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

  • #91
    Re: Favors or Cousins?

    "The Brawl" has ruined all of you. Favors has "bust" written all over him. Danny Granger could shut him down any day. Cousins is bigger, stronger, better offensively, better rebounder, better shot blocker, and is mean. Kinda like those mean big fellas we used to have. Some of you forget how bad Miller's attitude was, and Miller wasn't a criminal. Neither is Cousins. He's just mean. Like Reggie, he will be a technical foul machine, and so what. That gets into the minds of other players, and like Reggie he plays better that way. We have some fuel. Give us fire.

    Please, I know what that guy will say about his attitude, so spare me for these guys will all see the light next season. If Bird takes Favors, all of those guys will be calling him an idiot in 12 months, and admitting the same fault, given their opinions today, on another day.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Favors or Cousins?

      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
      Dude chill out with the John Wall stuff. This thread is about FAVORS or COUSINS!

      I get it John Wall was cited for being in an abandon house he shouldn't have been in. He should have known better. Warning, Warning, Red Flag, John Wall broke in house OMG OMG.. Go Evan Turner.

      Let it go!

      rant off
      If you don't understand what I am trying to say is fine with me, the reason why I am bringing that back is because the same guys who give a pass to Wall for been immature are the ones talking about how immature Cousins is, the one guy got an excuse because he is young and the other guy does not have one, even though he is young like Wall.


      By the way I think is time for you to let that picture go, Dunleavy is done.(just my advice )
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Favors or Cousins?

        At least this thread made it to 4 pages before I set to ignore it.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Favors or Cousins?

          I prefer Turner. Honestly, John Wall has proven very little to me, Demarcus Cousins appears to be lazy and lathargic, and I have to admit I haven't watched Favors play a single game (and I will not pass judgement on a guy I haven't examined on multiple occasions). Wall may solidify himself as a big time player during the tourney, but honestly he has done very little in crunch time against major opponents to earn my respect. I like Turner because he is extremely well-rounded, well-tempered, and he obviously has the ability to take over a game especially when it matters. Turner is a great ball-handler and shooter, in fact some mock drafts suggest he could be utilized as a PG/SG/SF. I like versitile guys like that - especially in a tough economy. From a less tangible perspective, I know Turner is a lot like Brandon Roy, but there is something that reminds me about Reggie Miller when I watch him play. It's not his style of play, it's his ability to win. I understand we have Brandon Rush, and Brandon has shown flashes of potential, but at best Brandon iRush s a solid role player. The Pacers need a real number 1 or 2 player to accompany Danny Granger - that is what Evan Turner offers.

          Cheers.
          Last edited by 1984; 03-15-2010, 09:36 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Favors or Cousins?

            Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
            Being young is a valid excuse for an isolated incident (see John Wall in the vacant house)...its a bigger problem when it starts becoming a pattern.
            See "Price, A.J." Seriously, A.J. was a computer thief, I'm glad UConn didn't throw him away. Wrong is wrong, right is right. The difference, as Mr. Sobchak said, is when wrong action becomes a pattern or regular behavior. There is no reason to suggest that one isolated incident dictates or reflects a person's lifestyle. Though, it should be said, it may put their judgement into question until they can prove otherwise.

            Cheers.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Favors or Cousins?

              Wall is not only a much better player he does not have that "I'll be stupid until I'm 50 Allen Iverson look".

              Also, I find it funny that Cousins is compared to the likes of Zach Randolph. Cousins is 1-6 from three point range this year. That is easily 1/3 of Zach's game. Cousins is also compared to Chris Webber who was significantly more athletic at that age.

              Cousins actually reminds me more of an overweight version of Jamaal McGloire.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Favors or Cousins?

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Wall is not only a much better player he does not have that "I'll be stupid until I'm 50 Allen Iverson look".
                50?
                Last edited by 1984; 03-15-2010, 10:05 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Favors or Cousins?

