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

I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

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

  • #46
    Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Do we know that the Pacers were trying anything to trade Tyler?
    I think they are trying, Wells kept mentioning Tyler yesterday as one of the guys that could probably not make training camp, but who knows?
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I think they are trying, Wells kept mentioning Tyler yesterday as one of the guys that could probably not make training camp, but who knows?
      Maybe they're trying to bring in Landry
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

        There is a big difference in willing to move someone for something good in return and trying to dump/get rid of someone.

        I believe the pacers are willing to move Tyler for someone good or at least decent in return. However I don't think they want to just dump him for anything.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
          That dunk came in game 1. He didn't give them a scare for a game a two. The Pacers might have, but they also might have had a better chance to actually close out some of those games if Hansbrough wasn't playing so many minutes.

          How many games do you want to go back? Listen, he had a pretty good month of March in 2011. He averaged 17 points on almost 50% shooting, and 7 rebounds. That was, by a huge amount, the best he has ever played in his career. The Pacers went 8-10 in that month.

          As always has been the case, the success of his team, and Tyler Hansbrough's personal success are completely independent of each other. In his career, he has averaged 9.8 points on 42% shooting, 4.9 rebounds, and 0.5 assists in games that the Pacers have won. When the Pacers have lost? He has averaged 10.0 points on 43% shooting, 4.7 rebounds, and 0.7 assists. Simply put, due to his high-usage, low-efficiency style of play, and lack of contributions in places that don't show up in a box score, he just doesn't do anything to impact whether or not the Pacers win. His numbers are essentially irrelevant.

          He didn't "get us there." He didn't "give Chicago a good scare." He was simply out there. Any "Hansbrough-mania" was woefully misguided. If you were one who participated in that "Hansbrough-mania," you weren't paying enough attention.
          Dude, did you completely fall asleep that year? How do you not remember his play down the stretch when basically the rest of the team had fallen asleep? He rocked out that game 1, abused Boozer... He absolutely put Indy on his shoulders that year down the stretch (not Granger) and willed our pretty bad team limping into the playoffs, but before his run, we were playing our way out of the playoffs, we were on the cusp as it was. His energy is what woke that team up that year, and it was his energy and style of play that we embraced for the whole "smashmouth" identity that Vogel grasped... I firmly believe Hansbrough sparked that team into giving Chicago some good play that series.

          I clearly remember it, clearly you do not. Please don't tell me he didn't do crap and then list his stats for March which were by all means very good, 17 and 7. The kid is capable of playing better. I'm not saying he absolutely will, because I dont' know what ails him, but he didn't look the same last year. The big question is will he return to form or fade to oblivion. But I don't believe for a second that he cannot play better than he did last year.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-20-2012, 10:55 AM.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Dude, did you completely fall asleep that year? How do you not remember his play down the stretch when basically the rest of the team had fallen asleep? He rocked out that game 1, abused Boozer... He absolutely put Indy on his shoulders that year down the stretch (not Granger) and willed our pretty bad team limping into the playoffs, but before his run, we were playing our way out of the playoffs, we were on the cusp as it was. His energy is what woke that team up that year, and it was his energy and style of play that we embraced for the whole "smashmouth" identity that Vogel grasped... I firmly believe Hansbrough sparked that team into giving Chicago some good play that series.

            I clearly remember it, clearly you do not. Please don't tell me he didn't do crap and then list his stats for March which were by all means very good, 17 and 7. The kid is capable of playing better. I'm not saying he absolutely will, because I dont' know what ails him, but he didn't look the same last year. The big question is will he return to form or fade to oblivion. But I don't believe for a second that he cannot play better than he did last year.
            I remember that being the PD narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that it was, and always has been, more fiction than anything else.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              I remember that being the PD narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that it was, and always has been, more fiction than anything else.
              Orrrrr a classic example of 20/20 hindsight.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                As bad as Tyler has played (especially last season) it's not like the guy is COMPLETELY INEPT as some of us are suggesting. You don't average double figures in the NBA as a PF who has mainly played off the bench without having SOME TYPE of game. Has he regressed? Yes he has, but a lot of Tyler's game is when he's thinking too much. That's when the travels or up-fakes when he's open occurs.

