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

On Gerald Green's value

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

  • #16
    Re: On Gerald Green's value

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    By the way how many more games until we call the off season a fail? I was told at around 25 games that it was too early, are people still making excuses? not doing a good job at upgrading the bench is going to cost the Pacers on the playoffs.
    The off season might end up being a fail, but we may not be a fail if Vogel is smart about tightening up the rotation.

    Lance at backup point guard, a wing tandem of PG, Danny, Lance, and OJ, and Mahinmi as a backup big is not a bad 8-9 man rotation.

    Most of the off season acquisitions don't help, but the biggest need (backup big) did get addressed with Ian, and the surprises of Lance and OJ get us the rest of the way there.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: On Gerald Green's value

      I could see where a team with a fast paced offense and a great distributing point guard might have an interest in Green. We are not that team.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: On Gerald Green's value

        I don't think giving the front office a singular grade or result for the sum of their off season moves makes a lot of sense or otherwise has much of any use. I think going case by case would make more sense.

        For now, I think Ian is a success, Green is a failure, Orlando is trending positively, Miles is an Incomplete, and DJ is trending very negatively but not quite the failure that Green has been. Small fry signings like Sam and Ben basically get a pass from me unless they make the team noticeably worse or present locker room cancer, so they're fine to me.

        *edit* I forgot to look at our returning FA's. I'd say Hill IMO is a success while Roy is extremely mixed at best.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: On Gerald Green's value

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          By the way how many more games until we call the off season a fail? I was told at around 25 games that it was too early, are people still making excuses? not doing a good job at upgrading the bench is going to cost the Pacers on the playoffs.
          Did we not re-sign George Hill and Roy Hibbert this offseason?

          Beyond those two obvious moves, Ian has been a good pickup and OJ looks like another strong second round selection.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: On Gerald Green's value

            I'll be cheering for Green to win the slam dunk contest, and then maybe some team will see an ability to market him to their fan base as an exciting player, and thus choose to give up an expiring contract of similar value, a few half full tubes of Ben Gay, and maybe a second round pick.

            We then act like we found $20 in the pocket of an old coat.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: On Gerald Green's value

              My initial reaction to our offseason signings was to be skeptical - I didn't like that we were getting 2 former low-minute players in Green and Mahinmi to be our 7th and 8th man basically. Well, it's worked 1 out of 2, so I guess I don't feel too bad about the Green signing now.

              With DJA though, I really thought that he'd be an effective 6th man, possibly playing starter's minutes. In terms of failing to meet expectations, I think DJA has definitely been one of the worst signings for the Pacers in years. The only silver lining is that he's on a short contract and will likely be gone soon.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: On Gerald Green's value

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Apparently the Pacers scouts didn't watch the guy play that much either, anybody could tell that the Pacers were making a huge mistake by signing him to that contract.

                The 3.5 mil a year isn't the issue with Green's contract, the 3 fully guaranteed year contract IS THE ISSUE. This was a major blunder. Even if only the last year was unguaranteed his contract would be so much more tradeable. He'll still be in a uni come next season, so I can only hope he "finds" his game or it's going to be a long 2 more years of Green.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: On Gerald Green's value

                  I still think Green can be okay. I'm hoping this is a learning year, and he just needs to learn how to play on a team better. Similar to Lance, I do not know that he has ever had to learn the little nuisances of the sport.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: On Gerald Green's value

                    I would see if the Thunder would give up Eric Maynor for Gerald Green.

                    Maynor has fallen to 3rd PG and OKC at least runs enough to ponder the appeal of GG playing garbage minutes.

                    Maynor is 6'3" with good pure PG skills and I think he'd run the second unit better than DJ, but then again something has held him back so who knows.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: On Gerald Green's value

                      Originally posted by Goyle View Post
                      Nope. For his production last season, the contract we gave him should have been a steal. It's easy to say "THEY DIDN'T SCOUT HIM ENOUGH" now that he's been so bad. I'll sign a guy scoring 13ppg on great percentages every single offseason. It's going to work out more often than not.

                      I hear ya, but look at Green's career b4 that. That is why I never understood giving Green a fully guaranteed contract. If he his career had been different, then I could better understand the fully guaranteed contract, but it wasn't. Walsh took a flyer, and it's bit him in the ***. It's this type situation where you try and protect yourself from a player not producing. Thus a contract with unguaranteed year/years or a team option. If the player produces, the team just picks up the unguaranteed year, if the player doesn't produce the team doesn't pick up the unguaranteed year.

                      Overall, I'd grade the off season with Mahinmi as good, Augustin as not so good but only on a 1 year deal, and Green, I'll be polite, a poor decision based on the type of contract he was given.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: On Gerald Green's value

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        What is your definition of "fail"? I think Ian was an absolute upgrade over Lou, to the point of saving us from Roy's offensive slumping in some games. DJ was a meh to poor, though he has been doing better. The draft of OJ was good, draft of Miles was meh - so far haven't seen any kind of OMG FAIL! based on those drafted after him, though we have some hints at a player or two who would have been more successful but not any kind of missed star. Green has not lived up to anyone's expectations (even vnzla81 was more against the contract than the acquisition), who expected that?

                        I think we didn't downgrade the bench, improvement remains to be seen once we see more of Lance and Ian on the floor as supporting options for one another off the bench. I wouldn't call it a particular success, but I wouldn't stamp it as a shameful failure either.
                        By off season I mean free agent signings, yes Hill and Hibbert were re-signed and OJ has been a surprised, I'm not talking about them I'm talking about the other "upgrades" the ones that were supposed to put the Pacers on the next level, that has been a fail, yes Ian is an upgrade over Lou but at what cost? Green and DJ have been a fail, and I don't really care about Young or Ben.

                        At the end of the day if you compare this bench to the one last year the bench is worse and that equals a fail off season. By the way I expect Green's and Ian's contract to affect the Pacers the same way Perkins's contract affected OKC, the Pacers are going to get rid of Danny or West because they are paying too much for bench players that don't make a difference.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: On Gerald Green's value

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          I would see if the Thunder would give up Eric Maynor for Gerald Green.

                          Maynor has fallen to 3rd PG and OKC at least runs enough to ponder the appeal of GG playing garbage minutes.

                          Maynor is 6'3" with good pure PG skills and I think he'd run the second unit better than DJ, but then again something has held him back so who knows.
                          That guy is so overrated in my eyes. He can't shoot, he can't score, and he's not an outstanding defender. He literally doesn't do much of anything except make the occasional good pass here or there. The ability to "run a team" is overrated sometimes.

                          Buuuuut if it gets us out of Green's contract, then hell....may have to look into it

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: On Gerald Green's value

                            The thing that bothers me about the Green signing is that he was our first choice and Carlos Delfino was our second choice. In terms of which one was more likely to give you dependable production, I would think Delfino should be the first target, ahead of Green.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: On Gerald Green's value

                              I have used toilet paper with more value then GG

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: On Gerald Green's value

                                Originally posted by dohman View Post
                                I have used toilet paper with more value then GG
                                Why would you keep your used TP ??

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X