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

ESPN: Indiana Pacers Roster Questions

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

  • ESPN: Indiana Pacers Roster Questions

    Pacers Roster: Full Speed Ahead? - ESPN

    Originally posted by ESPN
    Despite finishing with a recrod under.500 for the fifth straight season, the Indiana Pacers showed some potential for the future at the end of 2010-11, riding a late-season upswing to a strong showing against the No. 1-seed Chicago Bulls in Round 1.

    What's to come in Indy this season? Some not-too-familiar expectations and a few new faces, for starters. ESPN.com's John Hollinger gave his take on the Indiana Pacers' current crew. Now our 5-on-5 team takes a few swings at the most-pressing roster questions:



    1. For which Pacers player is the 2011-12 season most important?





    Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Roy Hibbert. Entering his fourth season, Hibbert is on the verge of either becoming a foundation piece for Indiana -- or its next bad contract. Last season had two months (November and February) that argue the former, and two (December and January) that argue the latter. There's no Jim O'Brien for him to hide behind this season. It's all up to him.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Roy Hibbert. Hibbert, in the final season of his rookie deal, has a lot to prove before free agency. Sometimes he looks like he could command eight figures per year on the open market. Other times, he looks like he could accept the qualifying offer. He has tools, but will he ever use them consistently for long stretches?

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Paul George. The Pacers will struggle to lure an elite player to Indiana via free agency; the Dwight Howards and Chris Pauls of the world all want to play in New York or L.A. So if they're ever going to get a superstar, they have to draft him. George has that potential. He's a long ways from reaching it, but if he can get there, the Pacers have a shot at being a contender.

    Ian Levy, The Two Man Game: Roy Hibbert. He's made incremental growth in each of his three seasons with the Pacers, but still hasn't settled the argument of his potential. This season isn't about proving he's an impact player, it's about being an impact player. 2011-2012 is the fulcrum that could decide which way the rest of his career tips.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Roy Hibbert. By the end of this season we will finally know exactly how good he is. He has improved, but his inconsistency is probably a character trait at this point. If it's not and he can put together a full season, however, he could cement a distinction many have long expected for him: one of the NBA's best centers.





    2. Who is the most intriguing player on the Pacers' roster?





    Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: The player to be named later. After years in salary-cap prison, Indiana finally has meaningful cap room, and this free-agent class has several players that would be nice adds -- at the right price. Unfortunately, it's a weak class, so the "right price" is pretty unlikely. President of basketball operations Larry Bird and the Pacers need to add talent to keep moving forward, but they need to tread carefully here.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Paul George. He has a nice shooting stroke, but struggled to make 3-pointers (29.7 percent from 3-point range last season). He stole a lot of balls as a rookie in 2010-11, but his defensive positioning underwhelmed. He turned the ball over a lot, but that's often a sign of a bright future. His career could go any direction from here.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: A player to be named later. The Pacers have a ton of cap room and a number of trade assets to help improve after barely landing last season's No. 8 seed in the East. It might be Nene, Marc Gasol, Andrei Kirilenko, David West or someone like Eric Gordon in 2011-12. Either way, the next player they add will have a huge impact on their future.

    Ian Levy, The Two Man Game: Paul George. He established himself as a player to watch with the tough defense he played against Derrick Rose in the playoffs. However, very little of the confidence and aggressiveness he showed on defense could be found on offense last season. If he finds the offensive ying to his defensive yang, he could be a franchise cornerstone for the next decade.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Paul George, without question. In four years, he could be a two-way player every team covets or another run-of-the-mill wing. It could go either way. His rookie season reminded me of Joe Johnson in Boston: the numbers suggested nothing to get excited about, but a few moments each game did.





    3. What's the most surprising take in Hollinger's Pacers profiles?





    Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Not a lot of surprises here, though I was not aware opposing power forwards put up the kind of numbers (18.7 PER) shown here against Josh McRoberts. Lance Stephenson being referred to as "Quentin Richardson with a better handle, a worse attitude and without the jumper" is likely to disappoint Larry Bird, who has called "Born Ready" the most talented guy on the roster.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Darren Collison's terrible adjusted plus-minus. Collison could shoot more 3-pointers, something he does well but not enough, but otherwise his offense is fine. His sizes limits him defensively, but he looks adequate on that end. Is that stat just a fluke?

