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

WTF? - Wells Blog

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

  • #16
    Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

    I'll answer this in the context of a contender, so our guys may not score that well with me. With that said, I consider Tier 4 to be all-star level talent (e.g. Granger), Tier 3 to be an average NBA starter (e.g. Healthy Foster), Tier 2 to be a solid backup (e.g. Earl Watson) and Tier 1 to be barely in the league (e.g. Diener).

    First, not one of these guys are a Tier 1...which is a good thing IMO.

    Josh - Tier 2
    AJ - Tier 2.5
    Tyler - Tier 3
    Rush - Tier 3
    Roy - Tier 3.5

    There are big-time unknowns for Tyler and AJ. Otherwise, I'm fairly confident of the projection. Roy, with the right pieces around him, could be a very good cog in the middle. I don't think many people realize that the Pacers style of play and the pieces he gets to play with are a WORST CASE SITUATION.

    Edit: My numbers assume these guys immediately become veterans and max out. Might want to subtract 1/2 from each score if this were to happen next year...well before most of these guys are vets.
    Last edited by BlueNGold; 03-08-2010, 08:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I don't intend to be disagreeable. But that very thing Jim has been saying for a good portion of the season. (I know most of you don't believe his actions back up his words in this area, but he has been saying this a lot since at least January 1)
      But Buck, this is exactly what most of us HAVE been saying this whole time. I heard this same quote from him about a month ago, with a timing that really implied that the writing was on the wall for the playoffs and it was time to start working on next year's team.

      Don't "believe" his actions back up his words? No. I KNOW his actions don't back up his words. If the kids get 35 total minutes among Roy, Rush, Price and Josh, maybe 5-10 more for DJones, then his actions are 100% not backing up his words.


      OKC developed their youth. Do you know that that means in MPG? It means 35+. THIRTY FIVE. Watson was benched so Westbrook could play tons of minutes. Why? Because RW was the future and Watson was not.


      JOB keeps talking like somehow playing Rush and Price and Josh makes winning tougher, but most of us believe this isn't the case anyway. In fact the growing buzz is almost to the point that not playing the kids is actually part of the tank because they might win a couple of games with the kids.

      I don't think it would make a difference myself, but the point is that a lot of PD posters do see how that idea is within reason because they've seen all these guys play.



      I'll tell you what Buck, I'll give you a taste of what this JOB thing is from our side. My version of a JOB, but altered for me - "I'm trying to talk Pacers basketball and at the same time not rant about JOB, that's what I'm doing, not discussing the coaching. Also I believe firmly in the stat that says that less words per post is the right way to go, which is why I keep all my posts really short."

      Just think of that quote every time you read any post by me the rest of the year. Maybe for kicks you can defend it as sincere and true too. "Seth really means it, he's not really ranting about the coach, he's trying to talk basketball but all these other posters drag him into it. It's not his fault. Plus his posts aren't really that long when you look at them."

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

        Roy - 4
        Rush - 4
        Price - 3ish, need to see more
        Josh - 3
        Tyler - 2

        And if Tyler was healthy and I was the coach, I WOULD play him. Yep, all my ranting aside of what I think he can be, I'd try to defy my own expectations of him because that helps me and frankly its just the right way to coach, period.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Could it be that he thinks he is truly developing the young guys. For most of us, developing the young guys means a lot of playing time, Jim might veru well honestly believe yes some playing time is part of the process, but other things, like film work, practice....is just as important
          During the season, no film work at all practically and practices maybe once every 2-3 weeks.

          Yep, that does help.

          Josh is learning how to check into hotels, catch the bus and lift weights. He's not developing his NBA game.


          And you aren't helping his case because I think a lot of us also think this is exactly how JOB does think, which is why he's a terrible coach for a developing team. No other coaches worth their salt think this way. Even Larry Brown will play kids. It's hit and miss if he likes a player this week, but at times if he's liking them then he will play them. And Brown is a terrible example because he is so notoriously fickle that it's considered a flaw in his coaching.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
            Question for Pacers fans:

            Imagine a scenario where your young players - Rush, Hibbert, S. Jones, McRoberts, Price - were traded for a team a) that has a playing style that fits their characteristics (it has to be different teams), assuming you don't fit that's the case with the Pacers now b) that was severely hit by the injury bug and they get lots of opportunities to play.

