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

Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

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

  • #91
    Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    There won't be any cap space or money to bring anybody like that, either way the Pacers are trying to win a title this year too so waiting for next year to make something happen wouldn't be smart.

    And Nash is not 80 years old he was able to average almost 13 and 7 while playing with cry baby Howard and ball hog Kobe so sure his numbers went down but there are a lot of reasons why that happened(Hill was 14 and 5 last year).

    Nash is a hall of famer for a reason, the guy is one of the best point guards ever, acting like he can't help a contender is really trying to argue for the sake of arguing, by the way where are the people that thought Nash and Howard was going to give LA another championship or multiple championships? now all of the sudden Nash sucks and is old? it doesn't make any sense.
    You forget I'm a Laker fan as well, I watched just about every game last year, and Nash is about done. He hasn't been the same for about 2 yr now. He gets by on smarts, and the fact that he's a great shooter. But He can't guard anyone at all. He lacks speed/quickness to the point that Guards are starting to pressure him full court, then back off him because they know he's looking to pass and rarely to shoot. Also, and he'll only be effective in a high pick&roll offense that the pacers don't really play. He's about the worst fit for at the guard position for this team there is....it's like putting a true PG in the triangle (JKidd in his early years with DAL, GP with the Lakers) the idea is nice, but it doesn't fit.

    I do agree with the rest of your post. If we can't trade Danny and another asset (if necessary) then you're right we won't be able to sign the type of player we need. But at the same time. I don't think we are in total, title or bust mode though. Yes we want to win this year, but makin a trade for Nash isn't putting us over the top anymore than letting DG expire at the end of the year. That's all I'm saying lol

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Well, Reggie did push off. But you're right, 45 pushed off on Russel too. A lot of guys have gotten away with it over the years.
      Rik Smits pushed off Russell? When?

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        You forget I'm a Laker fan as well, I watched just about every game last year, and Nash is about done. He hasn't been the same for about 2 yr now. He gets by on smarts, and the fact that he's a great shooter. But He can't guard anyone at all. He lacks speed/quickness to the point that Guards are starting to pressure him full court, then back off him because they know he's looking to pass and rarely to shoot. Also, and he'll only be effective in a high pick&roll offense that the pacers don't really play. He's about the worst fit for at the guard position for this team there is....it's like putting a true PG in the triangle (JKidd in his early years with DAL, GP with the Lakers) the idea is nice, but it doesn't fit.

        I do agree with the rest of your post. If we can't trade Danny and another asset (if necessary) then you're right we won't be able to sign the type of player we need. But at the same time. I don't think we are in total, title or bust mode though. Yes we want to win this year, but makin a trade for Nash isn't putting us over the top anymore than letting DG expire at the end of the year. That's all I'm saying lol
        Since when anybody cares if Nash can play D or not? lol he has never been able to play D, I don't want him because of his D off the bench I want him because of his shooting, passing ability, shot creation and everything else he brings, now if I was talking about him been the starter then you are right but I'm not saying that.

        If we wanted somebody because of their D we wouldn't have Watson, Scola and Copeland off the bench either.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Since when anybody cares if Nash can play D or not? lol he has never been able to play D, I don't want him because of his D off the bench I want him because of his shooting, passing ability, shot creation and everything else he brings, now if I was talking about him been the starter then you are right but I'm not saying that.

          If we wanted somebody because of their D we wouldn't have Watson, Scola and Copeland off the bench either.
          Watson is a much better defender than Nash though, and he was the point guard of Chicago's best defensive unit two years ago.

          I think the bigger issue is that even a simple Nash-for-Granger swap (assume we also grab an expiring to make it work) will put us either just under or over luxury tax threshold next season with only 12 players on the roster, including the < $1 million salaries of OJ and Sloan. If Paul George makes an all-NBA squad we would definitely be over the tax threshold. If we acquire Nash we have rework the entire bench for sure, and that's assuming you just let Lance walk.
          Last edited by aamcguy; 10-28-2013, 09:03 PM.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
            Watson is a much better defender than Nash though, and he was the point guard of Chicago's best defensive unit two years ago.

            I think the bigger issue is that even a simple Nash-for-Granger swap (assume we also grab an expiring to make it work) will put us either just under or over luxury tax threshold next season with only 12 players on the roster, including the < $1 million salaries of OJ and Sloan. If Paul George makes an all-NBA squad we would definitely be over the tax threshold. If we acquire Nash we have rework the entire bench for sure, and that's assuming you just let Lance walk.
            Oh yeah there is no doubt Watson is a better defender than Nash(not like Watson is a lockdown defender either), if you read my previous posts I'm saying that other pieces have to be included so we are able to keep Lance.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

              The subtle shots Simmons takes at Indiana shows how much he dislikes the Pacers. What a hack......
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Oh yeah there is no doubt Watson is a better defender than Nash(not like Watson is a lockdown defender either), if you read my previous posts I'm saying that other pieces have to be included so we are able to keep Lance.
                How much do you think Lance is going to make? I think in order to make room for Lance's contract we would need to find ways to move 2 of Mahinmi, Scola, and Copeland or move a starter in purely salary dump moves. I think it would hurt us more than help us, because the cost would get higher the worse the player we're moving is.

