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

I like what we did this draft...

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

  • I like what we did this draft...

    The past couple of years we have been basically going with "safe" picks. Rush, Hibbert,Tyler, even Price all solid, but not spectacular picks. Rotation players, or slightly better. But you generally know what you are going to get from them. None of them are likely to be all-NBA, but not are likely to be busts, either. And all seemingly with good attitudes and work ethic.


    So, this year they went looking for 'home runs', particularly with the first two picks. Players that have a lot more variations in their possible outcomes. Players with some question marks, but a lot of "upside". But more risk, as well. They could become all-stars, or very good players at their positions. Or they could be disappointments.


    I know a lot of you question whether or not TPTB have a plan (or are even competent), but this does seem like planned and logical step.


    We have solid role players. We have young players who are still developing. We have a couple of draft picks with a lot of upside. And we have several big expiring contracts.

    There are stills areas of need (PG, obviously)

    While nothing is a sure thing, and I'm not sure I'm quite ready to get "excited" about future and start buying my NBA finals tickets, I do think the franchise is heading in the right direction.


    Also, I would ask the Admins to ban anybody who mentions coaching in this thread. We've beaten that particular horse to death.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

  • #2
    Re: I like what we did this draft...

    I would much rather us to be aggressive to improve, rather than just try to barely make the playoffs. I had no problem with them bringing in Bender. Not everyone pans out, but you have to make an effort. I don't know enough about the players we took in this draft to comment on them, but I like what I have seen so far. Hopefully we can really improve once we get out of this cap hell.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I like what we did this draft...

      I agree. At some point you have to take a risk on players and try to get yourself away from the safe picks. Safe picks lead to mediocrity.

      Mediocrity is exactly what we are. And it's boring to watch.

      And if these players don't develop, what's the worst that happens? We don't make the playoffs, again? And if they do, we all smile and feel happy about the future.
      Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I like what we did this draft...

        Doug, I think my issue is that they've tried this several times recently and it keeps ending up bad.

        Didn't they swing for the fences with Bender, Harrison, Saras, Williams and White? Even KRush was a poor man's gamble.

        Harrison was a lower pick, but he fell because of attitude, something the team hoped to overcome. Saras was older, but the team sold us on his leadership impact and how it was worth outbidding several teams to get him. Bender cost you an all-star center. White cost you several 2nd round picks, ironically where they took Lance this year. Extra concern there because like White they were trying to buy farther up to get him.

        Heck, even the Harrington process was a gamble that his friendship with JO and positive image with the fans would solve tons of problems. When the deal got ugly, like a pick and having to take back Edwards just for the rights to do what no other team could do (offer Harrington the amount of our TE space, higher than the MLE), the team gambled that it would be worth it. A few months later as Carlisle benched him to start the 2nd half because of his crappy attitude it was clear that this was another hard eight dream instead of a pass line bet.

        Granger was a lucky break, but not a gamble. By the time he hit Indy he was into the "how many more dumb teams are going to pass on him" range. Hibbert and Rush are bland to fans, but they have proven to be functional players in a pretty disfunctional system.

        The team is about to clear somewhere in the park of $30m....that's "homerun" money where you don't have to gamble on the talent, just the remaining longevity. You will be in the mix to trade that pending space for a known good star. With Danny already here you won't be thinking "I sure wish they had another HR guy", you'll be thinking "I sure wish they had a reliable starting role player to handle the dirty work".

        The reason you suck it up and live the boring life now is that you are biding your time and working on the stuff you can best fix currently, and that stuff is your non-star players. Boring old Patterson, or a scoring specialist like Anderson for the bench (plus other pick, cash, whatever from trade-down) are certainly not the "final piece".

        But the fact is that you didn't need the final piece yet. The team has about 4-5 missing pieces. If George is great even 2 months into the year, you still have PG, PF, defense, and split-time C issues that will keep them from winning. That's your best case scenario without other deals.


