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

Pacers looking to trade Danny?

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

  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I almost laughed at this until I realized it was true!! Lol can't believe JJ has been to 6 AS games. Lol what a joke
    The joke is that you guys actually believe Danny is as good as JJ.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      The joke is that you guys actually believe Danny is as good as JJ.
      Danny also has dudes named LeBron, Bosh, Paul Pierce, and now Carmelo perennially ahead of him, where JJ has... DWade.

      Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-28-2012, 11:37 PM.
      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


      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        The joke is that you guys actually believe Danny is as good as JJ.
        No the joke is the fact that you're hellbent to believe that he is on a whole other level when there are plenty of things that prove they are very similar. That's the joke. But to each their own

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

          I think I made it pretty clear.

          Danny's still a high usage player. He takes more shots per minute than all SFs except for the big 3. He took just as many shots this year as he did last year, so he didn't exactlly "take a step back", even after we aquired an all star caliber offensive player and Roy developed into an all star. IMO if your gonna take shot attempts like a #1 you ought to be able to do something other then just score the ball.

          When I'm evaluating a player why should I credit Danny more for his 2 extra FTs a game, than I do Joe for his 2 extra assists?

          Look, I realize his TS% is higher, and he's technically a more efficient scorer, but scoring is only a small part of offense. There are lots of intangible things I think Joe blows Danny away in; like ball handling, offensive awareness, PnR, isolation abilities, etc... stuff you can't quantify with a statistic (unless you have a synergy account... and they screwed mine up )

          edit: sorry, but I'm not going to handicap Danny because he's a SF and Joe's a SG. Joe could easily start at SF. In fact he did for a large portion of the season and was better there then at SG.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            Actually everyone in the NBA though the Pacers got straight fleeced in the DC trade. So there goes that idea out the window. Infact DC will be the starter for the Mavs next year, and probably end up having a career year. Make Walsh and Pritchard look like fools.
            Although it's not hard to assume that DC will be the Starter......cuz the Mavs have no other real PGs in their lineup......I have no reason to believe that DC will be anything more than what we have already seen. This doesn't mean that he's not going to have a good year......I just don't think that DC doesn't have a much higher ceiling.

            Regarding Walsh and KP looking like fools for trading DC to get Mahinmi.....was it possible to sign Green at that time if we didn't send out DC+Inferno?
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              No the joke is the fact that you're hellbent to believe that he is on a whole other level when there are plenty of things that prove they are very similar. That's the joke. But to each their own
              6 all stars to Joe compared to 1 to Danny proves who the best player is, I know you and others don't want to admit it but It is the true.

              Just watch how JJ takes another all star this year while Danny("the better player") watch the game from home.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Danny also has dudes named LeBron, Bosh, Paul Pierce, and now Carmelo perennially ahead of him, where JJ has... DWade.

                Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                I guess guys like Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Michael Redd, Vince Carter and Iguadola don't count.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I guess guys like Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Michael Redd, Vince Carter and Iguadola don't count.
                  All those players are washed up except Iggy ha

                  Follow me @PacerNation_24

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    6 all stars to Joe compared to 1 to Danny proves who the best player is, I know you and others don't want to admit it but It is the true.

                    Just watch how JJ takes another all star this year while Danny("the better player") watch the game from home.
                    I actually feel that JJ is a bit of a better player than DG, just feel the difference is marginal. Me being the homer that I am though, I'm taking DG bc he's the better shooter and gets to the line more.

                    And the players that JJ beat out for those AS appearances (ESP the names you reeled off) aren't exactly a who's who of relevant players over the past 5 years or so. (Cept Ray and Iggy--who plays more of a SF role)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                      I think I made it pretty clear.

                      Danny's still a high usage player. He takes more shots per minute than all SFs except for the big 3. He took just as many shots this year as he did last year, so he didn't exactlly "take a step back", even after we aquired an all star caliber offensive player and Roy developed into an all star. IMO if your gonna take shot attempts like a #1 you ought to be able to do something other then just score the ball.

                      When I'm evaluating a player why should I credit Danny more for his 2 extra FTs a game, than I do Joe for his 2 extra assists?

