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

Favors or Cousins?

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

  • #16
    Re: Favors or Cousins?

    I haven't seen enough of any of them to give an opinion on who's better, but I'm almost 100% sure that if the Pacers draft Cousins they'll trade Hibbert right after. That's just too much slowness for today's game (even though Cousins isn't a slow player for a center at all - but to play at the PF, he probably needs to be paired with a center like Thabeet, not Hibbert). Favors seems to be a much more natural fit.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Favors or Cousins?

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      This team needs a "bad guy". Not necessarily a player who will frequent the clubs, but someone with that "me against the world" mentality. Someone who can bust his way through the lane with little regard.

      Swagger, Cousins has that. I don't want a team full of "nice guys". We need attitude.
      I agree 100%... I'm just afraid Cousins can't control that attitude and would end up getting in trouble. If he were able to control it though, I would love to see a player with that type of attitude/swagger on the team.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Favors or Cousins?

        Dangerous game to write off Cousin's issues/concerns as him just "having an attitude" that we "need". If both were available, I'd take Favors and not look back.

        If you want a bad boy on this team, make sure he's not one of your core, or else you're begging for something to go wrong that you can't easily fix. Get "bad boy" role players if you want them.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Favors or Cousins?

          I voted for Favors. Cousins just has too much attitude and emotion to trust not having another PR nightmare waiting to happen. My feeling is Cousins, at 19, will be going against NBA bigs, not NCAA kids, and his temperament and maturity just isn't going to be able to handle the frustration of the NBA level of competition. After watching him play and his interaction with Calipari, he looks like one situation from going ARTEST. I just don't see Herb Simon being able to afford the gamble after all the PR problems from players over the last 5 years that has virtually destroyed a once proud sports franchise to put himself back in that situation again.

          If the Pacers had the 4th pick and Favors had already been picked, I'd hope Bird would trade the pick in an expanded deal to receive multiple picks and player/players that could help the Pacers for the future.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Favors or Cousins?

            Cousins production is quite a bit superior to Favors.

            Cordobes has a good point about Cousins and Hibbert being highly incompatible. Drafting Cousins and trading Hibbert would send the message "Hey, this nice, likeable player thing hasn't worked out for us the past couple of seasons, so we're going to try going back to the old way of fielding a team of unlikable guys who might win a few more games. Oh, and don't mention Shawne Williams, he was an anomaly."

            Cousins has too much baggage for me. Personally, I'm hoping he's gone before we pick if we don't get Wall or Turner. I'd prefer not to have to make a decision on him at all.

            In general I have a hard time trusting anyone who would voluntarily associate themselves with John Calipari (the Jerry Tarkanian of today's NCAA). This goes for John Wall, as well, but I think he's worth the risk.
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Favors or Cousins?

              Favors.

              He's super athletic and mobile, and he'd be a better compliment to Roy Hibbert. A frontcourt of Hibbert and Cousins just seems too slow and below the rim.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Favors or Cousins?

                Originally posted by Dukins View Post
                Cousins reminds me of a lazy Derrick Coleman.
                Ouch. That's like saying "smelly garbage dump."
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Favors or Cousins?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Dangerous game to write off Cousin's issues/concerns as him just "having an attitude" that we "need". If both were available, I'd take Favors and not look back.

                  If you want a bad boy on this team, make sure he's not one of your core, or else you're begging for something to go wrong that you can't easily fix. Get "bad boy" role players if you want them.
                  Like what? Why does the toughest player have to be a role player? I honestly think that Cousins' attitude "problems" aren't really a problem. Right now he's in a system that breeds messed up attitudes. That doesn't mean he won't humble somewhat in the NBA.

                  Look, this team needs some color, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. This team has been built around "nice guys" recently and that hasn't won us many games. Cousins has the capacity to fire the team up, and he's what we need as a PF. A bruiser.

                  However, if we have to get Favors, I'm not against that at all.

                  Now getting a player like DeMarcus Cousins will require a coach with a little bit more emphasis on discipline. O'Brien would be a horrible mentor for this kid. Mark my words on that. I think though that DeMarcus has really cooled it lately, and hasn't been the head case that we was at the beginning of the season.
                  Last edited by duke dynamite; 03-15-2010, 11:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Favors or Cousins?

                    If the edict du jour is to get guys who don't have potential problems, then I don't think they'd draft Cousins no matter what so I picked Favors. If the direction changes back to we don't need Milk drinker then I think all things being equal they'd take Cousins. I just don't see them seeing the risk/reward being enough to take Cousins.

                    I think it is correct above that Bird would trade the 4th pick, if he could move down a handful of spots and pick up another piece. That's assuming Wall, Turner, and Favors are gone.

                    My biggest fear is they see Favors as too much of project and Cousins too much of a risk and pick off the reservation.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Favors or Cousins?

