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

Will Bird waive Price

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

  • #46
    Re: Will Bird waive Price

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    I would cut him and never look back, he is just not that good.
    Third string point guards usually aren't that good, and they usually cost about $800,000, give or take a few hundred grand.

    Does anyone truly think cutting Price and replacing him with anyone else will win or lose us even one game?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Will Bird waive Price

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      I'm all for people reforming/restructuring their life, and I hope that Lance is on the right path. However, you cannot realistically think that the risks of bad behavior are equal for every player.

      A great summer can do wonders, but the last real games our team played included the following announcement on April 10, 2011: "He'll be the fourth point guard through the playoffs," Vogel said. "This is being done for disciplinary reasons."

      Not every player on the roster has this kind of track record:

      was such a knucklehead in high school that it negatively affected his college recruitment, during which time and time again he left behind a cloud of improper benefits/ illegal behavior

      such a knucklehead that he was asked to leave a junior national team "for chemistry reasons"

      such a knucklehead in college that teammates and coaches were not upset that he was a 1-and-done

      such a knucklehead that he slid to pick #40, and

      such a knucklehead that many people on here wanted him cut after the last incident, only to be followed by Vogel's statement about his "ongoing maturity issues"

      I hope he is dependable and that past performance doesn't indicate future value. I'm sure that Lawrence Taylor will stay off the coke, Kirstie Ally will get skinny and stay that way, and Alec Baldwin has learned to control his temper. It's all good!
      AJ Price suspended from UCONN for the 2005-2006 season.

      AJ Price charged with 3 felonies and a misdemeanor.

      AJ Price sentenced to 18 months of probation and 400 hours of community service.

      Why are you only trashing Lance?

      the link

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Will Bird waive Price

        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
        using that anology bro

        There is no reason to believe Aj is a better player than Stephenson

        None

        The love fest for AJ is quite humerous'

        He is a decent player , and a nice guy, but could be replaced by any 2nd round pick
        Fine, I'm just going to say it.

        Lance has been terrible. TERRIBLE. every time he comes into the game.

        Sure, he has one fancy play that "show cases his court vision" (or his intense need to be a show boat), but for the most part, he's been awful. Price on one leg was considerably better. Price as a rookie...no comparison.

        The only reason why people think he's good, is because they got annoyed at our two young point guards, because they were struggling at times because Collison was put in a rough situation and Price was coming off an injury (and then later put in a hard situation) And then Lance would make one good play - and it'd usually be a bad decision that worked out for him and looked nice - and try hard on defense and people thought he was a world beater, and essentially ignored everything else he did wrong.

        He's a project because he has a lot of streetball talent. That's completely different than organized basketball, and the likelihood Lance ever makes the transition is slim to none. (although better if he plays as a two guard rather than a 1) Then you have the whole character issue.

        There isn't a love fest for AJ. Only a very few people think he should have a consistent role this season. There's a love fest for Lance. A guy who has been nothing but trouble since he's got here, and hasn't proved a darn thing on the floor. But yet people will claim "he's the best player/most talented player etc.." sorry, not seeing it. He's flashy and ball dominant, and we'll lose if he plays significant minutes.

        And let me be clear, I don't dislike Lance because he may take away minutes from Price. (DC is one of my favorite players on the team) If Price weren't on the team, I'd still watch the Pacers because I love Frank, PG, DC, Roy, Tyler, Danny, and I even like DJones (just..on the bench). I don't know much about Hill but I have a feeling I'll like him too. My problem with Lance is he way he plays basketball, and certain off court situations.

        And TJ was terrible too. I don't even know how that's debatable. And that rookie they drafted will probably be playing over him by the end of the season, even if TJ plays well, he's a terrible match for Ginobili.

        edit: Because the laptop incident was six years ago. He actually took his punishment, has never been considered a team cancer, and his only issue since was missing a practice. And didn't follow up the laptop incident with repeated issues. If Lance goes six years without another issue, he'd probably no longer be considered a problem..
        Last edited by Sookie; 12-19-2011, 01:06 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Will Bird waive Price

          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
          Third string point guards usually aren't that good, and they usually cost about $800,000, give or take a few hundred grand.

          Does anyone truly think cutting Price and replacing him with anyone else will win or lose us even one game?
          I rather give that Money to a veteran or even Diener, at least he knew how to pass the ball and shoot when needed, AJ ball hogging and mistake making doesn't help us win games, he is just a bad point guard that's it.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Will Bird waive Price

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            I would cut him and never look back, he is just not that good.
            My question to you is what do you expect out of a 3rd string PG? Are other 3rd string PGs on opposing teams better than Price?
            Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Will Bird waive Price

              Originally posted by BornReady View Post
              My question to you is what do you expect out of a 3rd string PG? Are other 3rd string PGs on opposing teams better than Price?
              The point is that we have players that can fill that position, Lance can fill that position and all he has to do to be like AJ is ball hog, shoot threes in a low percentage and turn the ball over when needed, I don't think is that hard for any other player to play like AJ I'm sorry but he sucks.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Will Bird waive Price

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                A great summer can do wonders, but the last real games our team played included the following announcement on April 10, 2011: "He'll be the fourth point guard through the playoffs," Vogel said. "This is being done for disciplinary reasons."
                For all we know, he missed some team practices or flights. We have NOTHING to indicate what was the nature of his violation was.

                was such a knucklehead in high school that it negatively affected his college recruitment, during which time and time again he left behind a cloud of improper benefits/ illegal behavior
                He had his choice of Arizona, Maryland, St. Johns, and Kansaas. Plus, he was cleared by the NCAA which allowed him to play for Cincinnati.

