor in the rotation, DJ Augustin is desperately wanting to get an actual chance with Charlotte. JJ Barea has always striked me as an interesting player, as well as Kyle Lowry out of Houston. CJ Watson has looked solid every time I watched him, and of course there's Beno Udrih and Sergio Rodriguez out of Sac Town. Daniel Gibson might be able to come over, but I'm not a big fan of his long term contract, and I'm a huge fan of Mike Taylor who is currently in the free agent market.
                      "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                      Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                        Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                        Andre Miller will be 34 later this year. He is the opitome of a stop gap solution.
                        We could use that stop-gap for the next season and a half.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                          Murphy for Jack and Turkoglu?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            Murphy for Jack and Turkoglu?
                            What... plus our 2010 first so that Murphy can back up Bargnani and replicate everything Bargs does for 11-12M for each of the next two years?
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              Murphy for Jack and Turkoglu?
                              I would kill myself with Turkoglus' contract.
                              "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                              Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers need a starting PG bad

                                Unless it is a trade for an expiring contract this year I really do not want any trades.
                                MJ is not walking through that door(ie trade) for anything the Pacers have.
                                The Pacers need to take their medicine and wait until next year or the year after
                                to really make a move that counts.
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X