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

BUMPED: Confidence in Plumlee

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

  • #16
    Re: Confidence in Plumlee

    I've actually watched a few games Miles had with the Mad Ants and he tore it up in the D-league. Actually had one of the nicer alley oop dunks I've seen (looked like he was riding a bicycle the way he was kicking his legs).

    He is raw as hell which to me is a couple of things both of which are surprising and frankly a little disappointing.

    1. Coming out of Duke I would have thought that he would at least have a very basic fundamental grip on the basics of basketball. Obviously I don't watch college but I always was told Duke had one of the better programs.

    2. At his age he doesn't have much time to match up his development with his athletic ability. In other words the reason he was drafted (huge leaping ability and agility) are probably not going to be there for him when he actually is ready to play so that begs the question if he will be able to translate any skill into his position.

    Now this doesn't mean I don't think he can develop but I'm just a little surprised he is not further along than he is.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      You're willing to give Plumlee the benefit of the doubt by giving him time to develop, but not any other player drafted after Plumlee. Personally, I see Teague, Moultrie, Ezeli, and Taylor all having a better career than Plumlee. It will be interesting to review this in say 2 years.

      In 2 years, if PJIII is developing nicely, I'll be extremely disappointed, but understand his health was a issue not to draft him. Then if you are taking a chance on drafting Plumlee with his credentials, why not take a chance on PJIII? You are only talking about 1 mil contracts for 2 years for either one. Some times you roll the dice and take a chance.
      And a lot of you guys are only willing to give guys like Teague and PJIII a chance to develop and not Plumlee.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Confidence in Plumlee

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        I don't know about current day, but Jeff was absolutely in the war room during the draft. Somebody, Wells, Pritchard, Benner, I can't remember who, posted a shot and Jeff was off to the side. I'd dig it up if it mattered that much.
        I remember someone also saying that Foster was quoted as really liking Plumlee.

        That 13% can be easily explained away as a statistical anomaly based on the small amount of minutes and shots he has taken.

        I will give Plumless until next year to prove he belongs in this league before I make any kind of judgement on him. If he can't find his way into some rotational minutes by next year, well at least this draft wasn't a total waste. Thank you Orlando.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Confidence in Plumlee

          I'm still going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can see why people are upset with the pick. He wasn't that productive in college, and it's not like he's necessarily oozing upside as he's already 24.

          If we were just wanting someone who's athletic and can rebound off the bench, he may be our guy, but it'll be interesting to see if the other guys taken around him are able to evolve into anything other than that kind of "niche" player.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Confidence in Plumlee

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

            This off-season (draft & signings) made one thing clear. The FO felt that our 2nd unit lacked size and athleticism. Miles, Ian and GG were brought in for this very reason, in my opinion.
            But it doesn't mean they achieved their goals.

            Mahinmi... goal achieved.

            Green... definately has athleticism, but has mostly been a disappointment so far.

            Plumlee... has size, but the size and supposed athleticism does nothing when you aren't playing in the game. The Pacers needed a better bench and Plumlee does nothing to improve it.

            When Bird drafted Plumlee, none of the other player acquistions had been made. How Bird thought Plumlee was going to help the Pacers this year is a mystery to me when knowing very well the Pacers bench HAD to be strengthened for the coming season. The drafting of Plumlee wasn't the answer to strengthen the bench for this season, maybe not for years to come if ever.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Confidence in Plumlee

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              1. Coming out of Duke I would have thought that he would at least have a very basic fundamental grip on the basics of basketball. Obviously I don't watch college but I always was told Duke had one of the better programs.
              I'm not well versed in College basketball either but from what I've heard Duke is a perimeter heavy program that mainly uses bigs as screeners / rebounders.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                But it doesn't mean they achieved their goals.

                Mahinmi... goal achieved.

                Green... definately has athleticism, but has mostly been a disappointment so far.

                Plumlee... has size, but the size and supposed athleticism does nothing when you aren't playing in the game. The Pacers needed a better bench and Plumlee does nothing to improve it.

                When Bird drafted Plumlee, none of the other player acquistions had been made. How Bird thought Plumlee was going to help the Pacers this year is a mystery to me when knowing very well the Pacers bench HAD to be strengthened for the coming season. The drafting of Plumlee wasn't the answer to strengthen the bench for this season, maybe not for years to come if ever.
                1) Green and Plumlee are certainly more athletic than the players we had on the bench last season. Whether this has helped or not is not the point. We can argue all day long which bench is better as a unit / players but it cannot be disputed which bench contains the better athletes.

