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

Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

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

  • #16
    Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

    Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
    Not bad in terms of solid role players and depth. This is the perfect FA class to pick up a quality bench guy on the cheap to replace Dunleavy and to ensure that Posey never logs another minute in a Pacers uni.

    PS. Deandre Jordan is a starter in LA, why would he sign to be a back up here. I believe if we signed him, he'd start next to Roy as a shot blocker/rebounder then move to the 5 when Tyler comes in. He'd be cheaper than Nene but doesnt score as well, mostly put backs and ally oops but he's a nice defensive presence.
    I agree, when I was looking through the list Jordan was the guy I wanted most because of his talent, age, and price I think he brings the most bang for your buck. Guys like Nene and West may be better they will just cost too much for what they bring.

    Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
    As painful as it may be to some members of PD, its darn near a guarantee that the FO will sign atleast one FA this year.

    Heck two years ago they signed Earl Watson and Dahntay with virtaully no money to spend. Now they have a boat load of cash and some are expecting (more like hoping) that the FO sits on it? I dont think so.

    While I agree that trade is the best route for improving this team, I am almost certain that one, possibly two FA will be signed, whenever the FA occurs.
    Yeah, but both Watson and Jones were cheap. Considering how this board thinks of Jones you would think he was making $8 million a year not $2.5 million. Watson at least was more to just fill out the roster. Anyways I don't think anyone is saying no to any free agent as it is they just don't want to overspend on a free agent.

    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
    I would've agreed before we acquired George Hill. Now, Crawford would just be redundant.

    For whoever mentioned Battier, I'd really like that pick-up. He seems like the type of player that Bird would simply love. Problem is, I don't know if he'd have a big enough role with us here to make him want to sign.
    I completely agree about battier. He would be an excellent pick-up, but you are also right that we don't really have the PT for him to want to come. Danny is always going to get 36 to 40 minutes a game.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      He was the 35th pick, that's why. One of those crazy draft slides. He was getting hyped as a top 10 guy then rumors came out, can't remember about what. "Terrible work ethic" or something.
      my bad, i forgot how the qualifying offer works.

      clips can match anything, so the 1.1 mil is what he gets only if no team offers him a better offer sheet...obviously, he will get more...though i don't know how much more....

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

        Where's Carl Landry in this list? xD

        This list is really ordered terribly.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

          As for who I'm interested in, I'll go with either of Nene/West/Landry at the four (I've been convinced that Landry would be a solid addition to be a stop gap). Nene would be the best option, if he can play the four. West is the biggest risk, but he also has the best chance of having the biggest impact on the team. West can potentially be our most consistent player next season. As for Landry, he is just a very solid stop gap solution, a lot like Andre Miller in Portland a couple years back.

          I don't think we have a need for a backup three, as Granger/George/Hill/Lance will consume the wing spots. There won't be many minutes left. I'd love to have Battier/Grant Hill/Prince on our team, but we don't have minutes because the backup three spot is consumed by Paul George.

          I AM interested in DeAndre Jordan. He is the yin to Roy's yang. He does everything that Roy doesn't, and Roy does everything that DeAndre doesn't. Plus he has room to improve. He'd be a huge piece in building the best bench in the league. A bench of Lance/Hill/George/Hansbrough/DeAndre is just flat out sick.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

            Originally posted by danman View Post
            Meh. We've got bench players. I could care less about getting guys of similar quality. Trade. Cap room gives some flexibility.

            There's a chance that the new CBA will have a version of the Alan Houston rule -- that might create some decent free agents. Current crop is terrible.
            Yes, I hope they have some sort of Amnesty Clause. If so, Rashard Lewis would be an interesting player to take a look at. He can play PF alongside Danny and provide some added spacing, scoring, and rebounding. He's like Troy Murphy with defense which is the same as saying he's nothing like Troy Murphy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
              Yes, I hope they have some sort of Amnesty Clause. If so, Rashard Lewis would be an interesting player to take a look at. He can play PF alongside Danny and provide some added spacing, scoring, and rebounding. He's like Troy Murphy with defense which is the same as saying he's nothing like Troy Murphy.
              Not saying he's not capable, but the last 4 or 5 times I've seen him play, he's really not good. Not like not good for what he's paid, but not good, like not good, like not a rotation player on a good team. He looked disinterested to me. I like the idea of even a 75% of a Good Rashard, but man thats not what I saw.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                Yeah Glen Davis on a top 10 anything good list is pretty awful, this class is one of the worst ever, if not, the worst ever....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                  Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                  Not bad in terms of solid role players and depth. This is the perfect FA class to pick up a quality bench guy on the cheap to replace Dunleavy and to ensure that Posey never logs another minute in a Pacers uni.

                  PS. Deandre Jordan is a starter in LA, why would he sign to be a back up here. I believe if we signed him, he'd start next to Roy as a shot blocker/rebounder then move to the 5 when Tyler comes in. He'd be cheaper than Nene but doesnt score as well, mostly put backs and ally oops but he's a nice defensive presence.
                  What is Deandre Jordans price tag. IS it 8 mill per year or 10. The difference is that we still don't know if he is a quality starter or if he just a quality backup.

                  I have to big concerns about DJ that I think someone could help me out with. One is his jump shot range and the other is his defensive awareness. I know a lot of posters get all excited over potential but he fouls a lot for a big man and putting him further away from the basket with quick pf's would concern me overall if he has a low BBIQ

                  IF you put him next to Hibbert then he also needs to be able to hit a jumper to keep defensives honest. It seems to me also that teams would foul him a lot because his free throw shooting is terrible. Its worse than Shaq terrible which would kill us in the playoffs.

                  If the price is right then I would like DJ but he isn't worth what I think the Clippers would match.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                    RealGM • View Topic - Most Underrated Pending Free Agent?

                    I thought some here might enjoy reading the above. There may not be any superstars, and few major impact players, but there will be a lot of very solid, above-average players available.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                      Nene and Battier. Done.
                      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                        Originally posted by imbtyler View Post
                        Even though our current wing situation is a little convoluted, I think Jamal Crawford would be quite an excellent pickup.
                        LOL, ya foreal.
                        Especially since he is better than MJ and all ..


                        heh
                        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                          Kemo, you've got the wrong Crawford.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I keep forgetting about Shane Battier. He would be an excellent addition to our bench.
                            And, I think this is the path you go this year when you finally have the lockout over. Use a small chunk on 2 solid vets to work on the bench or be spot starters. Wait for the summer to see if you can reel in a big fish.

                            However, don't use marlin bait on the tuna(Nene, D. West)


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                              ya my bad, lol you're right..
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Maybe the 2011 Free Agent Class isn't as Bad as I Thought

                                Battier is not coming to Indy no chance in hell.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X