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

Good Idea/Bad Idea

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

  • #16
    Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
    True. However, that wasn't all his fault. Wasn't Jalen Rose convinced he was a PG?

    I think in particular with PG's, Larry Brown more often than not gets the most out of them. The ones that have failed for him, like Marbury, have failed for a reason.


    What about Brown wanting to trade Reggie?

    The problem with Brown is he's never happy. He wants to change players from the day he arrives until the day he leaves. He doesn't play youth much and it's hard to get out of his dog house once in it. Ask Augustin, May, Radmanovic, etc. It didn't take him long to get rid of Okefor either.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

      There was never a doubt how I was going to vote... HECK YES!

      I watched Rush play last night. Ray Allen at times beat him like a redheaded step child. I watched a couple nice drives by Rush to the basket, and then give up a basket. He played 40 minutes and his game wasn't even close to being what he should have had. Sorry, but he's too inconsistant for me to be a starter, bench role player ok.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

        I really don't think DJ Agustin is any good, his numbers are not impressive. AJ Price has better stats NOW, in less minutes, as a rookie. I don't think DJ does anything to improve this team.

        Henderson is a question mark... but if its just Rush for Henderson I don't see the point, I think Rush has a higher ceiling and is already a great defender and three point threat. Even if he never gets better he is a great role player right now. No way do I do this trade. Its making a trade for the sake of making a trade, and it sucks.
        "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


        • #19
          Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

          Originally posted by Justin Thyme
          What about Brown wanting to trade Reggie?

          The problem with Brown is he's never happy. He wants to change players from the day he arrives until the day he leaves. He doesn't play youth much and it's hard to get out of his dog house once in it. Ask Augustin, May, Radmanovic, etc. It didn't take him long to get rid of Okefor either.
          Out of that group, Augustin, Radmanovic, and May; 2 out of the 3 aren't worth anything. I had to check to see if Sean May was still in the league, and Radmanovic shoots threes and plays no defense (not going to fly under Larry Brown). As for Okafor, I don't think Larry Brown drove him out of town, it was simply a matter of Tyson Chandler being assumed as a better fit for his system.

          However, I'll raise the point again, if a PG can't develop under Brown who actually has a proven system and might be the best coach at matchups and hiding weaknesses/exploiting strengths, what makes anyone think Augustin will develop under Jim O'Brien and our bizarro world Pacers' offense? I mean I guess if you think he shoots threes and plays no defense, yeah he probably would.

          Sure, there are counter examples, but there also guys like Allen Iverson, Chauncey Billups, and Eric Snow that played the best basketball of their careers under him.
          Last edited by PR07; 03-13-2010, 02:42 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

            Bad idea..if we aren't getting rid of Ford, I'd like to flat out refuse to get rid of Rush.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              Sure, but who could we trade Rush for to get that?
              Artest, if he were younger, would be an upgrade from Rush defensively who currently averages just over 11 PPG, and I am sure the Lakers would be interested in the potential displayed by Rush with the best possible player for Rush to have exposure to in his young career, Kobe, who Rush would immediately provide worthwhile backup for, and would likely do the deal if we include Watson as a sign and trade to make salaries match.

              If Artest wasn't who he is mentally, I would be tempted to part with Rush for that. Otherwise, I would want to see how Rush develops under a different coach right here.

              You may imagine whatever color scheme you may like to have applied with this post. A rainbow may even apply, but there are some who would probably leave it as is.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                I hate undersized PG's, and Augustin is small. He's been in the league a few years and never really done anything at all to make me raise an eyebrow. Henderson may or may not even be an NBA caliber player. He seems like one of those guys who could thrive in the college game but isn't crafty or strong enough to be a consistent presence in the NBA. This deal really sucks, and is just a trade for the sake of making a trade. Augustin/Henderson is not something I would give a good young gun like Rush for.

                So to sum it up we already have a bunch of backup PG's on our roster, and we don't need another one, so no Augustin. We could probably draft a wing in the second round that would have a bigger impact on our team next year than Henderson.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                  Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                  I hate undersized PG's, and Augustin is small. He's been in the league a few years and never really done anything at all to make me raise an eyebrow. Henderson may or may not even be an NBA caliber player. He seems like one of those guys who could thrive in the college game but isn't crafty or strong enough to be a consistent presence in the NBA. This deal really sucks, and is just a trade for the sake of making a trade. Augustin/Henderson is not something I would give a good young gun like Rush for.

