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

Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

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

  • #61
    Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

    Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
    Who is your SG you would trade Danny for? So Paul can move to the 3.
    Exactly. Our starting lineup does still need an upgrade to move to the CF-level of contender. But its not going to be easy.

    I would have pursued Gordon because the mythical 82-games Gordon at SG would have been the way to insert a "guy that can create his own shot" into a lineup that really has four #3 options and a #2 option. That's great balance, but not enough talent.

    The other SGs that would interest me are even less likely to join the Pacers, but I don't see the Pacers upgrading their lineup without trading Danny. Could you get a legit #1 option for any of the rest of our starters? Trade Hibbert for one? Maybe, but you'd have to trade him for a #1 option that is also a C. Even less likely. David, Paul and George aren't going to net a #1 option in return.

    I'd like to keep Granger to be the #2 option, but that isn't realistic.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest but there's no one to hear? Is it really criticism if you are on ignore and no one reads you?


      Leaving out the posters who are known to be negative and critical no matter what, for most of us it will depend on how the players play. For that reason I didn't vote.
      You are sooo boring...

      Originally posted by Hoop View Post
      Why is Paul George not a SG? You are who you can guard and he can guard SG's, SF's are more of a problem.

      I think Paul rates higher in the league at SG than at SF. You have Kobe, Wade, J. Johnson, Harden besides that Paul arguably is right after those guys. At SF that list is much longer ahead of Paul.
      It's not about how many players in the league are ahead of Paul at any certain position. It's about what positon gives Paul the best chance to succeed, and that's clearly SF. As a player you're judged on statistics, and playing him at SF should raise his numbers in rebounding, shot blocking, and IMO PPG if he's playing alongside a wing that can handle the ball and pass a little.

      The "you are who you can guard" and "all wings are the same" ways of thinking seem pretty foolish to me. There's too many variables in the game for blanket statements like that. If your wings don't compliment each other offensively as well as defensively then it's a problem.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

        I still lean towards the '2's and 3's are essentially interchangeable depending on their defense' side of things, BUT with the caveat that it's best when one of them is more of a ball handler and one of them is better away from the ball. I mean Paul George can stay at the 2 if you replace Danny with a ball-dominate SF, but that's less likely to happen than finding a ball-dominate SG to pair with either Danny or Paul at the 3. But it can work either way, I think. I mean Paul would be just fine at the 2 with a point-forward at the 3.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I still lean towards the '2's and 3's are essentially interchangeable depending on their defense' side of things, BUT with the caveat that it's best when one of them is more of a ball handler and one of them is better away from the ball. I mean Paul George can stay at the 2 if you replace Danny with a ball-dominate SF, but that's less likely to happen than finding a ball-dominate SG to pair with either Danny or Paul at the 3. But it can work either way, I think. I mean Paul would be just fine at the 2 with a point-forward at the 3.
          Hicks,
          Just out of curiosity do any realistic ball dominant 2's or 3's come to your mind that would work well with Paul and/or Danny?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            Hicks,
            Just out of curiosity do any realistic ball dominant 2's or 3's come to your mind that would work well with Paul and/or Danny?
            I have one in mind and he is going to be a free agent next year by the way
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Hicks,
              Just out of curiosity do any realistic ball dominant 2's or 3's come to your mind that would work well with Paul and/or Danny?
              By realistic do you mean someone that we could acquire by trading either Paul or Danny for them?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                By realistic do you mean someone that we could acquire by trading either Paul or Danny for them?
                I simply mean realistic as someone we could realistically acquire. Whether it were for Paul, Danny, West or whomever. Obviously with Paul or Danny most likely being the one shipped out.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I simply mean realistic as someone we could realistically acquire. Whether it were for Paul, Danny, West or whomever. Obviously with Paul or Danny most likely being the one shipped out.
                  Right now, no one specifically comes to mind. Might be easier to answer in the fall when I have NBA fully back on my mind.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                    Can I pick all of them? I think it'll be close to a four-way tie.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                      I would have voted Hill. We had major issues at the PG position last year, feeding the post, running the break etc, and those issues have not been solved. With Hill (a combo guard) taking over the starting job permanently and DC gone, I think Hill is gonna get hit with a lot of criticism this year.

                      Note I said I would have voted for Hill, but I voted for Danny because he probably won't be Lebron James again next season and, well, that seems to garner him a lot of criticism here.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                        Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                        But, when it comes right down to it, they are all wings so what does the label ready matter.
                        Maybe, maybe not. But what matters is that the two players should be complements to each other. In the Pacers case, both players have the same characteristics of traditional SFs, and some of the same weaknesses as each other. If Granger weren't here, George wouldn't be guarding guards and you'd say he's a SF because that's who he defends.

                        In the late 1990s, Jalen and Reggie complemented each other in that Jalen had the SG ball handling and passing skills and Reggie had the SF off-the-ball skills. By then, Reggie was rarely using the floater any more and his short-lived experience as a post player (which as somewhat successful, I think) was long over. I don't think we're going to argue that either of them defended anybody or rebounded very well. When the wing players do complement each other, then I don't care what you call them. When the wing overlap each other on both skills and weaknesses, which I think is a bit of a concern with the current lineup, that's a problem.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I have one in mind and he is going to be a free agent next year by the way
                          Monta Ellis, Kevin Martin, and Tyreke Evans are the only three that come to my mind.

                          The only thing is these types of players are normally NOT particularly good defenders.

                          I'd be interested in hearing any other players that comes to anyone's mind.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            They don't find them as egregious as I do because they just refuse to criticize the starters not matter what, how many threads are open about them talking about the last man of the bench? how many threads are open about Lance, Mcbob, Tyler and any other bench player? I bet is way more than the threads that talk about the starters flaws if there are any threads talking about the startes flaws and I'm not even sure about that.
                            I would submit there are more bench threads because they are usually started by people who think the person on the bench is better than a starter, or at least some kind of hidden gem that the coaching staff are fools not to be using more. Then people come in to refute it, which is where the criticism comes from.

                            I've seen threads criticizing Danny's shooting, Hibbert's ability to stay in position, West's defense, and distribution from whoever is starting PG in a given week. I've seen people make arguments against those criticizing, but you can't possibly be saying that the only valid opinion on a discussion board is that the starters are completely flawed in the exact way whatever original poster pointed out.

                            Not thinking Danny is as bad as you think he is does not mean thinking he isn't flawed and saying you can't criticize him. It just means disagreeing with you. Not thinking West is a horrible defender doesn't mean there are no flaws in West's defense, it just means disagreeing with you.

                            The constant "if you don't agree with me you aren't allowing my opinion" equivalency does get tiring after a while.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                              Paul George. Everyone thinks he's going to have a breakout year, and that he should. I don't think, however, that he will have a breakout year to the extent that most of you do. If he makes any sort of jump, I think I will be happy. He is still young.
                              Senior at the University of Louisville.
                              Greenfield ---> The Ville

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                                Danny and PG's skills/weakness may be the same on the offensive end, but I think they are almost a perfect compliment on the defensive end.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X