                  Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                  Being young is a valid excuse for an isolated incident (see John Wall in the vacant house)...its a bigger problem when it starts becoming a pattern.
                  I agree with this but we really don't know half of the things that go on behind the scenes with any of these guys. This is why its very important to do the homework on a guy. If he shows a inability to learn what it means to act like a pro then we should pass but I do agree with Seth about how a 18/19 year old can mature quite a bit in a short amount of time.

                  To me more time needs to go into "if" Favors can progress on the court and in the case of Cousins more time needs to be dedicated to see if he is going to be too out of control on and off the court.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Favors or Cousins?

                    Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                    "The Brawl" has ruined all of you. Favors has "bust" written all over him. Danny Granger could shut him down any day. Cousins is bigger, stronger, better offensively, better rebounder, better shot blocker, and is mean. Kinda like those mean big fellas we used to have. Some of you forget how bad Miller's attitude was, and Miller wasn't a criminal. Neither is Cousins. He's just mean. Like Reggie, he will be a technical foul machine, and so what. That gets into the minds of other players, and like Reggie he plays better that way. We have some fuel. Give us fire.

                    Please, I know what that guy will say about his attitude, so spare me for these guys will all see the light next season. If Bird takes Favors, all of those guys will be calling him an idiot in 12 months, and admitting the same fault, given their opinions today, on another day.
                    I think theres a line you have to draw where you say ok hes mean and aggressive which is what his attitude comes from and gives him a fire that allows him to be competitive..ala..reggie miller.

                    and then on the otherside, i believe, you have cousins who uses his attitude to flat out take plays off. put his head down. and ignore his coach completely. cousins lets his own downfalls get in his head. there are stretches in his game where he doesnt do jack. and there are stretches where he can take over. its that what cousins will you get factor that im scared of. hes not consistent and he has played inferior competition all season. when he gets into the NBA, it will be the OTHER PF's that get into his head and cause him to deflate his abilities.

                    Favors is much more even keeled. hes focused and driven and hes only gotten better throughout the season. Im a big Duke and ACC fan so I have seen him play a number of times.
                    No doubt he has the ability to become a chris bosh/amare type of player. but hes not there yet. he needs to get stronger, and i think if it werent for the ball hog perimeter players on Gtech, he'd get the ball more. Im not sure how much that has to do with Paul Hewitt's coaching or Favors ability to clear out the lane and make space. But if you watch a game of Gtech, their guards have a fetish of driving every time or shooting the trey without giving it to the bigs.

                    I just think that when you have a guy like John Wall who sticks out more because he touches the ball every possession, you have to take into account bigs who dont always touch the ball every possession (like favors) who have potential thats just as high as a guy like Wall.


                    But i do agree with you Emcee that when and if cousins can channel that fire into a consistent degree and focus on the game and not about himself. He can be an absolute beast. because ive seen him do it. just not on a consistent basis. One thing that tells me is that he has to go into a situation in the NBA that will light a fire under his backside and will keep his attention (like a larry brown type of style).
                    "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                    Comment


                    • Re: Favors or Cousins?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Wall is not only a much better player he does not have that "I'll be stupid until I'm 50 Allen Iverson look".

                      Also, I find it funny that Cousins is compared to the likes of Zach Randolph. Cousins is 1-6 from three point range this year. That is easily 1/3 of Zach's game. Cousins is also compared to Chris Webber who was significantly more athletic at that age.

                      Cousins actually reminds me more of an overweight version of Jamaal McGloire.
                      Where do you get this comparison? As a freshmen he has already surpassed the 4 years of McGloires. I think its best just to not to compare personally because it either leads to a really unrealistic expectation or to a unfair deflated one.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 03-15-2010, 10:15 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Favors or Cousins?

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I agree with this but we really don't know half of the things that go on behind the scenes with any of these guys. This is why its very important to do the homework on a guy. If he shows a inability to learn what it means to act like a pro then we should pass but I do agree with Seth about how a 18/19 year old can mature quite a bit in a short amount of time.

                        To me more time needs to go into "if" Favors can progress on the court and in the case of Cousins more time needs to be dedicated to see if he is going to be too out of control on and off the court.
                        THANK YOU.

                        Interesting story for you guys...