                      Look, I realize his TS% is higher, and he's technically a more efficient scorer, but scoring is only a small part of offense. There are lots of intangible things I think Joe blows Danny away in; like ball handling, offensive awareness, PnR, isolation abilities, etc... stuff you can't quantify with a statistic (unless you have a synergy account... and they screwed mine up )

                      edit: sorry, but I'm not going to handicap Danny because he's a SF and Joe's a SG. Joe could easily start at SF. In fact he did for a large portion of the season and was better there then at SG.
                      There are other elements to offense, but don't confuse it, scoring is by far the most important part of it, especially for a non point guard wing player. In no way is scoring a "small" part of the offense, it is the ends to which every other part of an offense aspires to. I'm not going to argue whether Danny is the better offensive player, let's not forget, even if Danny is a bit more efficient Joe is a good scorer too, but the purpose of an offense is to score, and especially at Danny and JJ's positions it is the most important aspect of the offensive side of the game.
                      Last edited by daschysta; 08-29-2012, 01:22 AM.
                      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                        Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                        There are other elements to offense, but don't confuse it, scoring is by far the most important part of it, especially for a non point guard wing player. In no way is scoring a "small" part of the offense, it is the ends to which every other part of an offense aspires to. I'm not going to argue whether Danny is the better offensive player, let's not forget, even if Danny is a bit more efficient Joe is a good scorer too, but the purpose of an offense is to score, and especially at Danny and JJ's positions it is the most important aspect of the offensive side of the game.
                        I meant small in the sense that putting the ball in the basket is only 1 of many offensive skills.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

                          Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...
                          While I agree that PER isn't a great stat, are you saying EFF is better?? Somebody was arguing JJ and Monta are better than Danny because of EFF, of all things.

                          EDIT: Btw, I have no problem saying JJ is more skilled than Danny. If we're talking about more efficient though, well that's specific and quantifiable and IMO the stats show Danny to be superior over his career.
                          Last edited by wintermute; 08-29-2012, 03:50 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                            I meant small in the sense that putting the ball in the basket is only 1 of many offensive skills.
                            I'll agree that JJ is a highly skilled player. But that's my problem with his game. He's extremely skilled yet it doesn't actually translate onto the court. He's a lot like Rudy Gay. Both guys can get their shot against anyone, both have great jumpers, all the physical tools in the world yet it has never translated into the type of performance they should be capable of.

                            If you took both JJ and Wade and had them playing in court by themselves and had random observers who had never heard of either player I truly believe all of them would conclude Joe Johnson is probably the best player. Yet in a real world application Wade is all world and Joe is a borderline allstar. Joe should have been great.

                            Rudy should be great too, yet Memphis was ready to trade him this summer because they don't believe he'll ever reach his potential.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              Kind of like when Phil Jackson went with his intuition concerning corner three pointers. There's a real chance Phil Jackson cost the Lakers a championship because he went with his intuition instead of facts.
                              Originally posted by shags View Post
                              You're seriously using Phil Jackson as an argument that coaches using intuition hurts their success. Maybe he'll let you borrow that 11th championship ring that he can't put on his finger.

                              I'm sorry, but Phil Jackson has earned the benefit of the doubt.
                              While I generally disagree with McKeyFan's "Intuition over Integers" rule, I think shags has it right. Anyone questioning Phil Jackson should keep in mind that he's been right a lot more than he's wrong.

                              My view on stats are that they represent a simplified model of reality. More stats gives a more detailed, nuanced view of the reality, which is why I generally support the advanced stats crowd. However, I have no problem accepting that there are some exceptional people who can process the whole complex view of reality in their heads (what one may call "intuition" I guess) who wouldn't need to rely as much on numbers. For the more run-of-the-mill types though (including most GMs and coaches!), stats probably represent a more accurate view.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                                For the record I concluded earlier Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches ever. You obviously do not need statistics at all to understand the game. Watch the game and it doesn't take much to realize what works and what doesn't. However, anyone including Phil Jackson as I stated above, can misconstrue what you're watching.

                                The podcast I linked above showed a massive mistake Phil Jackson made by not helping his already advanced knowledge of the game when he refused to use helpful numbers.

                                In short Phil said this paraphrased: Corner three point shots are bad shots in basketball because they lead to easy fast breaks. Of course it is quite common knowledge at this point that the corner three is actually the best shot in basketball. Phil against Boston had players streaking down the court for fast breaks that never happened. Not only did Boston absolutely rain down hell upon LA from the corners they also ended up getting offensive rebounds as well because Phil had his guys rushing down the court for easy baskets.

                                You can have the greatest understanding in the world of all things basketball without ever using statistics, however they help. A lot. So anyone, even Phil Jackson should try to understand the numbers as they supplement an already vast knowledge of the game.

                                Edit - On another note a lot of times when judging basketball players or coaches in this case, we like to make absolutes. As in "Phil is a great coach and a winner." As if anyone who is great no longer has the ability to ever make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Including Phil Jackson. Including Kobe. Including Michael. Including LeBron. It happens. It doesn't mean you're suddenly a "loser" if you made key mistakes that led to playoff losses. LBJ and Dirk, our last two championship winners are both examples of that. Both had prior NBA Finals appearances where they played bad. They rectified the situation by putting up dominating performances in their next opportunities respectively.

                                Edit - I know you weren't necessarily disagreeing with everything I said wintermute I was simply clarifying the respect I have for Phil Jackson.
                                Last edited by mattie; 08-29-2012, 04:20 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X