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

Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

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

  • Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_040823.html

    I think this Q&A is from Monday, but I didn't see it posted here already:

    QUESTION OF THE DAY
    Conrad Brunner
    Q. I recently looked at the current rosters of each team in the NBA. I've noticed that several of the teams with strong player depth last year, such as Sacramento and Detroit, will not have the same kind of support for next season due to free-agency period changes. The only real exceptions appear to be the San Antonio Spurs and the Pacers. Both teams appear to be two-deep at every position. I've always felt that having a strong bench is one of the biggest factors in helping a solid team receive the best record in regular-season play.

    Many have picked Miami or Detroit to be the top contenders next year in the Eastern Conference over the Pacers. I feel that Miami and Detroit may be an injury or two away from having a tougher-than-expected season. I can't say the same for the Pacers due to their depth. Should we expect the Pacers depth to be a potential difference-maker this season? I would be shocked to find them not in contention for the best conference record due the number of solid players on their roster. (From Richard in Bridgeport, NY)

    A. Of the teams expected to contend for the top spot in the Eastern Conference this season – Indiana, Detroit and Miami – it’s fair to say the Pacers have the best overall roster balance of the bunch. That translates into depth at all five positions, which is something neither the Pistons nor Heat can claim. The Pacers’ five primary positional backups are point guard Anthony Johnson, shooting guard Stephen Jackson, small forward Jonathan Bender, power forward Austin Croshere and center Scot Pollard. Of that group, only Bender is unproven, and Jackson is available for small forward duty should he falter (moving Fred Jones into the second-unit rotation at shooting guard).

    Detroit is very deep at the power forward and center positions but not so on the perimeter. The backup point guard is Lindsey Hunter, a 33-year-old veteran whose effectiveness is waning. The support behind shooting guard Richard Hamilton and small forward Tayshaun Prince consists of Carlos Delfino, Darvin Ham and Ronald DuPree. Detroit’s three top reserves last season were Corliss Williamson, Mehmet Okur and Mike James. All are now elsewhere. The Pistons’ two major offseason acquisitions were Antonio McDyess and Derrick Coleman, players who combined to miss 88 games due to injuries last season.

    Miami’s lack of depth is the most severe, but that’s the price the Heat was willing to pay to acquire Shaquille O’Neal. The shooting guard-small forward rotation consists of Eddie Jones, Rasual Butler and Wesley Person. Power forward is presently manned by Udonis Haslem and Malik Allen. Miami has time to add some patches to this leaky roster, but the hope is that the S.S. Shaq will keep everything afloat.
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

  • #2
    Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

    Well the Pacers have more balanced depth - in theory - but as far as skill is concerned the Pistons' bench is still better.

    IndyToad
    That walllpaper

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

      I'm glad to see that Pollard is proven and gives the Pacers depth at all five positions! If that counts as depth at center, then the Pistons are also deep at all five positions.

      I do think the Pacers might have a better bench than the Pistons - they did last year. But the Pistons bench has the potential to be better if the young players do well and the older guys are healthy.

      But as we all know, in the playoffs the bench matters a lot less and it usually comes down to the starting fives plus maybe one or two reserves. And there I think the Pistons definitely have the edge.
      [edit=237=1093364142][/edit]

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

        Yes, saying Pollard is a proven commodity is a little strange. :

        As for the Pistons, as they stand now, they're sure counting on Delfino to step right in. From the little I've seen of him, I think that's asking a bit much of him, at least this year.

        In my estimation, they need another point guard, and could use another shooter, as well. Or, they could fill both needs and sign Travis.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

          So let me get this straight...the Pistons are an injury away from lacking depth, but the Pacers, with brittle Bender as their only other big that can score, aren't?

          Please tell me Croshere counts as depth......

          Frankly, I couldn't be happier about Dupree and Delfino. Both of them can back up at the 2/3. We had NO natural 2/3s on the bench last year, I don't know what Brunner is talking about.

          As for Hunter, He was our first backup PG last year, NOT James. Brunner obviously wasn't watching the playoffs if he thinks James was a top reserve.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

            I think Conrad was slipping alittle whiskey into his morning coffee when he wrote this article

            Sorry I disagree ..Flame on !!!!
            Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

              Bruno works for the franchise. That's who "cuts the check" right?

              The Simons are smart. Both times that a beat writer showed some witty criticism, the next thing you know they are working for the team!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                Originally posted by Kstat
                As for Hunter, He was our first backup PG last year, NOT James. Brunner obviously wasn't watching the playoffs if he thinks James was a top reserve.
                Well, the stats show James played roughly the same minutes but had better stats. But we know there's more to the game than just stats.

                So K, are you saying you're comfortable with Billups and Hunter as your point guards next year?

                Back to the issue of injuries affecting teams. IMO, if one of our starters got hurt, I think we'd muddle through (yes, even JO.) But if Detroit were to lose Chauncey or Rip, even for just a little bit, I think they'd be in a world of hurt.
                [edit=67=1093380979][/edit]
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                  I think Brunner is totally bonkers.