                  So to sum it up we already have a bunch of backup PG's on our roster, and we don't need another one, so no Augustin. We could probably draft a wing in the second round that would have a bigger impact on our team next year than Henderson.
                  I think the trade stinks too but to say Henderson isn't strong enough is just wrong. The dude is not small. He's 6'5" and 215 pounds. Not crafty enough? Maybe. Not strong enough? wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                    Rush has shown flashes of being a great player but two years in and it's looking more every day like his peak is as a middle-of-the-pack starting SG, and even that may be closer to best-case scenario.

                    I'd probably be willing to swap him even for Henderson at this point, so to get a decent young PG out of the deal makes this an easy yes for me.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                      If Charlotte is wanting to trade DJA this early in his career, I would say no way. IMHO Larry Brown is probably telling his front office that DJA is not a true PG and could probably never lead a team. I wouldn't do anything before the draft unless you could trade Murphy for a true PF. A Dale Davis type.
                      "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                      Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        Out of that group, Augustin, Radmanovic, and May; 2 out of the 3 aren't worth anything. I had to check to see if Sean May was still in the league, and Radmanovic shoots threes and plays no defense (not going to fly under Larry Brown). As for Okafor, I don't think Larry Brown drove him out of town, it was simply a matter of Tyson Chandler being assumed as a better fit for his system.

                        However, I'll raise the point again, if a PG can't develop under Brown who actually has a proven system and might be the best coach at matchups and hiding weaknesses/exploiting strengths, what makes anyone think Augustin will develop under Jim O'Brien and our bizarro world Pacers' offense? I mean I guess if you think he shoots threes and plays no defense, yeah he probably would.

                        Sure, there are counter examples, but there also guys like Allen Iverson, Chauncey Billups, and Eric Snow that played the best basketball of their careers under him.

                        You are forgetting one thing... Augustin was Brown's PG last year. Brown has just intimidated Augustin, and he needs a new address.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                          Is Augustin the PG you want leading this team going forward? Can he be the starter on a contending team? My answer to this is no, which makes the Henderson for Rush swap even less interesting.

                          You want to label Rush inconsistent? Go look at Augustin's game log. He's been on my fantasy team and he drives me nuts.

                          And if you say Larry Brown is the reason for Augustin's inconsistency, I could say O'Brien is the reason for Rush's (at least on offense, because his defense is there every night).
                          2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                            Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91
                            And if you say Larry Brown is the reason for Augustin's inconsistency, I could say O'Brien is the reason for Rush's (at least on offense, because his defense is there every night).
                            That's what I'm saying too. If you play Rush under a coach that actually has a more structured offense, I think he would be a lot more consistent.

                            As for Henderson, having seen them both play quite a bit of a bit, I don't think he has a higher upside than Rush. Henderson looks rigid in his offensive game and doesn't have much range on his jumper. There's a certain smoothness in Rush's offensive game that can't be ignored.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                              I think Augustin and Henderson trump Rush in terms of realizable potential. Rush offers more than both of them (paired together) in the present tense.

                              Augustin brings poor defence + poor rebound + poor game management but excellent ball-handling + good scoring + decent shooting (but he's struggling with his shot this season). He may even become Tony Parker, but I think it's more likely he peaks as TJ Ford.

                              Henderson is limited offensively due to poor shooting + poor off-hand. If he improves on both those things it's anyone's guess. He may very well peak as Dahntay Jones. Defensively he has more potential than Rush - Rush is an above average wing defender; Henderson is quicker and can become a top-notch defender at every back-court position.

                              Rush is the safer choice. It depends on how much risk you're willing to take and what assets you value more. Personally as I think there's a good chance that Augustin and Henderson plateau as backups at their positions, I'd be risk adverse.

                              One thing is for sure, O'Brien would hate this trade.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Good Idea/Bad Idea

                                The only player of those three that can possibly be really good is Rush. It's really about his ceiling more than anything.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X