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

(BUMPED) Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

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

  • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

    Originally posted by cgg View Post
    All I can say is watch the games again, and rewind and rewatch every Tyler mistake that contributes to a Heat run that costs us the leads that our starters built.
    I'm not saying Tyler is some kind of basketball god, but he isn't nearly as bad as what many here are acting like. Disregarding his 1st season since he didn't play, the dude has 2 years under his belt. He struggled this year, and played pretty well last. He has been doomed since Larry "wasted" the pick on him, but I think he will bounce back. That being said the man that is supposed to carry this team scored 18 points in 77 minutes through the first two games of the semi-finals. I would place more of the blame right there, and I like Granger.
    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

      Originally posted by mikeyism View Post
      The hidden plus to this pickup is that DJ has quietly developed into one of the league's best playmakers. Can't say overall he's a better player than DC, but with our crap assist numbers, he's a better fit for us.

      According to Draftexpress, DJ finished 6th and 10th in Pure Point Rating among PGs in 2012 and 2011. Even more impressive when you consider he did this with bricklayers like Gerald Henderson out on the wing. DC in comparison finished out of the top 25, both this season and last.
      Hmmm....we could be in trouble then. Bricklayer Gerald Henderson's FG% was .459 while our wings Paul George was at .440 and Danny Granger at .416
      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

        Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
        Childish like your "just baffles" me comment wasnt an insult? Childish is dishing it out and not being able to take it.
        If you took it that way then my bad. I was being honest. It legitimately baffles me how someone can watch him consistently and call him one of the league's best backup 4s. I really honestly do not understand how someone can see that.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

          Originally posted by HC View Post
          He basically averaged about 12 minutes, so I would have to disagree. If that is your angle, then I would say that Grangers play wasn't all that great therefore his role in our losses was even more significant.
          I wouldn't blame Danny Boy too much for our loss. He obviously didn't play great but chasing Lebron around on defense for 6 games will do that.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

            Gerald Henderson isnt as bad as you guys are making him out to be. That said, he's in no way a 2nd option
            //

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

              Very excited to see what Augustin can do with a winning program like us.
              #LanceEffect

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                Anyone who plays NBA 2K12 or whatever the stupid things is called should be banned from all public message boards.
                Someone just got banned from my personal viewership on this public message board. Thanks ignore feature.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  If you took it that way then my bad. I was being honest. It legitimately baffles me how someone can watch him consistently and call him one of the league's best backup 4s. I really honestly do not understand how someone can see that.
                  Ok, dude! We can disagree and not be mean with it! I believe you werent being insulting! Thanks for the clear up!
                  I honestly think if you look at Tyler in a vacuum as a "backup" then he is not the disaster folks are suggesting. The two teams in the Finals this year had Haslem and Nick Collison as backup PF's. I would not trade Tyler for either one. Most Backup PF's are not starting for the same reasons Tyler is not. Their game is not refined and they dont do enough good things to start.
                  And another thing to remember is that Tyler is coming off a bad year. Instead of improving off a solid 2011 he went backwards. Let's wait and see if a normal season without all the back to backs and not having to play with his clone (Lou) produces better results. I think it will!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                    Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                    The two teams in the Finals this year had Haslem and Nick Collison as backup PF's. I would not trade Tyler for either one.
                    Rut ro. Im guessing this isnt gonna go over well. Im thinking not many around here are gonna want u to be their team's GM anytime soon based on this player evaluation.
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                      If you wouldn't trade Hansbrough for Haslem, you're crazy. Haslem is a far superior rebounder and defender. And he can play some center. His jumpshot is far more consistent as well.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                        This was a great acquisition. Perfect confluence of events that allowed us to swoop in and nab him at a low price this year. Gives us one year to find an actual backup or a starting PG to get Hill back to the bench.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                          WARNING: MASSIVE TYLER DERAIL (you knew it was coming....ps, I'm excited about DJ as a bench PG who could maybe start with GH as the scoring 6th man star)



                          It's like people don't think that other people know about B-ball reference.com or something.

                          So I asked for all players 6'9" to 7'0" listed as PF or F-C only (not C-F or C) and said that the player's season had to qualify for the MPG leaderboard (not be a leader but meet the requirements for consideration).
                          All single seasons in the last 3 years, so any players that played all 3 years could make the list 3 times

                          http://bkref.com/tiny/L6Znu

                          I sorted by eFG% (adjusted for 3PM FG%) and at #165 of 166 came Tyler's 11-12 season. The only dude listed below that was Ben Wallace's 11-12 season. Tyler also ranked at 144 with his "good" season of 10-11. 09-10 he didn't qualify due to injury (but his FG% sucked so it's just as well).