            In which tier do you think they'd fall:

            Tier One - Roko Ukic - incapable of being a useful rotation player + not capable of being insurance for an injured rotation player + have some potential to improve and one day become a serviceable fringe rotation player.

            Tier Two - Kyle Weaver - a young player who is capable of showing himself to be a borderline rotation player + good insurance for the main rotation.

            Tier Three - JJ Hickson - a good young player who is capable of being a role player, an important one, for his team if given an opportunity.

            Tier Four - Darren Collison - a very good young prospect who hasn't been given the opportunity to play yet. If given the opportunity this young player could become a key cog in his team.
            Hmm..
            Honestly, I think We've seen too little of Price, Josh, and Tyler to say either way, but I'll make my guess.

            Josh - 2.5
            Tyler -3
            AJ- 3.5
            Rush -4
            Hibbert - 4

            I'm going a little high, but I think this is about potential and minutes.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

              Assuming all are healthy:

              Josh - 2.5
              Tyler - 2.75
              Price - 3
              Rush - 3.25 (only because his personality holds his talent down from a 4)
              Hibbert - 3.5

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                I am in UB's corner on this one, but for perhaps a different reasons. I can not help but think that JOB is trying to make the best of a bad situation.

                He may not be a great coach, however I am not sure that even a great coach would be in a significantly different situation.

                There are a lot of reasons the team is where it is. I suspect JOB has a relatively small amount of control relatively speaking.

                my2c
                ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                  Originally posted by efhead View Post
                  I am in UB's corner on this one, but for perhaps a different reasons. I can not help but think that JOB is trying to make the best of a bad situation.

                  He may not be a great coach, however I am not sure that even a great coach would be in a significantly different situation.

                  There are a lot of reasons the team is where it is. I suspect JOB has a relatively small amount of control relatively speaking.

                  my2c
                  Making the best out of a bad situation would be to give the younger guys the majority of the minutes.

                  That is the only positive that can come for this season. And he's not doing it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                    Wouldn't starting all the young players tell your opponent that you have officially given up?

                    I would support that by the way - would be like watching the Warriors - not sure the climate of Indiana would accept such an approach.
                    Last edited by mcampbellarch; 03-09-2010, 12:53 AM. Reason: incomplete thought
                    ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                      Originally posted by efhead View Post
                      Wouldn't starting all the young players tell your opponent that you have officially given up?

                      I would support that by the way - would be like watching the Warriors - not sure the climate of Indiana would accept such an approach.
                      1. No, because for the most part, are younger guys are our best guys.
                      That lineup would be
                      Price
                      Rush
                      Danny
                      McBob
                      Hibbert

                      Rush, McBob, and Hibbert are our best at those position. I and I think many here believe Price is as well..McBob isn't better than Troy, although he does some things that fans appreciate, that Troy can't do.

                      2. The fans want to see the younger guys play.

                      3. Um, we're out of the playoffs. Everyone knows we are out of the playoffs, trust me when I say the opposing team doesn't really care who we start.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                        But the question still remains. If we were healthy (and Dunleavy started to produce) would we see the youngsters at all? If Foster came back and Dun started to come back to old form, in our current state, would O'B play Rush, Josh, and Roy as much?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          But the question still remains. If we were healthy (and Dunleavy started to produce) would we see the youngsters at all? If Foster came back and Dun started to come back to old form, in our current state, would O'B play Rush, Josh, and Roy as much?
                          Nope.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                            But the question still remains. If we were healthy (and Dunleavy started to produce) would we see the youngsters at all? If Foster came back and Dun started to come back to old form, in our current state, would O'B play Rush, Josh, and Roy as much?

                            You knew the answer to that question b4 you asked it. The only benefit to Dun and Sir Foster being injured is that the young'ns have got PT. It sure wasn't Herb Simon getting a break on having to pay their salaries!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: WTF? - Wells Blog

                              Let me clarify. We'd be hearing some version of "Foster, Dun, Troy etc playing give us the best change to win right now...".

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X