                such a knucklehead that he was asked to leave a junior national team "for chemistry reasons"
                One thing I realize about Stephenson, he's very a boostful individual.

                such a knucklehead in college that teammates and coaches were not upset that he was a 1-and-done
                This has got to be the DUMBEST reason to call someone a knucklehead .

                such a knucklehead that he slid to pick #40, and
                So those players who are drafted after him or go undrafted are bigger knuckleheads, huh?

                such a knucklehead that many people on here wanted him cut after the last incident, only to be followed by Vogel's statement about his "ongoing maturity issues"
                He IS young, and I do expect him to make stupid mistakes. The fans of Indiana have the right to the opinion of wanting him cut, because of being fearful of another Jackson and Tinsley situations. However, Lance has done NOTHING since to indiciate this will be an ongoing behavior. If anything, he shown that he's trying to move past that mistake, learn from it, and trying to be a positive impact on his team.

                Wow...we have WAAAAYYYYY too many people who think they're holier than thou on this forum.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Will Bird waive Price

                  I find it silly we are even worrying about this, when we still have 2 roster slots open.
                  "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Will Bird waive Price

                    Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                    I find it silly we are even worrying about this, when we still have 2 roster slots open.

                    Bingo, we have a winner.

                    Not to mention the Pacers have kept 4 PG's numerous times.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Will Bird waive Price

                      Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                      I find it silly we are even worrying about this, when we still have 2 roster slots open.
                      Or, the fact that it is being met with widely mixed emotions leads one to a conclusion. If I can borrow a term from Satan, it just shows how irrelevant Price is.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Will Bird waive Price

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        Having trouble figuring out how to exist without JOB to kick around? These guys were never as good as you thought they were, no one broke them. People never should have made Josh Mcroberts there lightening rod for why the old coach was so horrible. This particular excuse just annoys the hell out of me. We needed a new coach, however it is also true that the team just wasn't very good.
                        If they weren't very good then how did the new coach instantly win a lot more with them?

                        Why does that push to the playoffs, the winning record under Vogel, and the quality effort against the Bulls equate to "just weren't very good"?

                        Of course they were, they actually played pretty good ball for all of Vogel's run other than during the Lance experiment: 1-5 when he played 10 minutes, 3-9 when he played at all, 17-9 when he didn't play and Vogel was coaching. 20-18 under Vogel in total.

                        From that you walked away with "the players just weren't very good"?


                        JOB thought that Paul George stunk too in case you weren't aware. I watched him chew him out 15 seconds after he entered that last Orlando game. And as far as I could tell PG hadn't blown any kind of switch that would warrant that kind of reaction.

                        Hibbert went into the tank under JOB after his quick start, and then magically started to recover when JOB left.


                        But I'm just leaning on an excuse because the 2.5 months of non-JOB ball told you everything you need to know about how this group would play under Vogel, how each player could actually perform under a different coach.


                        Reminds me how people trashed the Henderson pick due to his play under Larry Brown. Suddenly Gerald becomes a pretty solid player the instant Larry is fired.



                        What kills me the most is that Digest had so many people ready to kick Carlisle to the curb because his conservative offense was holding guys like Tinsley back, and once RC was gone we'd see the real Tinsley despite Rick's strong W-L record. But now when it comes to a bunch of young players we might as well dump them 3 months after dumping the coach mid-season because we've seen enough.

                        It's not a consistent approach.



                        Don't worry, these guys will all flop elsewhere and you can make me eat crow and that will be the end of that lame excuse. As long as that's what happens.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Will Bird waive Price

                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          Or, the fact that it is being met with widely mixed emotions leads one to a conclusion. If I can borrow a term from Satan, it just shows how irrelevant Price is.
                          Because there weren't mixed emotions about Tyler.

                          I don't think "mixed emotions" indicate irrelevant at all. Tebow gets mixed emotions and he's definitely not irrelevant, whether you think he's helping or hurting.



                          If the thread was 1 page of "meh", that would mean irrelevant.



                          He's just a young PG that I'd like to see have a shot to run the floor at times for Vogel with the idea that he might turn out to be a pretty useful bench PG, a "control the game" PG that could facilitate the scoring of other guys and play some D.

                          For his salary it's a low cost investment that's pretty par for course in the NBA. If he becomes nothing then it's not that big a deal. I'd spend the same to try Patty Mills out too.


                          Or are people just mad because he's going to prevent Lance from being a star? (Ironically Lance "stinks" because JOB didn't play him and we already saw by his output and W/L that he couldn't do it for Vogel either, end of debate....oh, that only works if it's guys you don't like, sorry)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Will Bird waive Price

                            If the Lance Stephenson we saw against Chicago is the Lance Stephenson we're going to see all season, you have to keep AJ.


                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Will Bird waive Price

                              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                              So those players who are drafted after him or go undrafted are bigger knuckleheads, huh?
                              Were any of those other players McDonalds All-Americans 12 months earlier?

                              I don't hate Lance or want to get rid of him. Maybe he has turned it around for good. I am saying, though, that he has a very long history, so if his talent and current behavior does ever get him to the point where (putting myself in Bird's shoes) you have a defined role for him to play, you had best cover yourself for the possibility that history might repeat itself.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-19-2011, 05:03 PM.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Will Bird waive Price

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                At this point, there is no reason to believe that Stephenson is a better player than Price. None.
                                This is the harsh truth. Lance was one of our worst players on Friday against the Bulls.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X