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

How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

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

  • How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

    Conrad Brunner wrote the article and I agree with all of it, he says the 3 things the Pacers need to do are A) let Hansbrough walk because Pendy is a cheaper option and you still have Plumlee B) find a shooter, like a Kyle Korver or a J.J. Reduce type if player, and C) find a real point guard, he recommends Jose Calderon or Jarrett Jack which I agree with both of those, his reasoning is that you have a little bit more than $5 million to spend, and it would be easier to sign a Jarrett Jack or Jose Calderon who gives you a back-up PG and a shooter instead of signing a cheap (and probably not very good) point guard and shooter seperatly, I think this is exactly what we need to do with our bench, let Tyler walk, resign Pendy and let him and Plumlee compete, and sign a Jarrett Jack, Jose Calderon, or a Beno Udrih, what do you guys think?

    http://blogs.1070thefan.com/2013/06/...aguered-bench/
    Here's the article if you want to read it

  • #2
    Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

    I agree
    I'm not perfect and neither are you.

    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
    Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

      I can't help but think that what Brunner wrote has long been said here (long meaning post game 7)
      Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

        I am having flashbacks of Jarret Jack's jumping up in the air to pass the ball moments. During the W's playoff run felt like sooner or later he would revert and play them 'out of a game' a la 'Nate Robinson'. We were a worse team back then over all, memory certainly clouded by that.
        ! Free Rick Sanchez !

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

          gimme korver please. we need a 3 point threat really bad, someone that can just come in and knock consecutive threes would be nice to see

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

            Here's the full article so that it's easier to read:

            http://blogs.1070thefan.com/2013/06/...aguered-bench/

            Time to try again.

            You didn’t like Darren Collison, Leandro Barbosa, Dahntay Jones and Lou Amundson, so you replaced them with D.J. Augustin, Gerald Green, Sam Young and Ian Mahinmi. How’d that work out?

            Not so well, obviously.

            And so here we sit once again, heading into an offseason in which one of the biggest priorities – second only to re-signing David West – will be rebuilding the bench.

            During the conference finals, the Pacers outscored Miami by 46 points when the starting lineup was on the floor. Every other combination was outscored by 74.

            The bench was outscored in the final 17 playoff games by an average margin of 11.9 points.

            You cannot simply cross your fingers and hope Danny Granger comes back something close to 100 percent, shifting Lance Stephenson to the second unit, and that somehow will make it all better.

            The front office rolled the dice on that at the trade deadline and came up snake-eyes.

            The second unit needs comprehensive change, and here is one potential blueprint keeping in mind financial realities. Next year’s salary cap is projected at $58.5 million. Re-signing West at even a slight bump will eat most, if not all, of their space, so tough financial decisions will have to be made elsewhere.

            >> Let Tyler Hansbrough start – somewhere else

            It’s obvious Hansbrough does not have the physical or mental makeup to be a productive reserve. He has put up respectable numbers as a fill-in starter but assuming West is re-signed, there is no chance of that in Indiana. With a qualifying offer of $4.225 million, he is simply too costly to keep, particularly when Jeff Pendergraph and Plumlee are much less expensive options. Pendergraph has showed he brings the same kind of energy to the floor, although occasionally misdirected. Frankly, we don’t know what to expect from Plumlee, but he does have physical gifts that intrigue.

            >> Go get a shooter

            Even if Granger does return, the Pacers need an insurance policy against future breakdowns. He’s 30, coming off more than a year loaded with major and minor knee procedures, and that does not bode well. Assuming the best-case scenario, Granger expects to start, reasonable given his status and past production. Stephenson is a nice energy player and might become a greater offensive threat off the bench, but that does not reduce the need for a defense-stretching 3-point shooter – Kyle Korver or someone like him. The Pacers investigated a J.J. Redick deal in February but he was deemed too expensive. If Redick would be willing to take less money to join a contender, he could kill two birds with one stone – backup point guard and designated shooter. If not, Korver would be an excellent Plan B.

            >> Find a legitimate backup point guard

            Augustin was much more of a shooter than a floor general, and in fact didn’t even shoot that well. The Pacers would’ve been better off keeping A.J. Price. There is some sentiment that what they really need is to get a better starter than George Hill, and there is merit to that train of thought. But Hill has command of the team on the floor and respect in the locker room, and those are intangibles worthy of building upon, not casting aside. The more realistic solution is to find a true point guard to both back up Hill and push him to continue to improve. Once teams spend big money on Chris Paul and Brandon Jennings, the Pacers could take a look at guys like Jose Calderon or Jarrett Jack, assuming they would be affordable. They won’t have the money to spend in the $5 million range on both a shooter and a backup point guard, which is why the best solution is to find both in one player. Redick, Calderon or Jack would fill that particular bill nicely.
            I agree that going with Pendy as the backup PF would be the better option since he will be cheaper and will allow for more $$$ to go to the backup PG spot....but I still find it difficult to believe that the FO will give up on Hansbrough. In the end....I recognize that there are limited $$$ that can be spent on Free Agents and that most of it will go to West. With the remaining $$$, I think that the bulk of it should go to getting a quality backup PG. If a quality Backup PG could be had for roughly $4 mil a year....then I'd live with Pendy and Granger splitting backup PF minutes.