        Bird just swung for the fences with no one on and his team down 5 in the 6th inning. Right about now we need baserunners. We've got Pujols set to bat in 4 batters, let's go for the HR then when it makes sense. If it wasn't clear, Pujols is the expiring contracts and 4 batters is about 6 months from now as the trade deadline looms.

        Too bad we won't bring him to the plate because we will have 3 strikeouts to go with the 1 solo HR, still down by 4.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-27-2010, 03:26 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I like what we did this draft...

          Originally posted by KingGeorge24 View Post
          I agree. At some point you have to take a risk on players and try to get yourself away from the safe picks. Safe picks lead to mediocrity.

          Mediocrity is exactly what we are. And it's boring to watch.

          And if these players don't develop, what's the worst that happens? We don't make the playoffs, again? And if they do, we all smile and feel happy about the future.
          We would have to improve to get to mediocre.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I like what we did this draft...

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Too bad we won't bring him to the plate because we will have 3 strikeouts to go with the 1 solo HR, still down by 4.
            So basically, because of that one batter (our draft picks) you are saying that we will end up striking out on our trade chips near the deadline, as well as mess up our cap room.

            That is simply a horrible analogy, and if you are trying to say that because of these draft picks we WILL be set back....you need to recheck your logic.
            "man, PG has been really good."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I like what we did this draft...

              Naptown seth, I always enjoy your post and respect your views. However this time I feel like this was the perfect time to go for the Home Run.

              I think we have the base players that along with danny we have a chance to be a above 500 team. I am not sure about george, but am hoping he will develope into a good player. I wasn't to impressed with his college stats, but I remember seeing Mo Cheeks in college, and even though his stats were not that great, it was more a matter of being on a bad team with players that couldn't carry any of the load. So I can see where george may have been in the same type of situation as Mo.

              I am also not to concerned about the point guard problem, we have all summer to do something, and if not then we have all of those contracts to make something happen with.

              I think the young players will get better and if one of our draft picks comes up big, we could be a good team and maybe only a year or two away from being in the hunt for a top four playoff spot.

              To me this was the perfect time to go for the Home Run.
              Good is the enemy of Great


              We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
              -- Frank Vogel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I like what we did this draft...

                If in your analogy the batters are the opportunity to acquire new players ... then who does Pujols represent? Future draft position? Expiring contracts?

                If you think it's a bad pick, then it will allow for better draft position. His being here doesn't change anything with the contracts. So in the end Pujols still comes to the plate ... essentially.

                That was a large disconnected mess of a post that had no logical point.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I like what we did this draft...

                  This draft was a crapshoot to me, so I'm cool wih them swinging for the fences this time. I think it was wise to draft how they did when they did the last two years, but it would probably be a mistake to keep it up year after year now that they've laid some foundation with safe character guys.

                  The bigger issue is what happens with these expiring contracts. I'm worried about it, but I have no choice but to wait and see.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I like what we did this draft...

                    I don't think any of our picks this year were as risky as Bender was, but I'll also say that I am not one of those who tries to say in hindsight that I knew all along what Bender was going to have such horrible chronic health problems. They rolled the dice, and I don't think that they were wrong to take a chance on him.

                    The guy I'm most worried about this year is Stephenson, but I think he's worth a risk at #40. But I do hope they gave him a psych evaluation, preferably one that included an assessment of personality (MMPI-2). But he probably has first round talent if they did their homework to make sure he's not a loon.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I like what we did this draft...

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Doug, I think my issue is that they've tried this several times recently and it keeps ending up bad.

                      Didn't they swing for the fences with Bender, Harrison, Saras, Williams and White? Even KRush was a poor man's gamble.

                      Harrison was a lower pick, but he fell because of attitude, something the team hoped to overcome. Saras was older, but the team sold us on his leadership impact and how it was worth outbidding several teams to get him. Bender cost you an all-star center. White cost you several 2nd round picks, ironically where they took Lance this year. Extra concern there because like White they were trying to buy farther up to get him.

