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

Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

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

  • #16
    Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

    Originally posted by Magic-man View Post
    No doubt!

    Granger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Love
    and that is coming from a non-indiana fan.... What love has done is nothing as yet, his team is still on the bottom of the ladder so his stats are padded. Similar to Curry's in GS uptempo offense.
    The Pacers also finished out of the playoffs last season, so I wouldn't really bring up team standings. And how can your stats be padded when you're playing less than 30MPG? If Love was playing 36MPG he'd probably be leading the league in rebounding.



    Originally posted by HeliumFear View Post
    Kahn is collecting SFs this year. There's no way he would pass Granger up.


    On a serious note,Love would look like junk if he had to bare the offensive load Danny does. He doesn't do enough in other areas of the game to make up for that,either.

    Granger > Love

    Right now, I agree that Danny is going to have a better season... but he's also turning 28 this sesason, whereas Love just turned 22. Which player would you rather have in three years? And I'll remind you that per-36 minutes, Kevin Love does just about everything better except scoring (and he rarely got plays called for him last season). To me, Kevin Love's game is the definition of "doing the little things." He's improving as a defender (while Danny is on the decline there) and is a great passer who boxes guys out and sets screens. Did I mention he has three-point range and generally takes good shots? There's a big difference between being a better player and being a more valuable player. To me there are only a handful of guys in the league that can bring as much offensively as Love, whereas there are probably a couple dozen guys that could score 20+ PPG if they were taking 18 FG (7 3PT) per game.


    I hope I don't come across as a Danny hater, because I really love his game and go to bat for him a lot in conversations outside of the Digest, but I'd really have a guy that can put up numbers AND do the little things than a guy that puts up less well rounded numbers while doing few of the little things.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

      yeah, I've watched Kevin love play, and I am not impressed. perhaps he is one of those guys that is better the more you see him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

        24-25 point a game scorers don't grow on trees. Even if you adjust for the crappy team factor, he's still a 20 plus point a game scorer, easy.

        If Paul George would start to reach his potential in 3 - 4 years and you could sign and trade Danny (at the end of his contract) for a guy like Love, it makes sense. At that point, it still wouldn't work for the other team due to Danny's age, probably.

        As for right now, I think it would be cutting off your nose to spite your face scenario.

        That said, I really do like Love, just not for Danny and not right now.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

          depending on what george shows us this year I would be okay with trading granger for a kevin love type player.

          trade high.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

            I would not want Kevin Love if we're going with Hibbert as a long-term starting center. Someone like Love needs a Dwight Howard type of player next to him to be most effective since a center like that could make up for Love's weaknesses.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

              Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post
              I would not want Kevin Love if we're going with Hibbert as a long-term starting center. Someone like Love needs a Dwight Howard type of player next to him to be most effective since a center like that could make up for Love's weaknesses.
              Well anyone could use a Dwight Howard type player next to him and be effective.
              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

              ----------------- Reggie Miller

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                I agree that Love and Hibbert together might not be an ideal combination, but I think both have the potential to improve to the point where they can both be average to above-average defenders. If you put them next to wings that can stay in front of their man, then you've really got something. And man, I really like the idea of having two bigs that are as good as passers as Roy and Love.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                  Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                  The Pacers also finished out of the playoffs last season, so I wouldn't really bring up team standings. And how can your stats be padded when you're playing less than 30MPG? If Love was playing 36MPG he'd probably be leading the league in rebounding.






                  Right now, I agree that Danny is going to have a better season... but he's also turning 28 this sesason, whereas Love just turned 22. Which player would you rather have in three years? And I'll remind you that per-36 minutes, Kevin Love does just about everything better except scoring (and he rarely got plays called for him last season). To me, Kevin Love's game is the definition of "doing the little things." He's improving as a defender (while Danny is on the decline there) and is a great passer who boxes guys out and sets screens. Did I mention he has three-point range and generally takes good shots? There's a big difference between being a better player and being a more valuable player. To me there are only a handful of guys in the league that can bring as much offensively as Love, whereas there are probably a couple dozen guys that could score 20+ PPG if they were taking 18 FG (7 3PT) per game.


