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

Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

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

  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    We aren't friends, Nuntius. I can't decide if you are purposefully obtuse or genuinely deluded with the dishonesty of your arguments and inability to maintain context, but I just don't value our exchanges anymore as I simply don't respect you or your opinions any longer. I'm going to put you on ignore.

    I know the average BBIQ of this board has dropped a lot with the reduced contribitions from Count, JayRedd, Tbird, Chicago J, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but I can't believe such a simple statement as the offensively oriented all star center is a better offensive player than the defensively oriented one. I'm genuinely disheartened with the (lack of) quality on this board lately.
    Dece, it's a habit of mine to address others as "my friend" in a forum. I just dislike saying "dude" or something like that as it comes off as too aggressive for my taste. Don't read too much into it. It's just the way I address people.

    Also, to answer your simple statement. I didn't say that Hibbert is a better offensive player than Lopez. I said that Hibbert is better at creating his own shot and creating for others while Lopez is a better volume scorer. That's what I have said in this subject.

    In any case, I'll have fun in your ignore list. You have every right to not respect me or my opinions.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      My friend, I still believe that our system doesn't need a real point guard and George Hill is indeed excellent for what we're trying to do, imo.

      Dece, you said something that is absolutely wrong here:



      Who said that our system does not give us a ton of assisted buckets?

      Let's check out the percentage of assisted buckets for the other 4 of our starters:

      David West was assisted in 63.3% of his baskets in the regular season and 66.1% of his baskets during the playoffs. So, David was assisted significantly more than Roy.

      Paul George was assisted in 57.6% of his baskets in the regular season and 48.7% of his baskets during the playoffs. He was assisted more than Roy in the RS but less than him in the playoffs since he shared ball handling duties with George Hill.

      Lance Stephenson was assisted in 58.9% of his baskets in the regular season and 50.7% of his baskets during the playoffs. Lance was assisted more than Roy in the RS and a bit more in the playoffs after Vogel gave him the green light to create for himself and attack after a defensive rebound (we all remember his coast to coast baskets).

      George Hill was assisted in 44.8% of his baskets in the regular season and 48.2% of his baskets during the playoffs. He was the only player that was consistently assisted less than Roy and that makes sense since he is the PG so he's the one that gets to assist others instead of the opposite.

      Let's check our back-ups a bit:

      Ian Mahinmi: 69.8% in the RS, 53.8% in the playoffs (7 assisted out of 13 baskets)

      Tyler Hansbrough: 52.8% in the RS, 46.2% in the playoffs (12 out of 26)

      Orlando Johnson: 61.1% in the RS, 50% in the playoffs (1 out of 2)

      DJ Augustin: 64.1% in the RS, 70.4% in the playoffs

      Sam Young: 63.8% in the RS, 66.7% in the playoffs

      Gerald Green: 63.2% in the RS, 61.9% in the playoffs

      Jeff Pendergraph: 80.3% in the RS, 62.5% in the playoffs

      Our second unit was in contrast with our first unit. Our first unit had players that could create their own shot and thus they didn't rely on being assisted by their teammates. The second unit had only 1 such player (Hansbrough) and thus needed to be assisted in a much higher rate. And they were.

      Dece, I never said that the Pacers can do no wrong and have no weaknesses. We certainly have weaknesses. Every team does. We have weakness in both sides of the floor.

      Defensively, we struggle against big men that can shoot the long range jumper. That's why we lost all of our games against Brooklyn. We cannot defend the Deron Williams - Brook Lopz PnP well. With the addition of KG and PP, I expect the Nets to be even tougher opponents for us (since we didn't beat the Celtics last year either).

      We also struggle against top notch ball movement. We couldn't hope to defend the Spurs at all, for example. When the Orlando Magic used the Spurs playbook against us, they blew us out.

      Offensively, we lacked spacing due to Danny's injury and Green's inability to shoot after January (also caused by an injury). We weren't a huge threat from 3 and that allowed opposing teams to double down on our bigs in the post more often.

      We were also turnover prone. Our less turnover prone was George Hill at 10.7% turnover rate. West was at 12%, Lance at 14.4%, Roy at 14.5% and PG at 15.2%. Paul George has to clean up his handles more, Roy has to learn to play better against double teams, Lance has to stay in control more and West has to attempt safer passes more often.

      I never said that we are without weaknesses, my friend. I just believe that we can make this work in the end. You don't believe that. That's the difference between the two of us. That's why we disagree a lot in these forums.

      You said in a previous post of yours in this very thread that you have watched basketball physically a lot more than some of other members of this forum. I have no reason to doubt you, of course. But does that makes you any more qualified to speak about basketball than us? No, it doesn't.

      At the start of the season, you said that when we face the Grizzlies we will see which is the best rebounding and defensive team in the league. Which team ended up being the best rebounding and defensive team in the league? The Pacers. The Grizzlies were 2nd in both categories and they were excellent at both tasks but the Pacers were a tad better.

      When Roy Hibbert was shooting below 40% (39.7% it was at the time if my memory serves me right), we placed a bet. I said that Hibbert would reach 45% by the end of the season. You said that you didn't think that it would happen but you'd like it to happen because that would help us win games. Hibbert ended the season shooting 44.8%. I lost the bet but Hibbert improved more than you expected and helped us win games. We were both happy about it.