                2) Strengthening the bench was indeed our major need. When Bird drafted Plumlee, Ian was not traded to us yet. We desperately needed a backup Center. Bird got us one because we couldn't be sure that we would get one in the off-season. Pritchard got us one as well
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  I'm not well versed in College basketball either but from what I've heard Duke is a perimeter heavy program that mainly uses bigs as screeners / rebounders.
                  Duke does not have a history of producing good NBA talent despite their excellence at the college level, but that is not all that uncommon. Just look at Indiana, how many good NBA players has it produced over the course of the past 40 years? Maybe 3 to 5, and dozens of mediocre talent despite all of that success at the college level. I am sure Kansas is not much different. The style of play in the NBA is just drastically different, and it benefits players who are more athletic and better 1v1.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                    Originally posted by Goyle View Post
                    And a lot of you guys are only willing to give guys like Teague and PJIII a chance to develop and not Plumlee.
                    Maybe they see more potential in them than Plumlee.

                    Like others, what bothers me is Plumlee is 24 1/2 years old, and he did little playing in a great program like Duke. He's already had 67 games to show something, and he's had more PT in the last 2 blowout games than good portions of the season with little to show for it. He's played 41 min in 11 games this season. I don't want to hear it's due to the Pacers are the 7th best team or there hasn't been that many opportunities to play him. Juice has played over 10 times the minutes as Plumlee as a 2nd round pick on the same team. The reason that Plumlee isn't playing is, b/c he can't. Even the Pacers announcers recently stated the Pacers couldn't determine what they had in Plumlee. He hadn't been able to show them much. At his age how much longer can you wait to get a productive payback on drafting him? The name Magnum Rolle come to mind with all his athleticism when I think of Plumlee. The only difference might be one has a guaranteed contract and the other didn't.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                      The depth on the wings is a little different than the depth in the middle. Do you envision Miles lasting longer than 10 seasons in the NBA? If the answer is "no" then his age is moot.

                      The thing that was highly noticeable last night was his sheer size. He's much larger than what he was at Duke. It looks like he's put on a pretty good amount of mass.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        1) Green and Plumlee are certainly more athletic than the players we had on the bench last season. Whether this has helped or not is not the point. We can argue all day long which bench is better as a unit / players but it cannot be disputed which bench contains the better athletes.

                        2) Strengthening the bench was indeed our major need. When Bird drafted Plumlee, Ian was not traded to us yet. We desperately needed a backup Center. Bird got us one because we couldn't be sure that we would get one in the off-season. Pritchard got us one as well
                        AGAIN, how does Bird drafting Plumlee strengthen the bench for the this season? You need not answer b/c the answer is it didn't. Bird and the Pacers were in a "win now mode", and Plumlee wasn't going to help win now. Giving Plumlee the benefit of the doubt, maybe in the 14-15 season 2 years from now. Again, that's giving Plumlee the benefit of the doubt.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                          2) Strengthening the bench was indeed our major need. When Bird drafted Plumlee, Ian was not traded to us yet. We desperately needed a backup Center. Bird got us one because we couldn't be sure that we would get one in the off-season. Pritchard got us one as well

                          So Bird drafted Plumlee with the thinking Plumlee was going to be good enough to b/u Hibbert from the get go? Your're too astute of a BB person to believe that. I'm not sure the greatest Plumlee apologist believes that scenario. I do believe Bird drafted Plumlee for sometime down the road, but not this year. If he did, then he made a huge blunder.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Juice has played over 10 times the minutes as Plumlee as a 2nd round pick on the same team.
                            The situation is not the same, though.

                            The Pacers have had a significant injury at SF (Granger) plus their back-up PG (Augustin) and back-up SF (Green) have had played poorly for significant parts of the season as well. Help on the perimeter was needed and thus OJ got his fair share of opportunities. He did make them count though so I'm happy

                            Plumlee is in a different situation. The starting front court has been healthy and their back-ups (Mahinmi, Tyler and a little bit of Pendergraph) are playing quite good. There is no room for Plumlee at all this season mainly because our front court has played good.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              AGAIN, how does Bird drafting Plumlee strengthen the bench for the this season? You need not answer b/c the answer is it didn't. Bird and the Pacers were in a "win now mode", and Plumlee wasn't going to help win now. Giving Plumlee the benefit of the doubt, maybe in the 14-15 season 2 years from now. Again, that's giving Plumlee the benefit of the doubt.
                              We lacked a back-up Center against the Heat. Plumlee can be a back-up Center.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Confidence in Plumlee

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                So Bird drafted Plumlee with the thinking Plumlee was going to be good enough to b/u Hibbert from the get go? Your're too astute of a BB person to believe that. I'm not sure the greatest Plumlee apologist believes that scenario. I do believe Bird drafted Plumlee for sometime down the road, but not this year. If he did, then he made a huge blunder.
                                I believe that he drafted Plumlee as a worst case scenario. If we couldn't find a Center in the off-season without overpaying then we would get something else and just use Miles as back-up 5. Luckily, we did found a back-up 5 but it was a major need to have some size at the back-up 5 after what happened in the playoffs last season
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X