                  As we sit here today, our frontcourt has 3-man rotation. To enter this season banking on either Pollard or Bender stepping up to become the 4th man in the rotation is very risky at best, and absolute stupidity at worst.

                  We have shifted from our 6th man being a PF/SF combo to our new 6th man being a SG/SF combo. Nothing wrong with that because our more pressing need was to provide perimeter shooting.

                  With Freddy eventually entering the mix after rehab, we are safe at the SF and SG positions, as well as PG with three decent players on the roster.

                  But Brunner has gone totally ape**** if he thinks our bases are covered in the frontcourt.

                  The quality of our depth is probably better than the Pistions in the backcourt, but does not even come close to matching the Pistons in numbers, quality, size or strength in the frontcourt.

                  If Pollard doesn't blend in better and Bender doesn't pan out at PF at all, then we are in deep ****. A trade would definitely be made.

                  I personally don't think we'll see Christmas without a trade.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                    Originally posted by Kegboy
                    Originally posted by Kstat
                    As for Hunter, He was our first backup PG last year, NOT James. Brunner obviously wasn't watching the playoffs if he thinks James was a top reserve.
                    Well, the stats show James played roughly the same minutes but had better stats. But we know there's more to the game than just stats.

                    So K, are you saying you're comfortable with Billups and Hunter as your point guards next year?

                    Back to the issue of injuries affecting teams. IMO, if one of our starters got hurt, I think we'd muddle through (yes, even JO.) But if Detroit were to lose Chauncey or Rip, even for just a little bit, I think they'd be in a world of hurt.
                    Hunter is a better defender than James. James was better offensively, but in the playoffs Hunter played more and James barely got off the bench against the Lakers. By the playoffs, Hunter was our first backup PG.

                    I do think backup PG is the weakest position on the team, but Delfino has run the point for Argentina in the Olympics, and Prince can play point too if necessary.

                    As for Billups or Hamilton getting hurt, it would definitely hurt the team, but a lot less than it would have in the past since we now have more frontcourt scoring thanks to Sheed, Prince, and McDyess (and because last year we didn't even have a backup SG on the roster). And long-term injuries don't occur that often in basketball, so I'm not too worried.
                    [edit=237=1093387512][/edit]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                      Well, the stats show James played roughly the same minutes but had better stats. But we know there's more to the game than just stats.
                      I'm going by playoff stats. James came in mid-season and was given a trial period, but he never really fit in. I like the guy, but Hunter is one of the top 3 defensive PGs in the NBA, and there are so few PGs nowadays that really get up and pressure the ball anymore. I'll take that. Also, Delfino is very capable of playing emergency minutes at PG, he's got that type of court vision.

                      So K, are you saying you're comfortable with Billups and Hunter as your point guards next year?

                      And Delfino, yes. He seems quite capable of playing point-forward while Hunter is on the court, allowing him to play off the ball.

                      Back to the issue of injuries affecting teams. IMO, if one of our starters got hurt, I think we'd muddle through (yes, even JO.) But if Detroit were to lose Chauncey or Rip, even for just a little bit, I think they'd be in a world of hurt.
                      If any team in the NBA (including Indiana) lost one of their best players for an extended period of time, they'd be ina world of hurt. We lost Rip Hamilton on a west coast swing and won three impressive blowouts starting LINDSEY HUNTER at SG. For short periods of time, we can do.

                      Frankly, I'm happy that people seem to be hoping and praying that someone on our team gets injured, because that seems to be our only weakness,judging by most non-pistons fans. If The biggest threat to your team is that someone gets injured, you're in good shape.
                      [edit=64=1093389688][/edit]

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                        I think the pistons seem to be expecting an awful lot out of this Delfino character. Him and Dupree. Dupree stinks, I think.

                        Isn't he the one that hit JO's knee during the season?
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                          Expecting? Yes, but I also know what Delfino can do. He's not a big question mark like a lot of Euros. He's a seasoned veteran, and the leader of his pro team, which made the european finals. I know him better than any non-NBA professional, and I'm positive that he will come in and play right away.

                          As for Dupree, I saw him play as a Piston last year for 6 preseason games, and I raved to everyone back then about the athletic ability this kid had. He was cut due to a numbers game, but I haven't forgotten him, and neither has any other pistons fan. He's explosive as hell going to the hoop. Neither Joe nor larry have forgotten him either, which is why we signed to a multi-year deal ASAP after the season.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                            How do you praise Dupree for being a veteran and a leader on his Euro-team, but on Olympic threads talk-down the international game? Don't the Euros play a style more similar to the international game? If so, then why is Delfine the exception to what you've said earlier about the international players, which was something like they only shine in that system, but wouldn't in the NBA?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Brunner: Pacers deeper than Pistons

                              I have one question.

                              Why has Delfino been playing in Europe for so long, if he's so good?

                              Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to prove a point or something. I'm just wanting to know what he's doing there. Is it a contract issue?
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X