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

Why are we going big?

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

  • Why are we going big?

    According to the pundits......
    I think it's a smoke screen.
    while plenty here think we need help up front, I think the PTB know what with Jeff and Tyler up front next year we really don't.
    I think we take the best PG prospect on the board UNLESS we trade for one first.

  • #2
    Re: Why are we going big?

    because our team is allaround mediocre and needs help everywhere
    Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why are we going big?

      Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
      According to the pundits......
      I think it's a smoke screen.
      while plenty here think we need help up front, I think the PTB know what with Jeff and Tyler up front next year we really don't.
      I think we take the best PG prospect on the board UNLESS we trade for one first.
      Unless of course Jeff can't play nearly like he once did due to his age and surgically repaired back, and Tyler is not actually able to play like he once did (pre-NBA) due to post concussion syndrome (ear infection?), and Josh McRoberts is converted into a perimeter player with no 3pt shot, thereby relegating him to the bench under O'B.

      Those things, plus the statements from the FO (who have rarely stated the truth about anything with respect to potential draft interests since prior to the arrival of Donnie Walsh) that everything on the floor starts with the point guard, suggests that we probably will end up with a big backup for Roy at center later than 10th in the first round, followed by another rebounding forward towards the end of the first round, followed by Gordon Hayward as a PR pick in the 2nd round because he is another potential stretch forward who earlier in his college career shot threes (at collegiate distance) better than he did this year.

      After all, we have both our starter, TJ Ford, and AJ Price to man the pg position (IIRC O'B has stated that we only need 2 pgs) once Earl Watson leaves after being insulted by the ridiculously low offer the Pacers make him to stay.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why are we going big?

        Not sure where the sarcasm begins and ends, but I've not read anything (other than here) that suggests that any of those scenerios are likely with any of those big guys. (and I forgot to incude McBob). Jeff is the energizer bunny, only thing slowing him down WAS his back. And he just got a year off. He should be as healthy as he's been in years. He certainly will chomping at the bit to get back to what he loves. Same with Tyler. Josh got a taste, I expect him to work very hard to hold on to those minutes.
        That's THREE 6'9"+ guys that should be a factor next year up front that weren't (for most of the year) this year.

        I think we get our PG.
        Last edited by MLB007; 05-15-2010, 02:08 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why are we going big?

          Probably this is a big man heavy draft, and they are the best guys available when we are slated to pick.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why are we going big?

            I would say we have too many questions at the power forward position. A few being (as others have already said):

            Will Foster come back at least as good as he was?

            Will Hansbrough make a full recovery and be as effective in the NBA as he was at UNC?

            Will McRoberts continue to produce at the shockingly high rate he closed the season out at?

            ...And the biggest question being, does anyone realistically see OB coaching the us in two years? I think at least 90 percent of the people here don't. Thus making PF's who play 25 ft. from the basket (think Murphy) unneeded.

            The reason I say this is because we already have 3 competent PGs probably all playing in a system hindering their talents. Earl Watson is kind of a "yes man" to OB I feel, and could really fit in any system. TJ is/was clearly playing out of his comfort zone in OB's offense, but is definitely a starter in another type of offense. Lastly, Price has and will continue to mature. He has had brief stints of excellent play.

            The reason we need to draft big is to facilitate a coaching change two or three years (or sooner) down the road. We will need interior players who hit the boards, and not 7 footer playing 30 feet from the basket as we have now.

            I guess I kind of turned this into a post on coaching, but I felt it tied in with our draft needs. In a different system our point guards could fare well, but I don't think we are as set as we need to be in the power forward department.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why are we going big?

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Probably this is a big man heavy draft, and they are the best guys available when we are slated to pick.
              This.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why are we going big?

                It's a big man draft, and seeing as for much of the season we were playing a SG at the PF position..I'd think we probably need an increase in talent there..although honestly, we could use an increase in talent at the PG, SG, and PF position.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why are we going big?

                  Why are we going big?

                  Because the 10th-best player in the draft is likely to be a big man.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why are we going big?

                    any notion that jeff foster, tyler hansborough and josh mcroberts shores us up at the PF position is laughable...

                    not that i'm saying we don't desperately need pg help as well (which we clearly do) but you could make the case that tj ford and aj price has us just as "set" at pg as we are at pf

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why are we going big?

                      Anyway, please bear in mind that "Pacers going big" is only speculation by writers who have to say something even when there's nothing to say.

                      You don't know where the pacers will pick on draft day. You don't know who will be available at that time. You don't know what trades will occur before the draft.

                      Saying, "The Pacers are trading for Chris Paul and Dwight Howard" or "Troy Murphy is working on his post moves" has just as much meaning right now as "the Pacers are drafting big."
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why are we going big?

                        Originally posted by Mark View Post
                        I would say we have too many questions at the power forward position. A few being (as others have already said):

                        Will Foster come back at least as good as he was?

                        Will Hansbrough make a full recovery and be as effective in the NBA as he was at UNC?