      Before the playoffs we placed another bet. It was a sig bet this time. You said that we weren't going to advance past the second round. In fact, you were so down due to our late season play (which was horrific, I agree) that you doubted if we were going to be able to advance past the first round. In any case, I took the bet. As expected, we advanced past the second round. We reached the ECF and we pushed the eventual champs to a game 7.

      Reaching the ECF looked like a pipe dream to you. To me, it looked like the natural course of events. It is the end result of the internal development that we witnessed throughout the season. But that's exactly why you don't believe in this team. You don't see this internal development. You don't see the improvement. You refuse to acknowledge it when it happens and come up with excuses as to why it happened (such as "the Pacers are in the East so it doesn't court"). You don't give credit where credit is due, my friend. That's why we disagree all the time. Because I pressure you to acknowledge the team's efforts and that's something that for whatever reason you don't feel comfortable doing.

      I never said that the Pacers are perfect, Dece. I don't believe in perfection, anyway. What I have always said is that you consistently underestimate this team and its players. That's all.
      Lol dayum Nun, you KILLED it with this (and the other) post!

      I think he put you on ignore because you won "the bet" lol

      Comment


      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        Don't worry Nuntius we can be friends.

        The assisted numbers remind me of the same argument that people had with liking Humphries over West. They simply didn't evaluate offensive system and the lil point of playing with an all star point guard.

        I still think Brook Lopez would be a efficent player in a different system but he wouldn't be as efficient on the offensive end.
        Haha, thanks

        Lopez would certainly be an efficient player in another system. He is a great PnP player and he doesn't need Deron to do that. Lopez has an excellent mid range shot and he's a skilled offensive player so he would be efficient in most systems.

        It's just that the nature of his offensive talents make him more team reliant than Hibbert or Marc Gasol.

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Lol dayum Nun, you KILLED it with this (and the other) post!

        I think he put you on ignore because you won "the bet" lol
        Nah, I'm aware that I can be pretty annoying when I insist on something
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

          12 players

          Hibbert 14,283,844
          West 12,000,000
          Granger 14,021,788
          George 3,282,003
          Hill 8,000,000
          Mahinmi 4,000,000
          Green 3,500,000
          Plumlee 1,121,520
          Stephenson 930,000
          Johnson 788,872
          Hill 1,300,000
          Watson 2,000,000

          Total Salary 65,228,057
          LT 71,600,000
          Spendable salary 6,371,943


          Numbers from Shamsports.com excluding West, Watson and Hill
          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

          Comment


          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            If that's what you are reading than it's simply a product of woeful reading comprehension.
            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            We aren't friends, Nuntius. I can't decide if you are purposefully obtuse or genuinely deluded with the dishonesty of your arguments and inability to maintain context
            I won't look up all your post in this thread in which you have insulted other respected members of this forum, but I will ask this. Are you intentionally trying to **** off everyone or did someone take a leak in your corn flakes this morning?

            There is nothing wrong at all with trying to give support to your own opinion, but to do it in this nature is simply uncalled for.

            I'm genuinely disheartened with the (lack of) quality on this board lately.
            You have certainly been contributing to that lack of quality you perceive. Surely you can do better than this, as I think you have in the past.
            Last edited by Tom White; 07-02-2013, 01:58 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

              Could this work salary wise?

              Starting line:
              George Hill
              Tony Allen
              Paul George
              David West
              Roy Hibbert

              Bench:
              C.J. Watson
              Lance Stephenson
              Danny Granger
              Carl Landry
              Ian M.

              Wild Cards:
              Copeland
              Solomon Hill

              This is my dream for next season lol

              Comment


              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                Originally posted by DJVendetta View Post
                Could this work salary wise?

                Starting line:
                George Hill
                Tony Allen
                Paul George
                David West
                Roy Hibbert

                Bench:
                C.J. Watson
                Lance Stephenson
                Danny Granger
                Carl Landry
                Ian M.

                Wild Cards:
                Copeland
                Solomon Hill

                This is my dream for next season lol
                keep dreaming lol

                Comment


                • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                  would Tony Allen cost us that much? especially if we dont sign Tyler and Don't sign Copeland?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                    Originally posted by DJVendetta View Post
                    would Tony Allen cost us that much? especially if we dont sign Tyler and Don't sign Copeland?
                    we would barely have enough $ to sign Landry alone, we wont be able to sign TA right now as it is he would cost too much. Take TA out of your lineup and pick Landry or Copeland and that is all we can afford

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                      fair enough, still great line ups we got coming if we get Landry, and possibly Copeland. I feel like Christian Watford would be a cheaper alternative to Copeland...younger with more upside (assuming his shot translates into the NBA)

                      Comment


                      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        "Sources say" Jarrett Jack wants 7 mil a year minimum

                        http://www.ibabuzz.com/warriors/2013...yre-not-alone/
                        What Teams can offer him that?
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013


                          Comment


                          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            What Teams can offer him that?
                            I had a feeling Jack would be trying to win the lottery.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                              lol Bynum refuses to workout for any teams until he is signed....shame

                              Comment


                              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                                Webster deal is the full MLE, 4/$22. Glad we didn't do something like that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X