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

Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
    This happens when the Pacers are less than contenders. People start calling for local guys. Back when Larry Brown's team was in decline before Bird took over, I remember reading letters in the Star saying we should have drafted Calbert Chaney and Greg Graham.

    People who demand local guys annoy me. It betrays a very narrow view of basketball and suggests Indiana fans will only root for a certain type of player.

    Again, I like Hayward, he's from my hometown of Brownsburg. But I don't buy him as better than George right now, forget down the road.

    You should have seen it in the 80's and early 90's. It was soooo much worse

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

      How much has hometown McBob done with selling of tickets? I'm sure he has hometown fans that come to games to see him play, but does it really impact the amount of tickets sold? My guess you could have a roster full of hometown or Indiana players, and it wouldn't impact ticket sales that much. Winning plays more importance in selling tickets than Hayward and McBob would.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

        Josh didn't go to college in Indiana, and that has a huge impact on whether or not people follow them.

        I'm not saying that Gordon would bring a lot of people in, I think it would be a small bump, but there is a huge difference between Josh and Gordon.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

          no, I still prefer Paul George

          edit: its not like it really matters anyways. we didn't have a shot at haywood as he was drafted before our pick.
          Last edited by BornReady; 04-06-2011, 01:28 PM. Reason: more things to say!
          Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            debate settled.

            Honestly Hayward has proven to be a very good pick at 9th. Sure he has his moments where he looks really bad just like all rookies. Right now I think he is head and shoulders above George. He defended Kobe really well to close out the game last night. Kobe lost the ball there at the end, but Gordon got in good position to pressure the ball, force an off balanced attempt for Kobe, that's about all you can do. That's a player using his length right there.
            graphic-er, I respect your opinion ( even if it is clearly biased ) and agree that Hayward can be a solid NBA Player in the future.....while I myself don't see the "all-star" potential of PG that most here see ( many of which are biased themselves when it comes to PG ).....I fail to see how you can come to the conclusion that Hayward is "heads and shoulders" above George right now.

            What has Hayward done that has put him "heads and shoulders" over PG?

            IMHO...there is not enough data to say that one Player is "heads and shoulders" above the other right now. In the best case scenario....I can possibly see that the both of them are on equal footing....but neither is "so much better than the other" that one can suggest what you are suggesting.

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            As for George I can only hope he gets it together, has clearly hit the rookie wall, cause he looks terrible on Defense, slow to react, looks terrible trying to get his own shot on offense, and seemingly is only interested in bombing wide open 3pters instead of pump faking it to get open for an easy mid range shot. He also takes the most unorthodox layup attempts when he gets in the paint to try and finish.
            I agree that PG has likely hit the rookie wall.....but if you look at the number of minutes that PG has played since January compared to Hayward since the start of February ( roughly the same time that JO'B and Sloan left the Team ). Although both Players have played roughly the same amount of Total minutes throughout the season ( Hayward with 1073 total minutes and PG with 1178 total minutes ), PG has logged more minutes since the beginning of February ( 774 minutes ) then Hayward has ( 595 minutes ). Frankly, I can see why PG hit the Rookie Wall at this point in the season.
            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            As for Indiana not having the opportunity to draft Hayward, they could of pulled off a trade to move up a couple of spots to get him if they really wanted him. I think those picks were up for trade if someone was willing to bite. I kept thinking that we could have swapped picks with LAC.
            Sorry, but despite seeing an uptick in minutes since Sloan left and the Jazz have been bounced from the Playoffs....I simply don't see anything that Hayward has done to warrant paying whatever price it would have cost the Pacers to pay to jump a few spots to make a run for Hayward over PG. I'm not saying that PG is better then Hayward...I'm saying that the cost to jump a few spots to get Hayward isn't worth it IMHO. We're not talking about the difference between drafting someone like Greg Monroe over someone like PG or Hayward to jump a few spots....we're talking about the difference between 2 rookie Players that haven't truly distinguised themselves from the rest of the rookies drafted below them.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

              Isnt it safe to assume that George has more upside potential but Hayward may be a little better right now? Both players fit their teams need and George gets more opportunities because he is on a lesser talented team. I would be happy with either one really. Both good picks for 9-10

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                How much has hometown McBob done with selling of tickets? I'm sure he has hometown fans that come to games to see him play, but does it really impact the amount of tickets sold? My guess you could have a roster full of hometown or Indiana players, and it wouldn't impact ticket sales that much. Winning plays more importance in selling tickets than Hayward and McBob would.
                You are right on most of this but I think you are missing the main point. The goal is for some is not to have home town talent and lose, but to have a winner with home town talent on the roster. There we would have the best of both worlds. I just want to see us build a winner first. Then get the home town talent if possible.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                  Frankly, yes I am.
                  Twitter: @redfoster
                  Proud member of the PTO.
                  Smits Happens: Totally Biased NBA News and Opinion

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                    Who is this Gordon Hayward you speak of?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                      Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                      Isnt it safe to assume that George has more upside potential but Hayward may be a little better right now?
                      I'm not sure that's safe.

                      Paul George is posting better numbers... what makes you say Hayward is better right now? One good game against the Lakers?
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                        I think is also time to thanks Utah one more time for taking him in front of PG
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                          As far as being the better leader/franchise player, I think Paul has more potential to be that and he'll give us the better chance to win more.

                          As far as Hayward, yes he would sell tickets, but would he make us a winning team or be a leader. He wasn't the answer for a team like us first trying to get back into the playoffs, but when he was first drafted by the Jazz when they still had Williams and Sloan and still looked to be playoff contenders, Hayward seemed like a solid fit in their rotation by adding some decent scoring off the bench.

                          Either way, more tickets will be sold to come out and see Paul, who can be something the Pacers haven't had in a long time and most likely be good enough to make us competitors for years to come which seems to be the solution to getting large crowds or see a former local college standout who would most likely, not solve anything.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post


                            debate settled.
                            So wait....

                            If that video means that Hayward > PG

                            Then

                            Courtney Lee > LeBron

                            Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                              Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                              So wait....

                              If that video means that Hayward > PG

                              Then

                              Courtney Lee > LeBron
                              LOL don't take it so literal, i was just giving my boy Hayward some props when it came to the whole Hayward vs George debate.

                              If you are just looking at the stats that were posted earlier. George is essentially a 3pter better than Hayward in a 5minute difference. + a couple of rebounds.

                              But if you look a this game logs, more often than not when he gets minutes above his average he really produces, and he has had limited opportunities all year long. So going forward I think the future looks real bright for Hayward.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Still doubting Gordon Hayward?

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                I think is also time to thanks Utah one more time for taking him in front of PG
                                I don't even believe in God, and yet I wake up every day praying to God and thanking him for Utah taking Gordon 1 pick ahead of us so we could then grab George.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X