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

Pacers not looking at starting PF?

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

  • #46
    AAAAA

    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
    Ha this thread was blown out of proportion. Chat basically said the Pacers aren't looking for a 40 starter. Doesn't mean no starter at all. Just means they still want Hansbrough to get some solid minutes. Totally understandable
    I'm taking the line of reasoning further. If Hansbrough plays a minimum of 24 mpg...and he is best suited to play the PF spot....that would mean that any PF that we get can only play 24 mpg at the PF Spot. Unless we get a PF/C, how are you going to get Hansbrough the 24 mpg that everyone thinks he's going to need.

    I can see Landry making some sense purely from a mpg where you can justify playing him 24 mpg at the price that you will likely pay him at....but if you go the route of getting PF like West....its harder to justify the minutes.

    This is one of the reasons why I advocate going after a PF/C....whether it be Nene, Chandler or Humphries...before even considering West, Milsap or Landry.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: AAAAA

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I'm taking the line of reasoning further. If Hansbrough plays a minimum of 24 mpg...and he is best suited to play the PF spot....that would mean that any PF that we get can only play 24 mpg at the PF Spot. Unless we get a PF/C, how are you going to get Hansbrough the 24 mpg that everyone thinks he's going to need.

      I can see Landry making some sense purely from a mpg where you can justify playing him 24 mpg at the price that you will likely pay him at....but if you go the route of getting PF like West....its harder to justify the minutes.

      This is one of the reasons why I advocate going after a PF/C....whether it be Nene, Chandler or Humphries...before even considering West, Milsap or Landry.
      Or you can get a Milsap who has purportedly been working over the summer to play some minutes at 3...so you can flex 4/3 with him. Of course, still would like some more C depth even in that case.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

        IMO, if the Pacers are not looking to sign a high minute power forward, the only thing that makes sense is to bring back McRoberts and go to a novel three big rotation of Roy / Hans / Josh in various combos, including the duel 4 small option of Josh / Hans, with each of the three guys getting around 28 minutes and Jeff picking up the rest, allowing all to be more aggressive on both ends of the floor.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

          Need more rebounding. Roy/Hans/Josh won't get it done. Also, outside Roy's shotblocking, not too hot on interior D. Add foster and one acquisition that boosts inside depth and offer some rebounding and positional D. Addition does not have to start per se.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
            Need more rebounding. Roy/Hans/Josh won't get it done. Also, outside Roy's shotblocking, not too hot on interior D. Add foster and one acquisition that boosts inside depth and offer some rebounding and positional D. Addition does not have to start per se.
            This is why Nene makes so much sense to me. You pay a bit more but you get alot of needs addressed. Interior D, Back up Center, Minutes for Hansbrough, Rebounding, Physicality. So if you give Nene 12-14 Million and extend Hibbert to a reasonable deal, then you have your Big man needs for the next 4-5 years. I would even try to resign McRoberst to a small deal to spell Hansbrough here and there and let Jmac and Nene Dunk over everyone.

            I'd offer him a front loaded deal Starting at 14 and going down from there and that way when Danny Granger expires in 2 years, well have even more Salary cap space to use.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
              Need more rebounding. Roy/Hans/Josh won't get it done. Also, outside Roy's shotblocking, not too hot on interior D. Add foster and one acquisition that boosts inside depth and offer some rebounding and positional D. Addition does not have to start per se.
              Do keep in mind a week from today:

              Both David West and Carl Landry are worse rebounders than either Josh or Tyler. Landry, significantly so.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                One other note about our big man needs, if we sign a smaller PF like West or Landry we will have to go out and spend money on a legit Back up C. So do you want to pay 4 million a year over 3 years for guys like Prizbilla or Fesenko?

                Pay Nene, resign Foster, and then next year foster retires and we can bring over Stanko.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I know that many may disagree....but I think that Hansbrough and Landry have a ceiling of "Decent Starter on a Mediocre team playing 30 mpg" or "very solid Backup PF on a Playoff team playing 25 mpg". I'd rather have Hansbrough come in and wreck havoc against the 2nd unit then play against higher quality PFs.
                  Either way it doesn't address the main need unless Hans develops into a better rebounder and consistent scorer.

