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

1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

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

  • #46
    Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    See, I don't think it's about Lance vs AJ at all.

    I think it's about having an actual PG on the floor at all times. Lance isn't one, Hill isn't one. (He's so much better off the ball) - and in fact, when Hill plays off the ball, he becomes that SG off the bench we need. And whether or not you think Lance and AJ are a wash, one of the two plays the position needed to help the offense.

    You could still find 5 minutes in the second quarter to give to Lance at the SG position, while playing AJ. It doesn't have to be one for the other.

    I strongly disagree with Larry about Lance. But if he insists on playing Lance, there's a way to do it without hurting the team. And it's not that playing Lance has hurt the team (although, he tends to not be very good) because it's so little time. It hurts the bench unit because there isn't a point guard playing.
    While I do agree that having a pure point guard would help the second unit and I agree that AJ would appear at this time a much better option than Hill or Lance, I still am not convinced that he is a pure point guard.

    I have watched him be very selfish (like DC) with the ball, and I have watched him be able to distribute like a point guard should. Is it the system or ???

    You seem to have watched AJ for the better part of his college and pro career why do you think he doesn't play (basketball reasons) not because Larry likes Lance. I don't buy it. There is a very good coaching staff on the bench this year. Don't you think if Aj was clearly better he would play more?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      I'm glad they're sticking with that second unit now and trying to make it work. AJ would probably be more effective right now than Lance, but Lance's raw talent makes the gamble worth it.
      I get that, and up until now I would have agreed with you, but it's starting to get consistently ugly, and the time may have come to finally put this to bed for now.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Practicing against NBA players and being coached by Vogel/Shaw can't huhrt.
        That, and he won't really grow showing off in the D-League. We already know he knows how to play at a high level when he's "the man" and has the ball in his hands all the time as the best talent, but that's not what we need from him here. We need for him to learn how to be a cog in the machine, learn to not always have the ball in his hands, and not to mention develop on-court chemistry with this team.

        He could go put up good numbers in Ft. Wayne, but he'd be the same guy when he gets back.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

          Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
          so technically we're still winning while trying to develop young talent which the front office believes can be a vital part of the future.

          IS THIS NOT WHAT WE WANTED and complained about while JOB was around here and how he was not playing the young guys and going with players who had no future with the Pacers?
          True, but at the time we were losing more than we won, with the best case scenario being about .500 ball.

          This is a different team/scenario. This team, in an 82-game schedule, is flirting with being a 50 win team. It's time to put winning first, I think.

          I mean if the bench was still doing well in spite of Lance, I'd be completely fine with him getting the minutes that he does. It's just unfortunately starting to look like we NEED AJ Price in there to keep the bench from falling apart, and if we're not careful this WILL start costing us games (hell, it probably already did @BOS).

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            JT you find ways to hate Bird like George Washington Carver found ways to use peanuts.
            I have little problem with what Bird does ( except for the whole Frontcourt depth issue that many of us are concerned about that he may or may not be addressing in the background ) and don't really hate him....but despite Justin Tyme's obvious hate/love of Bird.......I can't disagree with what he posted.....the D-League is and can be used to help develop Players.

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Horsefeathers! Tell that to those players that have come out of the D-League who are playing for NBA teams. I guess Bird is unaware some are doing quite well in the NBA. Sounds more like Bird takes it personally about his picks if they have to go to the D-League.

            The D-League is a tool to be used to help develop players. THAT'S WHY IT WAS CREATED!!! I guess Bird didn't get that memo.
            Personally, I'd prefer to have Lance play 30+ minutes a night in Fort Wayne rather than 10 mpg in the NBA ( only because I'd rather have AJ at the point rather than Lance at the SG spot cuz it is better for the 2nd unit and that Lance could develop better in a structured D-League environment playing more minutes )...but I can see Bird being the "old schooler" that thinks that it's better to "learn on the job in the NBA" rather than "learn on the job at the D-League".
            Last edited by CableKC; 01-29-2012, 02:03 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

              To me the whole problem with our second unit is that our offense in general is just not that good, our first unit is just so much better that they make up for our lack of offense, how many times we have won while shooting a horrible percentage?
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                Right now I'd rather see the second unit play small. Bring AJ in and take out Lou.

                Yes we'll play someone out of position majorly but our offense will be better (and probably our defense as well.
                Our defense is going to get better with Dahntay Jones back at the four (Jimmy-style) ? I don't agree.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                  I'm glad that Vogel sees the problem with Tyler clearly. Identifying the problem is the first step to fixing it.