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Not sure there were too many surprises here, but reading Hollinger's profile on George Hill has to warm the hearts of Indy fans. They almost traded that pick at the deadline for O.J. Mayo and then almost used it themselves on Kawhi Leonard. Given Hill's career trajectory and his efficiency as a scorer, I think Hill couldn't be a better fit in Indy. Hill was Gregg Popovich's favorite player in San Antonio. Now he'll get more freedom and more shots in Indy. He could be a potential breakout player this season.

    Ian Levy, The Two Man Game: George Hill is a better fit at shooting guard. Adding Hill meant a talent upgrade, but also the opportunity to keep A.J. Price and his 35.6 field-goal percentage off the floor. My thought was that Hill would back up both guard spots, possibly even pushing Darren Collison for the starting job. If that's not the best fit for him, then the Pacers have more work to do with their backcourt.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: That George Hill "probably needs to become a full-time shooting guard." If that happens, it means Indiana (1) values Darren Collison as its point guard, (2) trusts A.J. Price to play all the backup minutes at the point, and (3) won't really have the wing minutes to rationalize signing a guy such as Jamal Crawford in addition to Hill, George and Danny Granger.





    4. Based on Hollinger's profiles, what do the Pacers need most?





    Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Patience, and perhaps just the right amount of prescience. Indiana has one good-to-very good player (Granger), one intriguing player (George), a collection of promising but limited question marks, and a whole lot of cap space. With another $10 million expiring this season and an amnesty in their back pocket, Bird, GM David Morway and director of player personnel Kevin Pritchard need to be careful not to make any decisions they can't unmake.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: A big man who can play with and without Roy Hibbert. Maybe Hibbert's asthma will keep him from ever playing well for long stretches, but that doesn't mean he can't help. Either way, the Pacers can't rely on Tyler Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts to start at power forward. Someone like Nene could play next to and behind Hibbert.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: A big man who can rebound and block shots. Tyler Hansbrough and Roy Hibbert are both good offensive players, but they are average rebounders who lack the elite athleticism other teams put in their frontcourts. Unfortunately for the Pacers, none of the big men on the free-agent market really fit the bill.

    Ian Levy, The Two Man Game: An offensive star. By that I mean a player with enough gravity to hold the other disparate parts together, providing the impetus for them to move forward in some semblance of order. The Pacers' roster has skilled offensive players, but they need someone or something to anchor them in an effective system.

    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: A low-post anchor. Hibbert provides that some games. Occasionally, Hansbrough does. But only Jeff Foster, when healthy, has been a big man the team could be certain would show up each night. It doesn't even have to be a star. They just need someone with a few reliable skills who can replicate them on the court every night.





    5. Will a shortened season help or hurt the Pacers?





    Tim Donahue, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Hurt. A lot. The Pacers have an almost entirely new coaching staff, and they are adding George Hill and probably at least one key player to their rotation. Taking over midseason, head coach Frank Vogel only deconstructed O'Brien's system and ran the most rudimentary of offenses. Indiana is starting with almost a completely blank sheet of paper, and few teams will miss a full training camp and that extra month worth of games to get it together as much.

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Help, I guess. The Pacers, who should have plenty of new players by Christmas, could use an extra 16 games to find their best combinations. But for a team that will likely struggle anyway, a high-variance season increases their chances of making the playoffs.

    Chad Ford, ESPN.com: Hurt. Training camp would've been nice for Indy. They've added Hill over the summer and will add at least a couple more major pieces to the team via free agency. Vogel isn't going to have time to get them all on the same page, let alone work in a more sophisticated offense. I still think the Pacers (depending on what they do this summer) are a playoff team. But a shortened season makes that a bigger question in my mind.

    Ian Levy, The Two Man Game: Hurt. After 290 games coached by O'Brien, the Pacers were badly in need of a system rebuild at both ends of the floor. Vogel had just 43 games to get that process started last season. This roster and coaching staff needs every second of collaborative experience they can get to keep making forward progress.


    Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Hurt. Collectively, it's a young roster that needs time to gel. Individually, these guys still need to figure out what they can do on the court. And from a front-office perspective, management soon needs to make decisions about who to tie the franchise's wagon to for the next half decade. Less time to evaluate likely means less effective decision-making.

  • #2
    Re: ESPN: Indiana Pacers Roster Questions

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=67412
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment

    Working...
    X