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

Any doubts about Siggi's future here

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

  • #16
    Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

    If we pick someone up, he's gone for sure. Doesn't sound good for him that's for sure.
    At the same time, right now all he has to do is beat out Wright to be the 3d string guy. Pacers could be beating his price down.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

      Wow, the his total stats through 4 games are scary.


      QUESTION
      OF THE DAY
      Conrad Brunner
      Q. It looks like Jamison Brewer's summer league experience is a disaster. I know that these games don't mean much, but he has been in the league long enough that his shooting percentages, turnovers, and floor decisions should be accurately gradable enough to determine his ultimate future with the Pacers. What, in your opinion, does this do to his chances? (From Richard in Tucson, AZ)

      A. To be sure, Brewer’s statistics do not exactly inspire confidence. Through five games, he’s 6 of 32 from the field (.188), 1 of 12 from the 3-point line (.083), 1 of 8 from the free-throw line (.125) and has 24 turnovers (an average of 9.4 per 48 minutes played). While he has produced a team-high 25 assists, that’s the only positive stat. In the summer league, turnovers can sometimes be discounted because of the lack of familiarity between the players and the lack of practice time. Even given that, his number jumps off the page. The Pacers know Brewer is a solid defensive player and superior athlete. What they hoped to find out in the summer league is if he has made strides in his ability to lead a team, to run an offense, to make sound decisions – in essence, to be a point guard. It’s always dangerous to form an opinion based solely on statistics, but that’s the only information available since, like most of the world, I have been unable to actually view the Pacers’ summer league games. And the statistics offer little evidence in support of Brewer’s case.
      E-mail this story

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

        I agree that Larry is always blunt and to the point. He may conceal things at times, but when he opens his mouth, he tends to spew exactly what he is thinking and feeling. Honest and to the point. He probably says too much for a GM.

        So as we sit here today, Larry is saying that at this moment Brewer MIGHT be welcome as a 4th PG, but nothing more. I think that puts the ball in Brewer's court. Come to camp and try to earn more, or be satisfied with 4th fiddle.

        GNOME -

        I think you overlook one extremely important point. Had Brewer been on the playoff roster, we would have stood a much better chance of getting by Detroit. IMO - I think we would have gotten by Detroit with the help of, that's right, a 4th string PG.

        If we don't bring Brewer back then we by god better do one thing. Go out and find somebody who is capable of slowing down the cat-quick guards that we will face next season. Because this season in the playoffs against Wade and Hamilton, well quite frankly we didn't do so well.

        And if we don't bring in a stopper, then we better come up with different defensive schemes against them, because right now we have no inidvidual player on our roster capable of stopping them one-on-one from getting into the lane.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

          Beast makes a good point. It's really sad that Brewer's blowing it, cause his abilities as a speedy defender is what we need to compliment Jamaal and AJ. That's why we drafted Wright, but it doesn't look like he's gonna work out either.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

            Originally posted by beast23
            I agree that Larry is always blunt and to the point. He may conceal things at times, but when he opens his mouth, he tends to spew exactly what he is thinking and feeling. Honest and to the point. He probably says too much for a GM.

            So as we sit here today, Larry is saying that at this moment Brewer MIGHT be welcome as a 4th PG, but nothing more. I think that puts the ball in Brewer's court. Come to camp and try to earn more, or be satisfied with 4th fiddle.

            GNOME -

            I think you overlook one extremely important point. Had Brewer been on the playoff roster, we would have stood a much better chance of getting by Detroit. IMO - I think we would have gotten by Detroit with the help of, that's right, a 4th string PG.

            If we don't bring Brewer back then we by god better do one thing. Go out and find somebody who is capable of slowing down the cat-quick guards that we will face next season. Because this season in the playoffs against Wade and Hamilton, well quite frankly we didn't do so well.

            And if we don't bring in a stopper, then we better come up with different defensive schemes against them, because right now we have no inidvidual player on our roster capable of stopping them one-on-one from getting into the lane.

            I think a healthy Freddie takes that role.
            I too would still like to see Brewer for that reason.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

              Originally posted by beast23
              GNOME -

              I think you overlook one extremely important point. Had Brewer been on the playoff roster, we would have stood a much better chance of getting by Detroit. IMO - I think we would have gotten by Detroit with the help of, that's right, a 4th string PG.
              How do you figure that Brewer would have led to us getting over the hump versus Detroit. You seen how rusty and terrible an accomplished veteran looked out there..What makes anyone think that a guy that barely got hardly any mins. the whole season wouldn't freeze up like a clam out there in one of the biggest games of their lives. Brewer would have not made that much of a difference in that game/series.
              We had Chauncey Billups pretty much in check for a lot of the series. As for Brewer guarding Hamilton out of position... Brewer would get tested running thru the screens then when Rip would get the ball he would just shoot over him with the height advantage.


              Originally posted by beast23
              If we don't bring Brewer back then we by god better do one thing. Go out and find somebody who is capable of slowing down the cat-quick guards that we will face next season. Because this season in the playoffs against Wade and Hamilton, well quite frankly we didn't do so well.

