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

Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

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

  • #76
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

    Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
    Don't worry, they'll draft his younger brother this summer. One of the Plumlees is bound to be a decent NBA player.
    No.

    I have two brothers, and none of us are NBA players either.
    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


    • #77
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

      The best part about Plumlee: he's likely a borderline rotation player signed to a great contract for a few years. Perfect to round out the roster (basically all that we can afford given how top-heavy this team is). I expect he'll play a bigger role next year.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
        Greg Ostertag averaged 7.1 points in his four-year stay at Kansas, before going on to be a reasonably productive NBA center for the next 12 years.
        Ostertag was 7'2" and also averaged double figures for one of his collegiate seasons.

        I know DeQuan Jones had a Plumlee-esque college career at Miami and he made the Magic roster this season. Of course, he was an undrafted free agent and not a first round pick.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          I have a lot of respect for Thibs, but why Nate is still starting over Teague is absolutely baffling to me.
          Really? I thought Teague looked lost out there for most of the game. It was probably one of his worst games of the season. Both of their PGs got shut down but in the games I've seen the Bulls play, Robinson has been the better PG.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

            Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
            Really? I thought Teague looked lost out there for most of the game. It was probably one of his worst games of the season. Both of their PGs got shut down but in the games I've seen the Bulls play, Robinson has been the better PG.
            I basically agree with you. The simplest way to say it was Nate looked like an NBA player, Teague didn't. Nate makes dumb decisions, but he knows what he's going to do and has the skills to do it. Teague just looked like a guy trying not to mess up. Nate has confidence, Teague didn't.

            Maybe at some point in the future, Teague will learn how to play at the NBA level. But based on this game, he has a long way to go. I didn't see anything that screams NBA player at all in his play.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

              Originally posted by Peck View Post

              • I think it’s well past official time to just come out and say that the Gerald Green signing was a colossal failure. He was brought here to add offense to the club and on a night where our bench scores 8 points he can’t even get on the floor. Second round pick Orlando Johnson & league min. player Sam Young get floor time above him. Barbosa on whatever salary the Celtics signed him for would have been 10 times better than what Green has given us. I keep wondering if Green isn’t some form of payback to Falk (his agent) for something because I just can’t believe that we were bamboozled this badly.

              • George Hill is not the Man when we need to hit a clutch free throw. In fact let us all agree that George Hill needs to get the ball in the hands of about anyone else late in the game if we are down 2 and need free throws to tie.

              • Tyler actually once again played decent defense when he was in. It’s funny because he now can’t score on most nights and his jump shot is just a distant memory but he actually plays solid perimeter defense. Who knew this would happen

              I am a little late to the party. I agree with you that I didn't think the pacers played very well, they played hard, but not that well. But maybe my expecatations have grown so much throughout the season that I just expect a lot more than I did 3 months ago.

              I do want to take issue with the three bullet points I quoted above.

              Green has been a disaster and I have wondered if the Pacers sent a scout to watch him in person for several games last season. If they did and if that scout gave the OK to sign Green, then that scout doesn't know what he is doing. It is obvious watchiung Green more than 1 or 2 games, that he really is awful in knowing how to play the game, and I can understand why Vogel has benched him and seemingly would rather play anything but him.

              I disagree with you about Hill. He's made a lot of clutch free throws, but he's taken a lot of them because he tends to have the ball in his hands a lot when teams are trying to foul. So sure he's missed some. I would like to see his shooting % late in close games. He is a 80.6% FT shooter this season. I'd be very surprised if he shoot less than 78% late in close games. In other words, I think he shoots his average late in close.

              I have always thought Tyler was a very good one-on-one defender. He is a good athlete, quick feet, excellent lateral quickness and aggressive. He's not a quick jumper which hurts him and he's shorter than it appears. So one-on-one I think he's always been good, but his team defense is where he's struggled and still his pick and roll coverage is often poor
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-05-2013, 10:05 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I disagree with you about Hill. He's made a lot of clutch free throws, but he's taken a lot of them because he tends to have the ball in his hands a lot when teams are trying to foul. So sure he's missed some. I would like to see his shooting % late in close games. He is a 80.6% FT shooter this season. I'd be very surprised if he shoot less than 78% late in close games. In other words, I think he shoots his average late in close.
                So far this season, with less than 5 minutes to go in a game that is within plus or minus 5 points, George Hill is 18-25 from the free throw line. 72%.

                http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND2.HTM

                That said, I'm not terribly concerned by it.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  So far this season, with less than 5 minutes to go in a game that is within plus or minus 5 points, George Hill is 18-25 from the free throw line. 72%.

                  http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND2.HTM

                  That said, I'm not terribly concerned by it.
                  So going into the Bulls game he was 18-23 right at 78%.