                  I hope I don't come across as a Danny hater, because I really love his game and go to bat for him a lot in conversations outside of the Digest, but I'd really have a guy that can put up numbers AND do the little things than a guy that puts up less well rounded numbers while doing few of the little things.
                  You kinda make it sound like Danny is some chucker. I actually just read another post in another forum about this: "I think people tend to look at his FG percentage which was 44.7 and 42.8 last two years and assume he is just a chucker. The truth is he just takes a lot of threes and he converts them at a good enough rate to make him efficient. He averaged 26 points on 58 percent true shooting last year and 24 points on 56.4 percent true shooting. Not to imply that he is as good as them at scoring but both those percentages were better than what Melo, Kobe and Wade posted during those years." (Thanks to Ninja Sheppard of the GameFAQs.com S&R NBA board)

                  Not everyone could score an efficient 20+ PPG,but Danny does a good job of it.

                  Kevin Love can do "the little things". Is that really worth giving up a star? It's not.
                  Pacers,baby!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                    Danny IS a chucker now. He made it official with his "I score the ball, that's what I do" comment a few weeks ago.
                    His game has shown it the past 2 years.
                    His defense has become invisible and he doesn't rebound or block shots 1/2 as well as he used to.
                    This team will never go anywhere with Danny scoring 25pts on 20 shots per game.
                    He's not a "Star".
                    He's simply the closest thing we have to one, so he gets the shots.
                    He COULD be the all around "star" type player if he had the attitude correct.
                    But it appears he's become another NBA mentality victim.
                    "gotta score to be the man"........

                    That role will soon pass to Roy as he will be a more efficient scorer with better percentages and better offensive rebound opportunities for himself and others.
                    IF Danny can man up to the affront to his manhood that not being "the man" with the ball at he end of the game, he COULD still become a star with 18ppg, 9 rebounds and 2 blocks.
                    Last edited by MLB007; 09-08-2010, 04:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                      Define chucker. Distinguish between chucker and scorer.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                        Originally posted by HeliumFear View Post
                        Kahn is collecting SFs this year. There's no way he would pass Granger up.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                          hmmm, not sure you'll find that anywhere.
                          To ME a chucker is a slightly derogatory term for an inefficient scorer.
                          One who gets his points, but takes a lot of shots to do it.
                          There are a few very efficient scorers out there.
                          They make their teams better with their scoring and they do it on a minimum of shots so the other players on the team are more involved because they know they have a chance to handle the ball.
                          A Chucker is one who isn't really that caliber of scorer, but he's the best his teams got so he gets the ball in the crunch situation.
                          just my definition.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Define chucker. Distinguish between chucker and scorer.
                            Here is my sense of the distinction using the same player:

                            scorer = Danny year before last

                            chucker = Danny with his 2009-2010 shot selection (including contested shots with others open, 3's randomly early in the shot clock, unnecessarily 'tough' shot, et cetera and so on).
                            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                            Bob Netolicky

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                              Any of you guys think that with Big Boy Roy's commitment to hard work in the low post (e.g., improving fouling situation, post moves, Walton) and conditioning (body fat at 10%) that he should be mentioned in the article?

                              I really think Collison+DG+Roy is going to be a monster this year and if I were Indy, I'd have season tickets yesterday.

                              Throw in a healthy Tyler (fingers-crossed) and off-dopeRush/George...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Scouts’ Views: 5 guys about to make it big [Collison mentioned]

                                Originally posted by HeliumFear View Post
                                You kinda make it sound like Danny is some chucker. I actually just read another post in another forum about this: "I think people tend to look at his FG percentage which was 44.7 and 42.8 last two years and assume he is just a chucker. The truth is he just takes a lot of threes and he converts them at a good enough rate to make him efficient. He averaged 26 points on 58 percent true shooting last year and 24 points on 56.4 percent true shooting. Not to imply that he is as good as them at scoring but both those percentages were better than what Melo, Kobe and Wade posted during those years." (Thanks to Ninja Sheppard of the GameFAQs.com S&R NBA board)

                                Not everyone could score an efficient 20+ PPG,but Danny does a good job of it.

                                Kevin Love can do "the little things". Is that really worth giving up a star? It's not.

                                A guy that averages 14/11/2.5 WHILE doing "the little things" is rare... sign me up for trades like that all day.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X