                      Heck, even the Harrington process was a gamble that his friendship with JO and positive image with the fans would solve tons of problems. When the deal got ugly, like a pick and having to take back Edwards just for the rights to do what no other team could do (offer Harrington the amount of our TE space, higher than the MLE), the team gambled that it would be worth it. A few months later as Carlisle benched him to start the 2nd half because of his crappy attitude it was clear that this was another hard eight dream instead of a pass line bet.

                      Granger was a lucky break, but not a gamble. By the time he hit Indy he was into the "how many more dumb teams are going to pass on him" range. Hibbert and Rush are bland to fans, but they have proven to be functional players in a pretty disfunctional system.

                      The team is about to clear somewhere in the park of $30m....that's "homerun" money where you don't have to gamble on the talent, just the remaining longevity. You will be in the mix to trade that pending space for a known good star. With Danny already here you won't be thinking "I sure wish they had another HR guy", you'll be thinking "I sure wish they had a reliable starting role player to handle the dirty work".

                      The reason you suck it up and live the boring life now is that you are biding your time and working on the stuff you can best fix currently, and that stuff is your non-star players. Boring old Patterson, or a scoring specialist like Anderson for the bench (plus other pick, cash, whatever from trade-down) are certainly not the "final piece".

                      But the fact is that you didn't need the final piece yet. The team has about 4-5 missing pieces. If George is great even 2 months into the year, you still have PG, PF, defense, and split-time C issues that will keep them from winning. That's your best case scenario without other deals.


                      Bird just swung for the fences with no one on and his team down 5 in the 6th inning. Right about now we need baserunners. We've got Pujols set to bat in 4 batters, let's go for the HR then when it makes sense. If it wasn't clear, Pujols is the expiring contracts and 4 batters is about 6 months from now as the trade deadline looms.

                      Too bad we won't bring him to the plate because we will have 3 strikeouts to go with the 1 solo HR, still down by 4.
                      You may have already addressed it in another thread, but i'm just curious; What would you have done differently in this draft?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I like what we did this draft...

                        "He's got a lot of skill. He's the type of player that we're targeting now and it's just up to us to get the most out of him."
                        -Bird on George
                        LINK
                        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I like what we did this draft...

                          Originally posted by KingGeorge24 View Post
                          I agree. At some point you have to take a risk on players and try to get yourself away from the safe picks. Safe picks lead to mediocrity.

                          Mediocrity is exactly what we are. And it's boring to watch.

                          And if these players don't develop, what's the worst that happens? We don't make the playoffs, again? And if they do, we all smile and feel happy about the future.
                          Was Hibbert a safe pick considering most experts had him going in the mid 20s?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I like what we did this draft...

                            Originally posted by microwave_oven View Post
                            You may have already addressed it in another thread, but i'm just curious; What would you have done differently in this draft?
                            Don't get him started again...
                            "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I like what we did this draft...

                              Seth,

                              I don't feel that we've damaged our ability to still acquire that last missing piece. I certainly don't think that one of these draft picks is that last piece of a championship team.

                              I think we already have gotten those nice solid role players in the last couple of drafts, and we don't need any more of those. Yet another rotational player doesn't really get us any more than mediocre. And if we make the 'safe' picks where we were at, that's what we'd get. Another player that is at best, marginally better than the ones we already have.

                              And I would say that the Pacers have learned a bit from their previous gambles - based on the rumors we are hearing about private investigators and background checks, and etc. That doesn't eliminate the risks, but can help mitigate them a bit.

                              So, I think the risk/reward ratio on these picks was just about right given where we were at.

                              If one of them pans out, we either have filled another need or have another asset. If not, really, then I'm not sure we are any worse of than we were at, and I don't think we've set us back any.
                              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                              - Jimmy Buffett

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X