                          Some guys WAY up the list from there - Casspi, J Thompson, Taj Gibson, Darrell Arthur, Donte Green, Carl Landry, Harrington, H Warrick...it's a long list.


                          So what? He's a PF not a scoring specialist. Well just how does he rank in FGA/36 I wonder...
                          http://bkref.com/tiny/EAwUh
                          53rd in 10-11 with 14.4 per 36
                          97th in 11-12 with 12 per 36 (at least it went down a little bit)

                          So he shoots horrible but takes them like he's not too shabby. Interesting comparison here with JAMES JOHNSON...you know, super elite backup PF Johnson
                          11-12 nearly identical FGA, 7.2 to 6.7 reb (adv Tyler barely), 45% to 40% shooting (adv James obviously).

                          Yes, James Johnson in his 11-12 season with Toronto put up basically better total key numbers than Tyler did in 11-12. But Tyler is an elite backup? So now that makes Johnson an elite backup too I guess?


                          But he's a rebounding machine (pretend you didn't just see the spoiler in the JJ comparison)
                          http://bkref.com/tiny/w4OTT

                          Hey, look at that, he comes in at 79th for his 10-11 season with an 8.6 per 36. TIED WITH MCROBERTS own 10-11 season with Indy and his same 8.6. but not quite enough to match Blatche's own 10-11 season of 8.7
                          Keep in mind that Josh "cost too much" at 3m, whereas Tyler is a great deal at....3m.

                          Considering the identical stat at rebounding, with Josh leading him in FG%, blocks and obviously assists, why in the F did the Pacers agree to keep paying Tyler (rather than trading) while letting Josh walk for the same money? (cough Bird)


                          Anyway, Tyler also made the list at 118th with his 11-12 season which is totally awesome. I mean not Jerebko or N Collison or H Warrick or Aminu awesome, but certainly way better than I could do (which I think must be the benchmark we've set for "elite backup PF")*


                          But his rim defense, he's a tough dude that intimidates in that classic Dale PF way. It must be that because so far it's either "meh" to "suck" which doesn't seem to match elite, but WTF do I know.
                          http://bkref.com/tiny/t3jx8

                          Atta boy, tied for 145th...or 158 depending on which end of the ties at 0.4 blocks per 36 you put him at. When Luis Scola blocks as many shots as you do, you might have to consider that a lot of your blocks are either accidents or are being misapplied to you by the stats guys.

                          Tyler comes in strong for a 2nd showing tied at 162nd to dead last with his 0.2 blk per 36 in 11-12. (why did I look, it only hurts more to see Josh's 10-11 blocks ranked 47th, his 11-12 season didn't have enough PT to qualify)


                          Near worst in shooting, worst in shot blocking, average at best in rebounding....but hey, slightly better than average in chucking up a shot.


                          And just when you want to dismiss the stats as misleading, a quick check of his FTA/36 puts him at 12th and 23rd. Funny how the one thing his critics acknowledge he does well is the one way in which he statistically shines.
                          http://bkref.com/tiny/5IOLB

                          One more "can you believe they paid Tyler 3m but not Josh" stat check...assists
                          http://bkref.com/tiny/xvZ4I
                          Josh 10-11 ranks 16th, surrounded by Odom and Garnett
                          Tyler ranks tied for 144-153 (with Lou of 10-11 PHX) and 159-162.
                          Thank god for 3 seasons of Ibaka and 1 year of Kantner to keep Tyler from ranking last again. Too bad for Tyler that Ibaka actually dunks his way to 53% shooting and blocks 15-20 times more shots (no, literally)







                          * most of this section should be read in my best Archer sarcastic voice impersonation.

                          And I'm sure it just make me a giant d-bag to have this tone, but F anyone that has me up at 2AM researching, linking and verifying all the statistical evidence that any damn Pacers fan should already know. I'm a lot friendlier before I read stuff like "tyler is an elite backup" or "why are people so down on Tyler", as if this numbers are a big secret or surprise.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-13-2012, 02:18 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                            Post of the year nominee, whether you agree or not, its just a piece of snarky art. Well done!!

                            "Atta boy, tied for 145th...or 158 depending on which end of the ties at 0.4 blocks per 36 you put him at. When Luis Scola blocks as many shots as you do, you might have to consider that a lot of your blocks are either accidents or are being misapplied to you by the stats guys."

                            I mean, how does it get much better than that!

                            Comment


                            • Can we get a "thread hijacked" Smiley?

                              Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk 2
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers get DJ Augustin for one year

                                Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                                The two teams in the Finals this year had Haslem and Nick Collison as backup PF's. I would not trade Tyler for either one.
                                Oh gosh. Imagine how much better we'd have been last year with Haslem as our backup PF. It hurts my head.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X