                A lot of people remember game one of the Chicago series where he almost won the game for us, and then went in the tank following that dunk-and-1. But what people forget is how well Tyler was playing in March and April leading up to that playoff series. Starting with a game against the Spurs in January (this is when Tyler finally began receiving steady PT as a starter) he averaged about 14 and 5. Yes the NBA may have him "figured out" but at this rate, as long as he hits that mid-range J, and works on his footwork, he's definitely a serviceable backup. I think the addition of Mahinmi will help Tyler as well, especially on defense.

                Is he the long-term answer at the backup 4 spot? Probably not. This season will tell a lot......But to make it seem like Hans is just some scrub that couldn't get a backup spot elsewhere is absolutely crazy.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Here is the reporter's article from the Observer, we was in 1070 the fan and said that the extension was 6mil a year, believe if you want to or not, I know that your story sounds better because "Tyler is garbage so not even the Bobcats want him" but that is not what it was reported by their insider.
                  Yeah I remember we discussed this in the Augustin thread. CHA ended up renouncing their offer to DJ BECAUSE he wouldn't re-sign with them per a multi-year deal. They wanted him for 3 or 4 years at 6 mil a yr, but he turned it down in order to leave CHA

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                    I don't think Tyler can change his game and adapt. I think the only way he'll ever stay on a roster is if he's money with his mid-range jumper.

                    Just hope he's traded before the trade deadline.
                    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                      Augustin is going to make Tyler a better player book it.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Is he the long-term answer at the backup 4 spot? Probably not.
                        If he can't be a long term backup power forward on a playoff team, he's not completely inept, but he's probably pretty bad.


                        If we were willing to dump DC/DJ for salary purposes, I don't see how we wouldn't be willing to do the same with a lesser contributor in Tyler.
                        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                          I expect improvement

                          With the lock out and his vertigo issues Tyler has yet to have a full healthy offseason to work with the coaching staff and the rest of the team. I mean his ceiling is a solid back up 4, its not like expectations are high. I think he will meet those this season and then some.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                            Tyler disappoints mostly because of his low bball IQ. Other than hustle and getting to the line, he really lacks a lot of fundamentals and good sense.

                            He is terrible on help defense, slow to learn schemes, takes really bad shots, and doesn't have a sense for making a solid pass. He is much more interested in offense than defense, a typical mindset for a low bball IQ me-first type player.

                            This is deceptive, because we thought getting a hard working Tar Heel would have included a high bball IQ with all the fundamentals. It clearly did not. So, not only is he not that talented, he doesn't make good choices on the court. Kind of a train wreck all the way around.
                            Last edited by McKeyFan; 07-21-2012, 07:10 AM.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                              Yeah, it's as if he never watches game tape of himself on the court either because unlike other players, he doesn't improve on very fixable problems. Sometimes he's Murphy bad on defense, and is just out of the way of opposing players in the lane.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: I'm sure this has been asked, but I can be the only one

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                Tyler disappoints mostly because of his low bball IQ. Other than hustle and getting to the line, he really lacks a lot of fundamentals and good sense.

                                He is terrible on help defense, slow to learn schemes, takes really bad shots, and doesn't have a sense for making a solid pass. He is much more interested in offense than defense, a typical mindset for a low bball IQ me-first type player.

                                This is deceptive, because we thought getting a hard working Tar Heel would have included a high bball IQ with all the fundamentals. It clearly did not. So, not only is he not that talented, he doesn't make good choices on the court. Kind of a train wreck all the way around.
                                I don't agree with any of this especially the insulting part about having a low basketball IQ and being a me-first type player. I think Tyler will get a good training camp and will come out and play much beter than he did last year...... Note the Pacers have not given up on him. I have heard some here want him dumped for a second round pick. I agree with the Pacers, give him some more time...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X