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      If the edict du jour is to get guys who don't have potential problems, then I don't think they'd draft Cousins no matter what so I picked Favors. If the direction changes back to we don't need Milk drinker then I think all things being equal they'd take Cousins. I just don't see them seeing the risk/reward being enough to take Cousins.

                      I think it is correct above that Bird would trade the 4th pick, if he could move down a handful of spots and pick up another piece.
                      There is nothing wrong with putting a little whiskey in your milk.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Favors or Cousins?

                        Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                        From watching them both pretty extensively I'm not so sure that Favors is that far off of a prospect from Cousins based on basketball only, attitude issues aside...Plus I think Favors is a much more explosive athlete. I guess its what you want -- a bigger, more plodding bruiser 4/5 type or a pure 4 with explosive athleticism. From a pure basketball standpoint, I don't think we could go wrong with either, but because of Cousins' attitude I'm goin with Favors...
                        Same here.

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        My biggest fear is they see Favors as too much of project and Cousins too much of a risk and pick off the reservation.
                        That's what I'm REALLY afraid of aswell. We finally get a very high draftpick and then we trade down or pick some senior player who you could get at pick 8-10 aswell, but won't have the longterm impact a player like Favours COULD have.
                        Last edited by Mourning; 03-15-2010, 11:57 AM.
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Favors or Cousins?

                          I wouldn't mind either, but I would prefer Favors and not because of Cousins and his baggage. Both are good defenders, but I think Favors would be able to fit into our system and work well in the PF rotation with Tyler either starting or backing him up.

                          Favors is similar to Tyler more because he can work the post well and keep players from entering the post and he's athletic.

                          Also if Favors is gone by our selection and Cousins is still left, I would take him believing the top 3 are gone.
                          Last edited by Trophy; 03-15-2010, 11:58 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Favors or Cousins?

                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            There is nothing wrong with putting a little whiskey in your milk.
                            Exactly, I think thats been part of the problem and the Black and White (no pun intended) idea that you have to have great guys with not as much talken or you don't care at all what kind of guys you have as long as there very talented.

                            Maybe a middle ground is okay. Get good pros and good players. Hopefully a guy doesn't have to be a preacher or felon, maybe they can be inbetween.

                            What doesn't work is only getting guys because they are good guys and only getting guys because they have talent with baggage.

                            Looking back over the last 4 years this has been the biggest downfall in reconstructing the team, imho. It's time to be a little smarter about it, cuz they've screwed the pooch enough to almost be down to no room for error.

                            Note to Bird, everything isn't an absolute, don't try and make it that way.

                            I'll sit back down now, but man they need to get this draft close to perfect.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Favors or Cousins?

                              Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                              I wouldn't mind either, but I would prefer Favors and not because of Cousins and his baggage. Both are good defenders, but I think Favors would be able to fit into our system and work well in the PF rotation with Tyler either starting or backing him up.

                              Favors is similar to Tyler more because he can work the post well and keep players from entering the post and he's athletic.

                              Also if Favors is gone by our selection and Cousins is still left, I would take him believing the top 3 are gone.
                              The system in the next year and a half will be completely changed based on who you have by then, which should be almost completely different than what we see right now.

                              The system in 2 years should be tailored to the players they have then, so I'd almost give no consideration to system in this year's coming draft.

                              I would absolutely without hesitation take the best talent available regardless of position, system, or even duplicate skillset.

                              If a guy is just like Roy or just like Danny, but he's clearly the best available, I'd take him. Just my opinion, but I think they are that far away that they need to approach it like this.

                              You can sort it out later, imho.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Favors or Cousins?

                                Between the two, I see flaws in both that give me pause. Favors is pretty freakin' raw from what I understand, but this team isn't doing anything for say...another 3 years. So, with the "right coaching" he may be up to snuff by time we're ready to do something.

                                Watching Cousins play on Saturday against Tennessee was like watching a guy that you know wanted to explode and doing his absolute best trying not to snap. He was often being "baited" into doing something stupid, but resisted. This is scary because he looked on the razors edge of just barely holding his composure together. All that aside, I see Cousins as more of a center and not the athletic freak that I would like to see as our PF. As others have said, if you take Cousins.... You might as well send Roy packing.

                                I'd take Favors just because he'd most likely be the better fit with our current center.

                                Originally posted by Hicks
                                If you want a bad boy on this team, make sure he's not one of your core, or else you're begging for something to go wrong that you can't easily fix. Get "bad boy" role players if you want them
                                I'm not speaking of Cousins or a "bad boy" specifically, but we do need a player with some swagger and fire in a leadership position on the team. You can have great locker room guys be role players, but we need some aggressiveness out of the core.
                                ...Still "flying casual"
                                @roaminggnome74

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X