                  I am not worried, I consider Hill a very clutch player. Hill, West, Paul George and a healthy Granger I am very confident when they go to the FT line late in close games. That doesn't mean they won't miss some. Although somehting about missing two in a row seems really bad

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    When your 2nd pick is better than your 1st pick, I don't call that doing ok. Who is to say the present FO couldn't have done better with the 1st pick? Then we'll never know, but I'd like to think they could have.
                    Plumlee may turn out to be the Pacers worst draft pick ever, I have no idea. But it is way, way, way way too early to know that our second pick is better than our first pick. Too early. Right now, sure he is, but lets wait another two years.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-05-2013, 10:26 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I a scout to watch him in person for several games last season. If they did and if that scout gave the OK to sign Green, then that scout doesn't know what he is doing.
                      Probably the same scout that said Plumlee is the next Jeff Foster. Their games have nothing in common.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        Probably the same scout that said Plumlee is the next Jeff Foster. Their games have nothing in common.
                        Yeah, rebounders and defenders have nothing in common. You can say Foster did it at a much higher level, of course, but Plumlee filled the exact role with Duke that Foster did here. It's easily assumed that it's the very reason why he was brought in, considering the timing with Jeff and all.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                          Originally posted by Goyle View Post
                          "When your 2nd pick is better than your 1st pick, I don't call that doing ok." I'm saying getting value that late is a damn good job drafting.
                          I think we can also say the same about late first round picks, as well, especially in a weak draft. Don't get me wrong, "good" selections have been made in the late first round. But I think more often than not, players that pan out that late in the draft process could be classified as "fortunate" or "lucky". It's kind of similar to a squirrel being lucky enough to sniff out and burrow for a nut in two feet of snow.

                          All I can say is that I don't see Plumlee playing much of a role during the duration of his contract. For that reason, considering our tight cap situation, I think that 1m is a lot to tie up in a practice dummy. The same thing can be said for Green, except that his costs are 3.5m for two more seasons. If the Pacers are able to dump them this summer for the cost of their low first round pick, or even that pick plus this year's AND next year's low, meaningless second round picks, I would do it.

                          Even if the Pacers elect to trade Granger, money will be tight after we sign West. So we need to gain as much wiggle room as possible by dumping the players that will serve no purpose for us. It will take a trade to rid ourselves of Plumlee and Green; the normal expiration of contracts will take of the rest.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            All I can say is that I don't see Plumlee playing much of a role during the duration of his contract. For that reason, considering our tight cap situation, I think that 1m is a lot to tie up in a practice dummy.
                            So they should have traded the pick for a TE?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So they should have traded the pick for a TE?
                              No. My wishes for the pick would have been:
                              1. Trade it with a disposable player for a player that is better or to dump the disposable player's contract.
                              2. Trade it with a disposable player to get a higher pick.
                              3. Trade it with a low-end rotational player to get a much higher pick.
                              4. Use it to draft a player. Who knows? You might get lucky.

                              I would never use a first- round pick for the sole purpose of getting a trade exception. History seems to indicate that we would never use the exception. At least I cannot recall one instance when we have. So, salary dump yes. TE (only) no.

                              And, please keep in mind I'm talking about low draft position. I couldn't really say where my cut- off point would be. It would depend on how weak the draft was and what players were likely to be available at our draft position.

                              But even in not using the pick for selection, there will always be a player or two selected at your position or lower that pans out. The real kicker is whether you would actually have been knowledgeable enough, or more often, "lucky" enough, to actually select one of them. But no matter what, someone will always call out TPTB for missing that nut in that two feet of snow.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                                So a 1M practice dummy is too expensive with the cap situation going on, but taking that 1M combining another player/salary with it, and turning it into one player with a bigger salary is the better option?

                                Maybe for actual basketball reasons, depending on who you get in return, but I would think for salary situations 2 players at X amount is better than one player at X amount.


                                I'm all for trying to turn a pick or a bench player into a different player that contributes, but the salary situation is going to get that much tighter.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X