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

How do you like our new/old FO so far?

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

  • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Thanks. So, re-thinking this, can you really call "not stalling re-signing your own FAs in case someone good gets amnestied" the same as "not going after high profile FAs?" We're starting to throw an awful lot of potential deals under the heading of "don't go after major FAs" (or, as sarcasted from vnzla81 above, not going after FAs at all).

    Do we have any good source to tell us the Pacers definitely did or definitely did not bid on those two anyway? I don't remember when we actually signed Hill & Hibbert but I would think we would still have been under the cap to bid on Brand at least.
    Oh, ok. I didn't quite understand the point you and vnzla81 were discussing. But yeah, that's not the same as "not going after a major FA". However, I still think it's a bit of a failure in foresight by TPTB not to wait out the amnesty period, which after all is only for a week and not for some open-ended time period.

    I believe Hibbert and Hill were officially signed just before the winner of the Brand bidding was announced. So it's possible that we have put in a bid, I guess, but the timing is a bit suspect. And KP's interview seemed to indicate that we didn't make any amnesty bid at all (but were considering to do so).

    Comment


    • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Thanks. So, re-thinking this, can you really call "not stalling re-signing your own FAs in case someone good gets amnestied" the same as "not going after high profile FAs?" We're starting to throw an awful lot of potential deals under the heading of "don't go after major FAs" (or, as sarcasted from vnzla81 above, not going after FAs at all).

      Do we have any good source to tell us the Pacers definitely did or definitely did not bid on those two anyway? I don't remember when we actually signed Hill & Hibbert but I would think we would still have been under the cap to bid on Brand at least.
      Pritchard said on the radio that the Pacers were monitoring Brand and Scola but didn't have time to bid on either guy, so the didn't even bid.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Pritchard said on the radio that the Pacers were monitoring Brand and Scola but didn't have time to bid on either guy, so the didn't even bid.
        Interesting. Did he elaborate on "didn't have time" - was it because of the agreed signing dates for Hibbert/Hill?
        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: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Interesting. Did he elaborate on "didn't have time" - was it because of the agreed signing dates for Hibbert/Hill?
          To slightly paraphrase, he said that they looked at amnestied guys early on, but there were timing issues. Hill and Hibbert were the priorities (he added they wanted to get them done), and when they were done that evaporated the cap space. He said if the players had been amnestied earlier in the week they would have had a chance at them, and they were keeping a super close eye on the wire to see if that happened or not.

          Reading between the lines especially because the press conference was on Friday afternoon, my guess is that the agents for Hill or Hibbert pushed to get things done by the end of the week, and the front office agreed to that. That's just speculation, but it seems to fit the available evidence, especially because Pritchard implied they were willing to bid if the amnesty process/timing had been a little different.

          You can hear the interview here:

          http://www.1070thefan.com/podcast/Ep....aspx?PID=2161 (page 3 currently, Kevin Pritchard Interview 07/13/12, amnesty question is around the 4:15 left mark)

          Comment


          • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

            I'll say it just once more and then I'll be done with the negativity regarding the front office. I'd give them a D- or F. I think we had two possible strategies that would've worked out. One was spend available money on an impact-making player and the other was to be patient and get fillers after their market price dwindled.

            Instead, we spent money on bench players that might make us better for one season while unnecessarily giving up assets, missing on impact-making players that happened to also be available at bargain basement prices, and signing a player that makes our already questionable draft pick even more questionable. And we overpaid to retain both Hill and Hibbert, and I really doubt a team was going to step up and pay Hill $8M/year for 4 years, but we did it for 5. And the D.J. Augustin situation played out terribly. If he plays poorly, then we're back at the drawing board again next season. If he plays really well, then we're extremely likely to lose him as an unrestricted free agent because of the amount of money we'd be able to offer him, also putting us back at the drawing board.

            OJ Mayo at $4M to the Mavs. Scola at $3.5M to the Suns. Brand at a low amount to the Mavs. Ian Mahinmi at $4M to the Pacers.