                        I have a professor who teaches my leadership class and he graduated from Illinois university and did his graduate work their as well. and he taught a bunch of players from that 05 Illinois bball team that went to the ship against UNC. James Augustine, Luther Head, and Dee Brown being the main ones.
                        He informed us that the staff was the only ones who knew that Luthter Head was involved in a heavy drug and alcohol problem on campus and got caught (during tourney time) and the university swept the issues under the rug to avoid press from the media.

                        Its things like these that could come into account of a players phsychee when drafting them. Even thought the media/community dont know about certain issues, its still attached to the player himself, so it could affect his work ethic/attitude/punctuality/dedication to the team/etc.
                        "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                        Comment


                        • Re: Favors or Cousins?

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          Where do you get this comparison? As a freshmen he has already surpassed the 4 years of McGloires. I think its best just to not to compare personally because it either leads to a really unrealistic expectation or to a unfair deflated one.
                          Yes, he will be better than McGloire...and probably already is. He still reminds me of him because he's slow and has no hops and is not that gifted on offense. He only dominates in college because he outweighs most of his competition by 40 or 50 lbs. When he has to face stronger interior players on a regular basis, his weaknesses will be exposed. No more bull rush to the rim...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Favors or Cousins?

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            If you don't understand what I am trying to say is fine with me, the reason why I am bringing that back is because the same guys who give a pass to Wall for been immature are the ones talking about how immature Cousins is, the one guy got an excuse because he is young and the other guy does not have one, even though he is young like Wall.


                            By the way I think is time for you to let that picture go, Dunleavy is done.(just my advice )
                            I understand where you're coming from, I'm just tired of hearing all the this guy did this, this guy did that. I personally don't care what they did as long as they have talent, and can control their 'issues".

                            That's the sticking point with me, can they control it. I don't follow UK close enough to know what each player is doing, but it sounds like Cousins has multiple rumors floating around of misbehaving. The only thing I've heard from Wall is the case with him being in an abandon house he wasn't suppose to be in. That personally isn't a red flag to me.. personally. I know kids and adults as well that have been in that same situation, and it wasn't harmful, they just shouldn't have been in there.

                            My issue with Cousins is pretty much on point with who someone has compared him to... Zach Randolph

                            Now Z-Bo is a talented player and has put up good numbers his whole career, but he's been moved around due to his "issues" Now as he's shown this year in Memphis, he's an all-star type player when he stays out of trouble and just plays basketball.

                            Problem is he's been with the Blazers, Knicks, and Clippers before figuring that out. I personally don't want to draft Cousins and he show spurts of potential, only to figure it out after he's traded to another team.

                            Plus I think Favors is going to be the better player. He's like a silent assassin when I watch him play. He just plays ball and does what he's suppose to do. GTech is actually pretty bad at feeding him in the post from what I saw during the ACC tourney, and he has good position. I think he'll be a lot to handle once he gets to the NBA with no zone and a more free flowing style.

                            I don't mind Cousins either. Say what you want about Artest, Jackson and even Tinsley to some extent, they may have issues, but when they're behaving, they're really good basketball players, and as seem with Randolph, Jackson and Artest, talent with issues is still talent and teams are willing to take a chance and sign or trade for these guys


                            PS: I know I need to change the Dun Dun avatar, but I still like him as a player. Just waiting for the right time to change it

                            Comment


                            • Re: Favors or Cousins?

                              He seems like a personable guy...



                              He also likes babies...



                              So he gets the urge to punch people from time to time... who doesn't???

                              Comment


                              • Re: Favors or Cousins?

                                Has Cousins ever been in trouble off the court? I know he can be a jerk on the court, but mean front court players is part of what made the Pacers good in the 90's. Hansbrough/Cousins could be an incredibly angry front court.

                                There is this wacky rumor that originated on NBAdraft.net that Cousins is on meds for psychological issues. Sounds like a he said she said thing that is not true, but these are the kinds of things TPTB have to look for in the very careful evaluation of Cousins I had advocated.
                                Last edited by idioteque; 03-15-2010, 11:09 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X