                        Will McRoberts continue to produce at the shockingly high rate he closed the season out at?

                        ...And the biggest question being, does anyone realistically see OB coaching the us in two years? I think at least 90 percent of the people here don't. Thus making PF's who play 25 ft. from the basket (think Murphy) unneeded.

                        The reason I say this is because we already have 3 competent PGs probably all playing in a system hindering their talents. Earl Watson is kind of a "yes man" to OB I feel, and could really fit in any system. TJ is/was clearly playing out of his comfort zone in OB's offense, but is definitely a starter in another type of offense. Lastly, Price has and will continue to mature. He has had brief stints of excellent play.

                        The reason we need to draft big is to facilitate a coaching change two or three years (or sooner) down the road. We will need interior players who hit the boards, and not 7 footer playing 30 feet from the basket as we have now.

                        I guess I kind of turned this into a post on coaching, but I felt it tied in with our draft needs. In a different system our point guards could fare well, but I don't think we are as set as we need to be in the power forward department.
                        I don't think anyone involved in making the picks is worried about 2 or 3 years down the road. Their future is now. You can question whether we can get 1 new guy to be better than the three or four we already have (questionable where we are picking) AND we just spent last seasons #1 on a 4.
                        Getting a marginally (maybe) better 4 than the ones we already have isn't going to make this a significantly better team.
                        Our point guards are "solid", "reliable" type pgs, none are dynamic or game changing when they have the ball. No guarantee we get that, but it's 100% we don't if we don't try.

                        This team is not nearly as far away as many here seem to think. The front line will be solid, with or without another pick there. Roy and Jeff at 1, Tyler and McBob and Murphy at 4, Danny at 3 with Brandon and Dunleavy behind him. That's workable.
                        The guards are iffy and need an infusion of talent. I like AJ but I'm not ready to turn the team over to him, or feel confident that he is THE guy down the road. Looks like a very good back up at the least.
                        There are lots of bigs projected to go to the teams drafting ahead of the Pacers. With Wall and Turner as guards to go ahead of them it's possible they could be choosing the next guard in the draft. Got to be someone with game changing speed or ball handling and distribution ability worth taking a chance on.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why are we going big?

                          [QUOTE=Anthem;995823]Why are we going big?

                          Because the 10th-best player in the draft is likely to be a big man.[/QUOT

                          "Likely" ? Based on what??

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why are we going big?

                            Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                            I don't think anyone involved in making the picks is worried about 2 or 3 years down the road. Their future is now. You can question whether we can get 1 new guy to be better than the three or four we already have (questionable where we are picking) AND we just spent last seasons #1 on a 4.
                            Getting a marginally (maybe) better 4 than the ones we already have isn't going to make this a significantly better team.
                            Our point guards are "solid", "reliable" type pgs, none are dynamic or game changing when they have the ball. No guarantee we get that, but it's 100% we don't if we don't try.

                            This team is not nearly as far away as many here seem to think. The front line will be solid, with or without another pick there..
                            No sarcasm involved in my previous post in this thread.

                            Again, the front line is solid only if we are assuming that everyone is healthy besides Hibbert that O'B is willing to play inside instead of wasting them at the arc. Otherwise, it is possibly the position of greatest need, regardless of the front office saying that a point guard is a priority because everything starts at the point. They frequently misdirect fan expectations along with other teams executives with respect to personnel decisions.

                            The truth about what the Pacers believe with respect to the health of Hansbrough and Foster will be somewhat revealed by what we do draft day.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why are we going big?

                              Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
                              any notion that jeff foster, tyler hansborough and josh mcroberts shores us up at the PF position is laughable...

                              not that i'm saying we don't desperately need pg help as well (which we clearly do) but you could make the case that tj ford and aj price has us just as "set" at pg as we are at pf


                              Jeff is a center.
                              Don't see what's laughable about what Josh did at the end of the season when given a chance, nor what Tyler showed in the little time he had on the court. (with no training camp and little off season conditoning). Both are young and going to improve. Tyler was our #1 pick last year and that may not mean anything to you, but I guarantee you it does to the coaches and PTB. I liked very much what I saw last year from a rookie that had no time on the floor prior to the season.
                              Murphy is a very decent player despite what many of the armchair coaches think. Funny how bad he is but how other teams wanted him. hmmmmm Only good rebounder on our front line and his outside shooting pulls other 4's out so Roy doesn't get doubled and beat on by 2 big men inside.
                              We were a decent team at the end of the year. Danny finally healthy to go with a rapidly developing low post threat in Roy and Murphy opening up the lane with his range.
                              Discount it all you want, that team was healthy and showed some stuff to anyone that was paying attention.

                              This team will be competetive (.500 minimum) from the get go. What it needs to get to the next level is another dynamic guard. Via draft or trade the pick. Get a good guard and this team goes up nice notch.
                              Last edited by MLB007; 05-15-2010, 08:06 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X