              And if we don't bring in a stopper, then we better come up with different defensive schemes against them, because right now we have no inidvidual player on our roster capable of stopping them one-on-one from getting into the lane.
              Honestly, I really don't care for a defensive stopper..I would like a point that is more balanced or knows how to run the floor but is a little suspect on shooting...a project that we can work on and give a shot, like we did Brewer, but just hope for better results!
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                Stealing my own thread....

                I wonder how Ron will react to JAmison being left out of the mix altogether?????

                More missed flights....?
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                  The Pistions won game 2 by 5 points. It was tight throughout Q4. Even though we tried at least 3 players on Hamilton in the 4th, he got free for something like 15 points.

                  I would agree that I would really like all of our PGs to be balanced in their skills. But in that particular game, I would have given anything to have a quicker, better defender available to cover Hamilton.

                  You mention that Rip would just shoot over Brewer anyway. In a few situations, that is true. However, for most good shooters, a major part of their performance is getting to their spots on the floor in rhythm to release the ball. A case in point is Hamilton, who takes most of his shots off the dribble as opposed to being a spot-up shooter.

                  On defense, Brewer is a troublesome little **** who just gets all over his man, especially when he has the ball. Like Ron, Brewer is the guy you would hate to play against in pick-up ball, because quite frankly, you want to punch him in the mouth before the game is over. He covers you that well, is a little physical, and just gets under your skin.

                  I wouldn't have been asking Brewer to play 20 mintues of Game 2. Just maybe 5-6 minutes. Perhaps 3-4 of those minutes in Q4. It would not have taken much to turn that game, maybe just being successful against Hamilton for 2 possession more than what we actually were. Depending on the timing in Q4, that would have been enough to change the outcome. And we would have been up 2-0, a deficit not often overcome.

                  In all honesty, I'm hoping with a summer of workouts behind him, that Wright can prove to be our man as the #3 PG. He was SEC DPOY, so I don't doubt that he could become an extremely capable stopper at PG. Offensively, just about anybody could contribute more than Brewer, so I figure Wright is already light-years ahead at that end of the court.

                  But until I can see Wright, I'm hoping Brewer sticks around. I think he's capable of better play than he showed in the summer league. And, until someone proves to be better, he is our best defensive PG.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                    I would agree that I would really like all of our PGs to be balanced in their skills. But in that particular game, I would have given anything to have a quicker, better defender available to cover Hamilton.
                    We had one. His name's Freddy Jones. Unfortunately, Reggie was in instead.

                    Anybody think Freddy would have been blocked on that breakaway?

                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                      Good point. I'm not a FJ fan but he would have ben ideal in that situation.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                        Wow. If Fred had the ball where Reggie had it at that moment, it's a highlite for the Pacers.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                          I agree with the fact that Freddie can potentially be the stopper that we need.

                          Unfortunately, Freddie was injured during our series with Miami and Carlisle chose to play him only a few minutes in each of the first couple of games against the Pistions.

                          As I recall, most of Freddie's time in game 2 came at the start of Q4 and he didn't do badly against Hamilton the few minutes her was in.

                          Reggie's handling of that break-away was probably one of the poorest decisions I've seen him make in his career. He knew Prince was coming, but I don't think Reggie doubted for a second that he would either hit the shot without a foul or get to the line to shoot 2 or the and 1. I think he actually slowed down on the play to wait for Prince, totally overlooking the fact that Prince is one hell of a shot-blocker.

                          Even with Freddie's injury, I don't think he would have been blocked. But then again, if you replayed Reggie taking the same shot 10 times, I don't think he would have been blocked the other 9 times, either.

                          It was just one of those plays where Prince timed it perfectly, Reggie didn't do anything to throw off Prince's timing, and Prince got his opportunity after he got up in the air and was able to complete the play.

                          What you've stated I've more or less stated earlier. I really hope that Carlisle's reason for leaving Brewer off the playoff roster is that he felt that Freddie would be able to adequately play the role of stopper at the guard position. And I really think that was probably the case.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                            There are better PGs on the FA list than Brewer. Heck, he's no better than a Rick Brunson, Kenny Satterfield, or Adam Harrington.

                            I'd much prefer to see Freddie used as the third point guard than Brewer. It's time for the Pacers to cut their losses.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                              Originally posted by Hicks
                              Wow. If Fred had the ball where Reggie had it at that moment, it's a highlite for the Pacers.
                              Instant highlight. Reggie hopefully is not going to play too many minutes, and Fred will be part of the regular rotation.

                              But that would have been fun to see.

                              As far as Brewer is concerned, bye bye. Recker would be a better option for 15.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Any doubts about Siggi's future here

                                Originally posted by btowncolt

                                Good lord no. Recker is one of the more despicable people on the planet. And I'm happy he left IU, so past animosity has nothing to do with it. If the Pacers signed Recker, there's no way I would contribute financially to the Pacers next year. Of course, all I could afford last year was one game at about 20 bucks for tickets and 0 for snacks...........so no loss to them.
                                Well whatever. Anyone else works. Or better yet, leave that spot open.
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X