            The one good move we made was Green. That's it. Plumlee? Don't get me started.

            It was the offseason that could've been, and I think we swung, missed and fell down. We'll still be a good team, but no longer a good team in one hell of a good position. DJ Augustin, Gerald Green and Ian Mahinmi... I'm 100% sure this isn't what Bird was thinking when he was patient all those years about conserving our capspace.

            Comment


            • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
              OJ Mayo at $4M to the Mavs. Scola at $3.5M to the Suns. Brand at a low amount to the Mavs. Ian Mahinmi at $4M to the Pacers.
              With the way this league is going, I prefer a 25 year old Mahinmi at roughly the same price as a 33 year old Brand or Scola at back-up power forward and center.

              Comment


              • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                With the way this league is going, I prefer a 25 year old Mahinmi at roughly the same price as a 33 year old Brand or Scola at back-up power forward and center.
                Agreed.

                Question is why didn't the Mavs? Or maybe they were only willing to let him walk if they could get a decent starting quality PG in return. Who knows?

                Brand and Scola are nice players, but pretty old, a (starting to be) liability on defense and not really that great on offense.

                Comment


                • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                  Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post

                  Question is why didn't the Mavs?
                  For that team, I think Brand is a better fit. Brendan Wright made Mahinmi a bit redundant last season. What they needed, and what we already have in abundance, is a low post scorer to compliment Dirk. What we needed, and what the Mavs had enough to spare, was athleticism and size at the back-up forward and center positions. Both teams got what they needed, at a really good price.

                  I've always liked Brand, Scola and Mahinmi, so I would have been more than happy to get any of them. In my opinion Mahinmi is a far better fit for this particular Pacer team right now though, which is why I'm so pleased with this off-season.

                  Comment


                  • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    With the way this league is going, I prefer a 25 year old Mahinmi at roughly the same price as a 33 year old Brand or Scola at back-up power forward and center.
                    I really like scola and getting him in B&G would be great, but once Roy and Hill were signed, there was no chance to bid on him. Brand, not to much. IMO, he's done. His value is about what he's being paid.

                    Comment


                    • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                      Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
                      . . . Question is why didn't the Mavs? Or maybe they were only willing to let him walk if they could get a decent starting quality PG in return. Who knows?

                      Brand and Scola are nice players, but pretty old, a (starting to be) liability on defense and not really that great on offense.
                      IIRC, the Mav's are interested in short term contracts. Mahinmi would require a multi-year contract. Cuban doesn't want to spend money long term right now. He's gone on the NBA equivalent of a snipe hunt. The search for a big FA next summer.

