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

Interesting ESPN Insider Article

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

  • #16
    Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
    If we could do that and wind up with Bledsoe/Bradley and Larry Sanders, I'm not sure I'd be able to go to sleep that night.


    OR

    Udoh & Bledsoe/Bradley

    Bledsoe/Bradley & George

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

      Mell-

      Yup, we're on the exact same page. Personally, I'd do about whatever
      it takes to move up to either #2 or #3 to get Favors.

      But assuming that is (understating it) highly unlikely, a move back to
      grab both Bradley and Sanders would be about as good as it gets
      after starting from the #10 slot.

      If Hans is gonna be who we think he is (I'd have never drafted him last
      year, but that's a moot point now) going forward at the 4 spot, Sanders
      is probably about the ideal guy to eventually fit into the 4/5 swing slot
      and compliment Hans and Hibbs.

      He's a couple years away (with alot of time in the weight room) at this
      point. But he gets off the floor very quickly and runs it like a gazelle.

      And, there is something else. He has 'humongous hands'. That doesn't
      necessarily mean much unless a kid knows how to play. But if he does,
      it adds alot of flexibility to what he can get done when 'finishing' in the
      lane/at the rim, etc.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

        Hans being who we thought he was is the big question. The outcome ranges from not being able to play to being a starter playing full minutes, at both extremes. Someone pointed out, he never got off of restricted minutes last year, so we really don't know.

        This is so important and such a unknown factor.

        I'd guess even if he gets a full clean bill of health and gets off of restricted minutes that he is a guy who I'd have trouble seeing play extended minutes almost ever. The reason why is his intensity level won't allow him to play more than 25 mins a night and stay healthy.

        So here we are May 25th 2010 and we don't know who will be the Power Forward of the future and there is only one healthy point guard on the roster, who they can't wait to get rid of.

        Feels like a big step backwards right now.

        The thing I don't want to hear from Bird and Co is we drafted a Point Guard purely because we only have one. That smacks of no long term plan and knee jerk reactionary management.

        Overall, I still say you have to take BPA, no matter the circumstances. If it's Bledsoe/Bradley so be it. Just as fans we have to know that there will be a learning curve for either player, maybe even 3 years even if they get it right.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Wells' response makes me depressed. Picking up Brand would be a deal-breaker because he doesn't fit Obie's system? The system that everybody in the state hates?
          Wells' response, at least the second part, is silly.

          The first part is the real obstacle. Under the current CBA, it would be a serious concern having that much money tied up for that long in a player who most certainly appears to be on a downward trajectory. However, if there is a significant reduction of the % allotted to the players in the new CBA, resulting in a permanent reduction in the cap, having Brand's contract as is could be crippling.

          Additionally, since the #2 pick does not count salary-wise, but will cost $4.6mm to sign, virtually any deal that Philly would find acceptable would put us further over the cap. Meaning that even if we didn't have to give up Roy or the #10 or a future first as part of this deal, we'd almost certainly have to give one of them up to a team under the cap to unload one of our expirings - a deal similar to the Harpring-Maynor deal last year.

          If the Pacers end up not making the deal, it will be because Philly turned them down, or they decided that it didn't make sense financially or long-term (whether you or I agree or not).

          The thought that they'd turn it down because of Brand doesn't shoot threes is absolutely ridiculous.

          First, if it was a "requirement" for the 4 to "stretch the floor" for O'Brien, then explain Tyler Hansbrough to me. This is a guy who was either on a 15- or 22-minute per game limitation for virtually all of the time he was available to the Pacers, yet averaged almost 18 minutes per night in his 29 games this season. During that time, he took exactly 4 three pointers. I watched all of them on Synergy, and each one was either fighting the shot clock or the game clock to end a quarter.

          Of Hansbrough's 511 minutes, he played almost two-thirds of that time paired with Roy Hibbert, Solomon Jones, Jeff Foster, or Josh McRoberts.

          O'Brien used Hansbrough in the post and the mid-range, which is how he'd use Brand. With Hibbert, the 4 doesn't need to shoot threes, but he does need to be able to hit the mid-range and threaten the defense in some way. Otherwise, the lane will clog, and Hibbert will effectively be double teamed. It's one of the reasons that O'Brien doesn't use Foster and Hibbert together much.

          However, there are potential on-court issues that Brand does bring. He can shoot the mid range (taking over half his shots from 10-23 feet over the last four years), but he's a mouth to feed. Regardless of how a coach feels about threes, there's reason to wonder what impact he'd have on Roy's touches and development. Additionally, he's an aging 6-8" 4 who used to be a capable shot blocker, but has seen his shot blocking production drop significantly since coming to Philly. Finally, he's a guy whose been a good, but far from great rebounder over the course of his career, and he's coming off his worst rebounding percentage year (11.8) of his career.

          All of this would be fine - if it weren't for the fact that you'd have to pay the guy $17.1mm in 2012 and $18.2mm in 2013.