                  I also thought Dahntay's comments as to what they could do now were worthwhile. Stiffen up on D, and take advantage of the breakaways.


                  [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    I continue to believe Hill's at his best off the ball.
                    I don't care for the Collison, George Hill guard pairing much either. We shouldn't have gotten George Hill if he is only going to be an undersized 2 guard(I don't blame him for our issues however).

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    Stephenson is playing over Price (who has proven to be an upgrade) because LB wants it.
                    So your calling Frank Vogel a liar? Have you looked at AJ Prices stats this season? Is AJ's .154 shooting percentage what proved it for you, or maybe the Maybe the .143 from three? Maybe .380 for his career? Aj no longer is a young project, he needs to actually prove something. I don't care if he does wave his hands in the air in addition to chucking threes.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                      I believe I am correct in noting that once you send a player to the D League, he has to stay there all year. It's not like the minor leagues in baseball.

                      To me, this is clearly the reason most teams don't use it much.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        I believe I am correct in noting that once you send a player to the D League, he has to stay there all year. It's not like the minor leagues in baseball.

                        To me, this is clearly the reason most teams don't use it much.
                        I think you can have them in the D league as long as you want, Bledsoe was send to the D league for two games to get healthy and now he is back.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                          Lance/AJ is further down the chart for naming the reasons that our second unit is struggling.

                          1. No Foster.

                          2. Hans is struggling.

                          3. George Hill has been struggling recently.

                          4. Lou Amundson sucks.


                          Whether Lance makes a great pass or not or makes a turnover or two in five minutes of the first half—or instead AJ makes a decent pass or chucks a shot or perhaps makes it . . . that's really not the major issue folks.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            I believe I am correct in noting that once you send a player to the D League, he has to stay there all year. It's not like the minor leagues in baseball.
                            Ah no, that's wrong. Teams can send down or recall players at any time. Under the new CBA, there's even no restriction now on how many times players can be sent down (there was previously - I think twice per season).

                            Plus veterans (>3 years experience) can now be sent down with their consent, e.g. while recovering from injury.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              JT you find ways to hate Bird like George Washington Carver found ways to use peanuts.

                              I don't care for peanuts either.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: 1/29/12 Mike Wells article in the star about the bench

                                Originally posted by pacerfreak View Post
                                While I do agree that having a pure point guard would help the second unit and I agree that AJ would appear at this time a much better option than Hill or Lance, I still am not convinced that he is a pure point guard.

                                I have watched him be very selfish (like DC) with the ball, and I have watched him be able to distribute like a point guard should. Is it the system or ???

                                You seem to have watched AJ for the better part of his college and pro career why do you think he doesn't play (basketball reasons) not because Larry likes Lance. I don't buy it. There is a very good coaching staff on the bench this year. Don't you think if Aj was clearly better he would play more?
                                I think that is the basketball reason.

                                I think Larry wants to see what Lance can do, and is pretty sure AJ's going to go elsewhere next season. I think Larry gets stuck on stuff. Everyone told him to fire JOB for two years, and he point blank refused to do it for the longest time, according to Katz, he still didn't want to do it but Simon did. If that's true, it says a lot.

                                I don't think any other GM takes the chance on Lance that Larry has, personally. How many other GM's allow three personal/chemistry issues to happen, before a guy proves a darn thing on the floor? Whether Lance has grown up or not, it certainly shows that Larry is irrational about him. He's called him the best player on the team. I think that says enough.

                                Honestly, if Josh was still here, and Tyler still struggling, I expect Josh would still be sitting on the bench too. (assuming we had a quality backup Center). Because Larry is almost as stubborn about Tyler as he is about Lance.

                                Basketball reasons, honestly, the only one I can think of is not wanting Hill to play at the 2 because of his size. But he's played the 2 his entire career at times, and Hill/AJ are significantly better defensively than Lance/Hill or Lance/AJ, regardless of size. Not only that, but they seemed to really play well together. It's not that AJ's amazing, I'm a fan obviously, but I've also said over and over again that he's not the most talented guy. But like fans of Josh, I see AJ as a glue guy. A guy that makes the team better. And he's one of two point guards on the roster, so unless we get another one, it's flat out silly to not play him.

                                And because I think Vogel isn't an idiot. I have to believe that this is Larry's idea, and it stems from stubbornness and a need to prove he was right, rather than an evaluation of what the team needs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X