                  I personally just think its the wrong approach at the pf postion. Having 2 guys with no clear cut starter won't give us a big advantage and it won't even be a better advantage than McBob last year where we could play the matchup against other teams.

                  I like Hans like an offensive version of Taj Gibson. Everyone saw how Taj came in and impacted the playoff games with his energy. I like Hans in the same way but on offense. Gibson or Tyler don't need a ton of minutes to impact a game IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    I personally just think its the wrong approach at the pf postion. Having 2 guys with no clear cut starter won't give us a big advantage and it won't even be a better advantage than McBob last year where we could play the matchup against other teams.
                    If the Pacers do bring in Landry, I don't believe there is any question in their minds who will be starting. Landry will be the clear cut starter.

                    In your mind, he may not be clearly better. I believe that in the minds of Pacer management, he is clearly better.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                      If the Pacers do bring in Landry, I don't believe there is any question in their minds who will be starting. Landry will be the clear cut starter.

                      In your mind, he may not be clearly better. I believe that in the minds of Pacer management, he is clearly better.
                      IF Tyler is getting half the minutes which some have suggested to sign Landry then it won't matter really who is starting.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        Do keep in mind a week from today:

                        Both David West and Carl Landry are worse rebounders than either Josh or Tyler. Landry, significantly so.
                        What are your measures, and do they include team rb% when they are on/off the floor?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                          Landry is a terrible rebounder. He'd be our worst rebounding PF since Solomon Jones.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                            I guess I'm already at a point in this process that I hope they

                            1.) try to land a big fish

                            if not

                            2.) Find value players that present an upgrade.

                            if not

                            3.) Play with the team you have (well you need a 4th big in the rotation.

                            Pacers are in a good spot. They have all 5 starters from a playoff team (glass half full, I know). Added George Hill. Still have rotation guys from the Chicago series in AJ Price, D Jones, BRush, and likely Foster.

                            So you've lost who Mike Dunleavy, who was barely contributor in that series, and Jmac, who is... replaceable (ducking).

                            My point is don't do anything stupid, you have a group that could take the court tonight and should be better than April of last year. (again, you don't have enough front court players, but signing Foster and a 4th big, wouldn't be hard)

                            Some of these other teams with cap space can't even field a team, Pacers have almost the entire rotation intact. Pretty big deal.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                              Nice post Speed.

                              I guess I wouldn't mind Landry if we get him on a nice contract. But I'm wondering why we don't go after other similarly priced players (Hayes or Humphries, perhaps) who could bring different things to our frontcourt.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers not looking at starting PF?

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                Nice post Speed.

                                I guess I wouldn't mind Landry if we get him on a nice contract. But I'm wondering why we don't go after other similarly priced players (Hayes or Humphries, perhaps) who could bring different things to our frontcourt.
                                I am really, really curious to see what Hayes and Humphries get in Free Agency. I thought at one point Humphries would get overpaid by NJ, but I'm not sure that's the case now. I have no idea what Hayes value is in the open market. I know he was a huge factor and pain one of the Pacers/Rockets games last year.

                                As for Landry, I mean, what's his value. He's not stuck where ever he's been. I agree with getting someone who brings something different to the frontcourt group at the right price. I'm becoming less enthused with Landry by the day for some reason. I think its partly because I want to see what Hansbrough can do in the right system for a full season.

                                Part of me wants to just sign Reggie Evans for a really short/reasonable amount and wait.

                                Edit: the biggest pull for me, across the board, to not do anything is I feel like almost the entire roster just lacks consistency that will come with experience. Almost all of them have shown more than flashes of being very good. Its just the consistency they need. I feel like I don't know how good these guys are going to be, so therefore, I'm not sure what the 'team' needs.
                                Last edited by Speed; 12-02-2011, 12:05 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X