                      Comment


                      • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        That is the worst stat in basketball and it means absolutely nothing. If you really think the starters outplayed Miami and they got well off of the bench, what happened in the last five mintues of all of those games when James and Wade took over and willed that team to win...... What was James' plus, something like 47? You think he got that all against our subs? I'll go even further. If out second team were the same players as the first team, Miami still wins. Get it in your head. James beat the Pacers all by himself.....
                        No team in the league was able stop James last year and as long as he has those abilities no team will. For a team to beat the Heat they will have to be able execute their offense to offset what Lebron does. Then you at least have a shot at beating them. That is where the Pacers hope lies, not with stopping Lebron. Wade is not near as big a threat and Bosh can be neutralized also.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                          I'm really shocked at the number of people giving the moves made by our F.O. a thumbs up. I know it's just an opinion but I just can't understand it.
                          We had a summer that would have been decent for a team dealing with only the MLE but it's terrible for playoff team with cap space.
                          We gave up assets for a player that we could have signed for nothing. We made a slight upgrade at our backup pg, and signed a decent backup wing player.
                          If anyone thinks Ian is the answer as our backup center, they didn't see him in the playoffs. He shows potential but he's weak, doesn't protect the rim or guard in the post, is a poor to mediocre rebounder and scorer. I honestly think that Solomon Jones is the better player today. Ian may develop but he's been in the league for 5 years so I think the odds are against it. I wouldn't have wanted him on more then a 2 year contract even if we signed him outright without giving up an asset for him. I guess I'm against the Ian trade from every aspect, it just doesn't make sense to me when better players were available for less if the F.O. didn't let themselves be cornered to where time wasn't on their side by our free agent signings. I see a mismanagement of the teams assets and mismanagement of time that I don't think Bird would have made
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                            With the way this league is going, I prefer a 25 year old Mahinmi at roughly the same price as a 33 year old Brand or Scola at back-up power forward and center.
                            Ian doesn't score, doesn't rebound and doesn't defend in the post. If you mean he's a quick athletic big man for guarding perimeter bigs, I guess I could give him that edge but I'd never, ever want Ian over Scola. I don't see our 4/5 rotation issues as being addressed at all during this offseason. We still need someone who can put the ball through the net, rebound and defend the post when Roy and West sit down, or at the very least do some of those things. Can you imagine the offensive production we'd get from our front court if Ian and Plumlee are on the court together?
                            Personally I'd much rather have had Kaman for 8 mil and give him all the backup 4/5 minutes then to have Ian for the next 4 years at 4 mil per year.
                            If we needed more cap space, I'm sure it would have been easy to dump DC for a 2cd. and I think he could have brought us a 1st. if the team took their time.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              Ian doesn't score, doesn't rebound and doesn't defend in the post. If you mean he's a quick athletic big man for guarding perimeter bigs, I guess I could give him that edge but I'd never, ever want Ian over Scola. I don't see our 4/5 rotation issues as being addressed at all during this offseason. We still need someone who can put the ball through the net, rebound and defend the post when Roy and West sit down, or at the very least do some of those things. Can you imagine the offensive production we'd get from our front court if Ian and Plumlee are on the court together?
                              Personally I'd much rather have had Kaman for 8 mil and give him all the backup 4/5 minutes then to have Ian for the next 4 years at 4 mil per year.
                              If we needed more cap space, I'm sure it would have been easy to dump DC for a 2cd. and I think he could have brought us a 1st. if the team took their time.
                              Mahinmi never got any real minutes until last season because he had a strong front court in front of him and he was a young guy on championship contending teams. His per-36 numbers aren't bad and I wouldn't be surprised if he puts up around 8-7 this year with more minutes and more responsibility. He's got the tools to get points when he gets the chance. I like his jumper and he's active on the court. I have high hopes that he'll be a solid part of our rotation going forward, especially working every day in practice against Roy and West.

                              As for Collison netting us a first. I'll take your word for it but I don't see the market there. What team in this league do you see giving up a first for Collison?

                              Comment


                              • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                                Mahinmi never got any real minutes until last season because he had a strong front court in front of him and he was a young guy on championship contending teams. His per-36 numbers aren't bad and I wouldn't be surprised if he puts up around 8-7 this year with more minutes and more responsibility. He's got the tools to get points when he gets the chance. I like his jumper and he's active on the court. I have high hopes that he'll be a solid part of our rotation going forward, especially working every day in practice against Roy and West.

                                As for Collison netting us a first. I'll take your word for it but I don't see the market there. What team in this league do you see giving up a first for Collison?
                                Off the top of my head I'd think that Dallas, the Hornets, or the Knicks before the grabbed Felton might have given up a 1st. DC is a starter on a lot of teams or at the very least a backup getting starters minutes. The way Cuban fleeced us on the Ian trade he should have thrown in a pick anyway IMO.
                                I know big men can take time to develop, but Ian isn't that young. All I saw of his play last year was in the playoffs but I don't think his ceiling is very high as an nba player. From what I see he isn't even at the Solomon Jones level yet. He's played is career to date practicing against Tim Duncan and Dirk and still hasn't figured it out.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X