          All in all, I'd probably take the chance on the deal, if it were for expirings and either #10 or Hibbert, despite the large financial risk. I think that Bird would likely do so, as well, but this does represent a huge financial risk to a franchise that is in the current financial state of the Pacers, so I'm not sure that Herb Simon would approve.

          The #2 pick is awfully tempting, but this is also awfully close to kicking the can down the road again...and we're getting very near a cliff.
          Last edited by count55; 05-25-2010, 10:03 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

            Originally posted by count55 View Post
            The first part is the real obstacle. Under the current CBA, it would be a serious concern having that much money tied up for that long in a player who most certainly appears to be on a downward trajectory. However, if there is a significant reduction of the % allotted to the players in the new CBA, resulting in a permanent reduction in the cap, having Brand's contract as is could be crippling.
            Why for cannot I say them things as well as youse?

            When you say it, it makes sense to people
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

              Not sure this is the correct thread for this, but watching the Magic play the Celtics and hearing JVG and Mark Jackson talk about this series it hit me last night how valuable Tyler hansbrough can be to the Pacers. We will never ever be concerned he isn't playing hard enough, that he isn't competitive enough, that he isn't physically and mentally tough enough. he will be all those things and more and I think those things are more important than whether Tyler will get hit shot blocked more than some players.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                I thought there was speculation that if the cap goes way down that pre-existing contracts might also decrease to avoid punishing teams?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                  Two things:

                  - About the Wall/Turner comparison. Given an equal but ultimately unknown comparison, people are always going to pick the point guard. Just like people are always going to pick the center, a la Oden/Durant. Occasionally you get the transcendant wing player, but historically the 1 and 5 are the hardest positions to fill and can have the greatest impact, so that's where people lean. Derrick Rose's run out of the gate certainly doesn't hurt Wall, either.

                  - In regards to the money issue with Brand, I've stated before, think of that money going to Turner and the cost is justified. As for the bottom line, you'll have me and surely a lot of other Big Ten fans lining up outside the arena from opening day. (Of course, if you really care about attendance you'd get rid of that dip**** coach, but whatever.)
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    On the face of it I would be willing to at least look at taking on Brand's contract. But I would fight like crazy to keep pick number 10 this year and trade away a first next year or the year after. Then with two firsts and still having an expiring they could round out the team for the future.
                    I've been thinking (& may have even said something like this) for a while now. IMO we should look to ADD a pick, not trade away assets (exp, Rush,..) to move up or to get a solid but non-difference making vet (Felton, Collison,...). If we could get Brand & #2 (Turner), & keep #10 t/y (Bledsoe?) then we could really make some strides. Not sure that is possible & I know it sounds like (& likely is) having cake & eating cake, but damnit, I'm Hungry!
                    "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                    (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                      Keg-

                      Sorry, that doesn't help. I get what you're driving at. But, a) I think
                      that Turner is a bit 'overated' with less upside than others and, b) even
                      if I'm dead wrong and he's not, I certainly can't justify paying a kid who's
                      never stepped onto an NBA court $17mil per year (40-50% more than
                      DG is pulling down).

                      In fact, in today's NBA (preumably the new CBA will only magnify this),
                      I can count the number of guys on one hand I can justify paying that
                      kind of $$$.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        Oh btw, lets not forget Jimmy will be a lame duck coach this year. What is the difference of Jimmy being a lame duck coach last year or this year?
                        The new Collective Bargaining Agreement is the difference. Oh and that our team won't be competitive next year either way. Sure we might make the playoffs, as an eighth seed, but is any coach going to take us much higher than that? No. So why pay for another one when we are "financially strapped" and irrelevant anyway?
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          OR

                          Udoh & Bledsoe/Bradley

                          Bledsoe/Bradley & George
                          That would be a great draft in my book.
                          {o,o}
                          |)__)
                          -"-"-

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                            Two things:

                            - About the Wall/Turner comparison. Given an equal but ultimately unknown comparison, people are always going to pick the point guard. Just like people are always going to pick the center, a la Oden/Durant. Occasionally you get the transcendant wing player, but historically the 1 and 5 are the hardest positions to fill and can have the greatest impact, so that's where people lean. Derrick Rose's run out of the gate certainly doesn't hurt Wall, either.

                            - In regards to the money issue with Brand, I've stated before, think of that money going to Turner and the cost is justified. As for the bottom line, you'll have me and surely a lot of other Big Ten fans lining up outside the arena from opening day. (Of course, if you really care about attendance you'd get rid of that dip**** coach, but whatever.)

                            I don't care too much about him being from the BigTen as much as I care about his talent.
                            If familiarity was real important then draft Heyward.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I thought there was speculation that if the cap goes way down that pre-existing contracts might also decrease to avoid punishing teams?
                              Anyone?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Interesting ESPN Insider Article

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Anyone?
                                The owners want that but no one who has been discussing the CBA has treated that as a realistic possibility.

                                Obviously, that would have a serious impact on how people would view Brand's contract. The question being whether that possibility would be real enough to count on when deciding on this trade.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X