                There are really only two ways I see us moving Granger:
                1) He can't get on the floor at all and some team with a good player on a large expiring contract wants him to finish off their tank job.
                2) We have a season-ending injury to George Hill or a big and we can move Granger (healthy or injured) for a replacement (again an expiring) so we stay in contention.

                I think they will have to sour on either Ian or Scola before doing anything that requires a major shakeup of the roster for next season.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                  The reason people didn't care about Nash's bad defense is because he was amazing on offense. I don't think he's amazing anymore. He's just okay.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    The subtle shots Simmons takes at Indiana shows how much he dislikes the Pacers. What a hack......
                    Wait, I don't understand why he's a hack for not liking the Pacers?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                      Simmons likes the Pacers. The guy has been hyping Paul George since he was a rookie.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        How much do you think Lance is going to make? I think in order to make room for Lance's contract we would need to find ways to move 2 of Mahinmi, Scola, and Copeland or move a starter in purely salary dump moves. I think it would hurt us more than help us, because the cost would get higher the worse the player we're moving is.

                        There are really only two ways I see us moving Granger:
                        1) He can't get on the floor at all and some team with a good player on a large expiring contract wants him to finish off their tank job.
                        2) We have a season-ending injury to George Hill or a big and we can move Granger (healthy or injured) for a replacement (again an expiring) so we stay in contention.

                        I think they will have to sour on either Ian or Scola before doing anything that requires a major shakeup of the roster for next season.
                        Lance is going to make about 3/4mil a year and I believe Scola only has 400k guarantee so he is probably gone(I want him here forever but that is not my decision).

                        If DG is broken I expect Larry to make something happen and like I said before there is not really that many options, Nash(2years) plus Blake(expiring) is the best option I could come up with, it would even be better if Hill was in the mix so we could send Ian ; ) the goal is not to get a long term contract back so it doesn't affect the starting unit.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Lance is going to make about 3/4mil a year and I believe Scola only has 400k guarantee so he is probably gone(I want him here forever but that is not my decision).

                          If DG is broken I expect Larry to make something happen and like I said before there is not really that many options, Nash(2years) plus Blake(expiring) is the best option I could come up with, it would even be better if Hill was in the mix so we could send Ian ; ) the goal is not to get a long term contract back so it doesn't affect the starting unit.
                          Why would you want to trade Hill .....? There are only 5 point guards better than Hill right now, Parker, Rose, Westbrook, CP3, Rondo (who is out for the year), Deron. Ian is one of the better back up centers who is cheap and young. Nash wouldn't even play well in this system, because he relies mainly on pick-and rolls.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                            I'd love to see a team assembled the way VNZ envisions. The starting backcourt of Steve Nash and Monta Ellis, an even worse defensive backcourt than LA's current lineup (if that is possible), yet with half the offensive fire power.

                            The cool thing about Vnz's dream team, is they would have some big names on the team, but they'd simply blow. Watching the team struggle to get 20 wins while everyone gunned for their own numbers would be hilarious. (or depressing)

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Simmons likes the Pacers. The guy has been hyping Paul George since he was a rookie.
                              Or you know.... he just likes the talents of Paul George.

                              I am not saying he has an agenda against the Pacers, he doesn't of course. But what irritates me the most about him is that he's a bad Boston sports homer at times. I posted it on the Colts forum but I will do it on here too. Last season on his ESPN NBA Countdown show around the NBA Finals, he mentioned Chicago, Brooklyn (probably) and wait for it...Boston as possible challengers for Miami's crown next season. He didn't mention the Pacers at all. A team that had just reached the ECF that season and had one of the (if not) best starting 5 in this league. Yet he chose to select Chicago without knowing in what shape Rose will be and his washed up hometown team. I lost massive respect for him in that moment.

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Honestly, this is the thing that has changed the most about Simmons since he started Grantland. He's a drama whore now. There is literally no legit reason you can have for starting Chi over Miami. It's not even like the Bulls of this gen have perfomed well against the Big 3 Heat. They got their teeth kicked in the one time they met in the ECF and that was with home court advantage. Bron and company gave them gentlemen's sweep out onto their asses. Which is pretty pathetic considering that we and Boston took them to 7 in our two matchups against them.
                              Aye. "Hey look at us. Everybody is projecting Miami 1st, so we're gonna go against the tide without any viable reason. But hey, look at us"
                              Never forget

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bill Simmons/Jalen Rose Pacers talk

                                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                                Why would you want to trade Hill .....? There are only 5 point guards better than Hill right now, Parker, Rose, Westbrook, CP3, Rondo (who is out for the year), Deron. Ian is one of the better back up centers who is cheap and young. Nash wouldn't even play well in this system, because he relies mainly on pick-and rolls.
                                LA's Hill...
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X