            Also.....Reddik isn't a PG.
            Last edited by CableKC; 06-06-2013, 02:19 AM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

              Calderon is not a great shooter. He's a great facilitator, but I remember his reluctance to shoot the damn ball being a problem in Toronto.

              Personally, I'd love to get him. I think he'd be the ideal guy to pair with Lance on the 2nd unit: a fantastic PG that moves the ball and controls the offense. Lance could go absolutely nuts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                Originally posted by MrHale View Post
                gimme korver please. we need a 3 point threat really bad, someone that can just come in and knock consecutive threes would be nice to see
                A-freakin-men. The Pacers don't have hardly anybody on the team that is automatic without a hand in their face. A lot of times that's why our offense stalls if we're not scoring down low. Desperately need a couple more shooters on the team.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  A-freakin-men. The Pacers don't have hardly anybody on the team that is automatic without a hand in their face. A lot of times that's why our offense stalls if we're not scoring down low. Desperately need a couple more shooters on the team.
                  With PG/Lance/Granger getting the bulk of the minutes....I don't think we'd have enough playing time to give another Wing Player like Korver or Reddick enough minutes to justify him choosing Indy over any other Team that would likely have a greater role and more minutes.

                  I'm inclined to believe that we would only have minutes and the $$$ to go look for the best Backup PG that can run the offense and shoot the 3pt shot. I'm guessing that Calderon could fit that role as a facilitator and a fairly solid 3pt shooter.....but I think that he'll stay in Detroit as the Starter ( as opposed to the backup PG getting 20-24 mpg ).
                  Last edited by CableKC; 06-06-2013, 02:40 AM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    With PG/Lance/Granger getting the bulk of the minutes....I don't think we'd have enough playing time to give to Korver or Reddick to entice either of them to come.

                    I'm inclined to believe that we would only have minutes and the $$$ to go look for the best Backup PG that can run the offense and shoot the 3pt shot.
                    Who's to say our backup PG won't be our first round draft pick? Haven't studied the prospects really but I think there are some guys that could contribute right away.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                      Either Korver or Belinelli would be fine with me. I think OJ can play that role sooner rather than later though.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                        Get Jarrett Jack, move Hill to the 2, have Paul at the 3, West at the 4, Hibbert.

                        Then second unit has DJ at the 1, Lance at the 2, Danny at the 3, ? at the 4, Ian at the 5.

                        First unit offense runs more smoothly than it currently does because both JJack and Hill can either score or pass, and the increase in offense more than offsets the decreased defense.

                        Second unit is drastically improved on both ends of the floor even if Hans is retained cheap to be the 4 (which I doubt).

                        Get rid of Pendergraph, Orlando Johnson, try to get something - anything - for Green, keep Plumlee to see if he can somehow develop (maybe try him as the 4 at some points just to see what he can do), let Ben Hansbrough go. Keep Sam Young for defensive stopper purposes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                          Get Jarrett Jack, move Hill to the 2, have Paul at the 3, West at the 4, Hibbert.

                          Then second unit has DJ at the 1, Lance at the 2, Danny at the 3, ? at the 4, Ian at the 5.

                          First unit offense runs more smoothly than it currently does because both JJack and Hill can either score or pass, and the increase in offense more than offsets the decreased defense.

                          Second unit is drastically improved on both ends of the floor even if Hans is retained cheap to be the 4 (which I doubt).

                          Get rid of Pendergraph, Orlando Johnson, try to get something - anything - for Green, keep Plumlee to see if he can somehow develop (maybe try him as the 4 at some points just to see what he can do), let Ben Hansbrough go. Keep Sam Young for defensive stopper purposes.

                          Get rid of OJ? He really hasn't even got a chance yet.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                            Originally posted by Derek2k3 View Post
                            Calderon is not a great shooter. He's a great facilitator, but I remember his reluctance to shoot the damn ball being a problem in Toronto.

                            Personally, I'd love to get him. I think he'd be the ideal guy to pair with Lance on the 2nd unit: a fantastic PG that moves the ball and controls the offense. Lance could go absolutely nuts.
                            Calderon shot an astounding 46% from 3 this season. He can definitely shoot.

                            I agree would be a dream back up point guard in my eyes
                            //

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: How to fix the Pacers bench (Brunner article)

                              I think the best way to fix the bench is by getting a veteran backcourt instead of young inexperienced players. I'd love to see Calderon in a Pacers uni, but I'd be just as happy with Billups. Heck, get the three former Pistons Rip, Tayshaun, and Chauncey Then go after Korver, and O'Neal. That's a veteran bench. Mahimi/JO/Korver/Lance/Billups and if the JO experiment doesn't work out, there's always Pendy.
                              Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X