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

Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

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

  • #16
    Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

    Yeah, Hayes has primarily been playing center for the Rockets. He's been their starting center for 2 seasons in fact (due to Yao Ming's injury).

    I think PF is Chuck's ideal position. He's strong enough to bang with centers, but bigger guys can still shoot over him. Playing PF should make that less of an issue. And it's not like he's too slow to cover guys on the perimeter, as this clip shows:



    Good point though about Hibbert. I mean, if he's subjected to this every practice, something's got to give right?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

      Originally posted by ballism View Post
      What would be Hayes role? Backup C with some PF minutes in certain matchups? Sure. I like him and what he stands for. 4 mil a year?
      Starting PF? No. I wouldn't like the idea at all. Just keep the money, work with Tyler and Josh, and wait for a good option to come up.
      I really think we need a top notch back-up center. We all saw how important Foster was during the playoffs. We have to invest in a back-up who can give us 20+ minutes of starter level play on any given night.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        Yeah, Hayes has primarily been playing center for the Rockets. He's been their starting center for 2 seasons in fact (due to Yao Ming's injury).

        I think PF is Chuck's ideal position. He's strong enough to bang with centers, but bigger guys can still shoot over him. Playing PF should make that less of an issue. And it's not like he's too slow to cover guys on the perimeter, as this clip shows:



        Good point though about Hibbert. I mean, if he's subjected to this every practice, something's got to give right?
        Chuck is kind of like Luc Mbah a Moute

        not as versatile because IMO LMAM can guard all 5 positions which is very rare. I would love to add LMAM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

          Dwight could play PF as well, but it's just not where he does the most damage. Backup C makes much more sense. A guy who can non stop box out, shove, push around bigger guys in the paint, and can't shoot except from under basket? That's a good defensive backup 5, who would be quite underused as a full time defender of Boshs and Blatches.
          Not to mention, it's not easy to adjust to go from 5 to 4 when you are close to 30.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
            I really think we need a top notch back-up center. We all saw how important Foster was during the playoffs. We have to invest in a back-up who can give us 20+ minutes of starter level play on any given night.
            Let's break down the minutes for the like 4 Frontcourt Players in our rotation. We know that there are 2 likely Players...Hibbert and Hansbrough....both commanding a likely combined total of roughly 52 to 54 minutes a game. I'm expecting that Bird will go after one of the top tier PF that will likely get paid anywhere between $8 to $14 mil a year ( anyone between Landry, West or Nene )....regardless, a Frontcourt Player that should play 28 to 30 Starter minutes a game.

            What does that leave us?

            A backup Frontcourt player that plays anywhere between 12 to 16 minutes a game. I agree that we should solidify our Frontcourt rotation and get a top tier Backup Center....but keep in mind that more often then not....that Player will more then likely play 12 minutes a game ( assuming that Hibbert plays 30 mpg, Hansbrough plays 24 mpg and the new Starting PF plays roughly 30 mpg )...not 20 minutes.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

              I think Kwame Brown is the guy who fits the bill for us the most. He was a bust as a #1 pick, but he is actually a very solid big man and still fairly young. He has great size and pretty good athleticism. He rebounds and defends the low post very well and can play either spot. And he won't break the bank either. I really believe he is a guy that just needs to be in the right situation and he could start to change people's perception of him. He fits pretty well here I think as a potential starting 4 (he would have to slim down and get in better shape), or back-up 5.

              I also like Hayes a lot. But I have more trouble seeing where he fits in the rotation. He seems best suited to be a back up 4. And I know he has played a lot of center but I really don't like him there for us. We need to add size inside, not necessarily get smaller. He's one of those guys anyone would love to have though. And I also like the point about Hibbert having to play against him in practice, that would be great for Big Roy.

              Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
              Dalembert and Brown cannot play the 4 right? I am thinking they are both centers. Chuck Hayes is interesting but isnt he only 6'6? He rebounds some but is not a shot blocking presence. I am not sure about him.

              I am going to just guess that the PF/C combo player needed would have to come via trade then? So, it is useless to speculate until the lock is lifted and we get an idea of the cap situation.

              EDIT: I just looked at the stats for Brown. I would not over pay for him either. McBob is as productive as he is!
              Kwame would have to lose about 20 lbs, but he started his career as a PF. I always like the idea of slimming bigs down vs. bulking them up. The thing about Brown is he is a very good defensive big around the hoop. He holds his ground well in the post, and has the size and length to be a presence in the paint. Both McRoberts and Hansbrough struggle in those areas and we suffer for it when he is on the court.

              I wouldn't overpay for him either but he should not command a big contract. He would be much cheaper than Chandler, West or Nene.
              Last edited by Taterhead; 07-16-2011, 10:42 PM.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                This is just a question, a 2:00am question I must add. I like both Brown and Hayes. If we could land both of them for about the same salary as West would want would anyone be dissappointed. Brown can back-up Hibbert and Hayes can back up Tyler.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                  Can someone who has watched Yi Jianlian tell me what's up with him? I've seen a few good games out of him, and know that he was hyped up a little bit; but he hasn't really done much. Does he just need to be coached up better? Given more time on a young team? etc? If we could sign him to a healthy contract, would he be worth the time/risk/etc?
                  PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

                  RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    I always like the idea of slimming bigs down vs. bulking them up.
                    I'd agree in some cases but that didn't work too well for Roy.

                    Nice post though.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                      Originally posted by Smits Happens View Post
                      I'd agree in some cases but that didn't work too well for Roy.

                      Nice post though.
                      So you're saying Roy took a step back and didn't improve last year.

                      The way I see, and hopefully Roy sees it, is he got 'in shape' last year and now needs to 'strengthen up' for next season. Add some abdominal/back strength and some leg strength and he's beast.

                      It just bugs me that people act like Hibbert getting lean was a career killer.
                      PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

                      RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                        Originally posted by Smits Happens View Post
                        I'd agree in some cases but that didn't work too well for Roy.

                        Nice post though.
                        Bulking up didn't work to well for Bender and JO.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                          Originally posted by Richard_Skull View Post
                          So you're saying Roy took a step back and didn't improve last year.

                          The way I see, and hopefully Roy sees it, is he got 'in shape' last year and now needs to 'strengthen up' for next season. Add some abdominal/back strength and some leg strength and he's beast.

                          It just bugs me that people act like Hibbert getting lean was a career killer.
                          I think you read way too much into what I said. Career killer? Really? How did you interpret my post to mean that?

                          And Roy himself has said he was too skinny last year.
                          Last edited by Smits Happens; 07-17-2011, 02:21 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            Bulking up didn't work to well for Bender and JO.
                            I believe I did say I agree in some cases. Those would be two examples.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                              Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                              This is just a question, a 2:00am question I must add. I like both Brown and Hayes. If we could land both of them for about the same salary as West would want would anyone be dissappointed. Brown can back-up Hibbert and Hayes can back up Tyler.
                              I would not mind getting both of them, and would prefer them to West, but even together I don't know that they will add up to West's salary.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Analyzing the 2011 Free Agents: Power Forwards

                                Hayes and Kwame...
                                Well I'd rather have Hayes and West then. Or if some doubts with West (can't pass medical / too expensive), just keep the cap.

                                Two backups would be underwhelming. Not exactly what I've hoped for these many years. Especially when they are both mainly centers. With one of Foster/Stanko potentially available for the near future.
                                Maybe I could get it as an asset collection. Two cheap backups with a future trade in mind. But then are Kwame and Hayes safe assets? Both had up and down careers, both had confidence issues in the past, both aren't that young anymore. And then... if we really can get them cheap this summer with so many potential suitors... cheap would be the real market price.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X