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

Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

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

  • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    That is a great article, so many very true insights on Collison as a player
    Good read......this is on par with what DemonHunter1105 said earlier in the thread. I totally agree on both of their assessments.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      These are just examples of the far-too-often-used implication that all these players are somehow interchangeable and have no individual qualities or flaws that cause them to be desired/shied away from by other teams.

      You can't just say, "Hey, these guys traded X for Y who is a lot like the Z we had, we could have done the same deal!" Nor can you say "We should have just gone out and gotten deal A instead of doing deal B" as if deals were on a supermarket shelf and we simply grabbed the wrong one and threw it in the cart.

      It isn't even like these GMs are all on a big 30-way conference call playing games of Basketball Pit with one another ("Need a three! a three!" "Got a two! A two!"). Sometimes in a one-on-one call you get a "we can't do S but we can do T" and you don't have the luxury of saying "well, let me place calls to two or three other teams and see if some of these other players are available instead."

      Because someone is available for trade doesn't mean you have a piece the other team wants to trade him for. Because someone is a UFA doesn't mean it is always right to sign him outright and hope you can balance your salary quickly if another opportunity comes up.

      It's not as easy as fans like to make it seem.
      That is cool and all but that is not really what I said.

      I did not bring up this because it was something that happened before, this is just what I believe we could get. These guys seem to have enough value to be able to pull off a move like this with some team, I believe we could get a guy with a couple of years on a rookie contract that has some potential and also a future pick, although it most likely a 2nd.

      Also as far as the GM thing, their job is to work the phones, if a deal is not that spectacular then you have to come to a decision am I going to try to include another team, am I going to see what else I can get, if a GM is making decisions because of just pressure of losing a possible trade that is not too spectacular then I think he is doing his job incorrectly.

      Granted I do not think that is what generally happens, I think our GM thought this was a good deal so he pulled the trigger on it.
      Why so SERIOUS

      Comment


      • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

        http://www.indystar.com/article/2012.../1062/SPORTS04

        Glad to see IndyStar is putting out some top notch articles...


        Little non-committal isn't it?
        Last edited by jdw; 07-12-2012, 02:46 PM. Reason: screwed up quote

        Comment


        • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          we can still go after Scola or Brand we currently have no backup 4. Now we have a backup 5 and the cap space to get a good backup 4 and a good backup pg.

          Bpump I dont think we even need a S&T(doubt anyone takes Tyler) pretty sure we still have almost 10m in cap room if we renounce Barbosa.
          We have about 8.75 mill if we renounce Lou and Barbosa, if we do a sign and trade and get rid of Tyler and bring on DJ for about 6 mill(just taking that from what I have heard) then that puts us at about 5.8 mill so yeah it would be do able.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

            I really hate to see Collison going, we would not have won a single game against the Heat last year without him coming in and sparking the offense.

            We don't have a single real pg on the team now and that scares me big time.

            Comment


            • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

              Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
              I really hate to see Collison going, we would not have won a single game against the Heat last year without him coming in and sparking the offense.

              We don't have a single real pg on the team now and that scares me big time.
              not sure I would call Collison a "real pg"

              Comment


              • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                Know what's fitting? Hibbert averaged 29.8mpg last season and Mahinmi averaged 18.7mpg. Combined it's essentially 48 minutes.

                If we combine their numbers from last season over 48 minutes(i'm going to ignore that extra half minute), this is what we'd get...

                48min 18.6pts 13.6rebs 2.5blk 1.9ast 51.0%fg 68.4%

                I'll take it if it were to work out that way. Obviously Mahinimi was playing with different players so that could completely alter his numbers playing along side an entirely different roster. Also, both are 25 and could still improve.

                I really do like this deal now that we have Augustin. Our 1-2 punch at center is pretty awesome if you ask me.
                "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                Comment


                • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                  Originally posted by rel View Post
                  http://www.indystar.com/article/2012.../1062/SPORTS04

                  Glad to see IndyStar is putting out some top notch articles...
                  Here is the real link: http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...ike-the-trade/

                  IndyStar does this all the time. I know websites can be tricky and we aren't a huge market but this is ridiculous. Couple this with the numerous grammatical errors that are in Well's articles and you wonder if the Star actually has any editors

                  Comment


                  • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    Who was offering us a pick for DC?
                    Why should I assume he couldn't net us a 2nd round pick?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                      Originally posted by eric1516 View Post
                      Here is the real link: http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...ike-the-trade/

                      IndyStar does this all the time. I know websites can be tricky and we aren't a huge market but this is ridiculous. Couple this with the numerous grammatical errors that are in Well's articles and you wonder if the Star actually has any editors
                      No editors on the blogs. They're actual blogs in the truest sense.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                        Originally posted by eric1516 View Post
                        Here is the real link: http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...ike-the-trade/

                        IndyStar does this all the time. I know websites can be tricky and we aren't a huge market but this is ridiculous. Couple this with the numerous grammatical errors that are in Well's articles and you wonder if the Star actually has any editors
                        That's just a blog; not a true article.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          In a completely ironic fashion I am going to say "Croshere?"
                          Croshere would take issue with your irony.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                            This is a head scratching move to be kind, I would have at least held on to Collison until a good offer came through. It wasn't like there was a dying need to get rid of him. This is not what I expected from a Walsh/Pritchard front office.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                              Originally posted by eldubious View Post
                              This is a head scratching move to be kind, I would have at least held on to Collison until a good offer came through. It wasn't like there was a dying need to get rid of him. This is not what I expected from a Walsh/Pritchard front office.
                              After sleeping on it and thinking about it, look at all the PGs around the league that're better than DC if not at least on the same tier, a lot of them easily attainable. This isn't 1995 anymore, there's just too many good point guards around now for DC to have much of a market worth anything.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Ian Mahinmi to Indiana

                                If there ever was any question, the Pacers spoke very loudly on how much they value DC vs Hill. I always wondered why there was so much support for DC. Anyway, as I stated earlier to some people's surprise, DC is a legitimate starting PG. But he's one of the worst in the league. Doesn't make him a bad player, just not the PG you would ever want on a contender. Hill isn't that much better but with some seasoning he might be a Derek Fisher level guy...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X