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

The bench still isn't good enough

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

  • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Hmm. I'd predict that if we were paying Ian $1.9M to sit on the bench as the emergency big guy you'd probably still think that was too much, but that's because I know you place a lot of emphasis on what someone makes compared to their contribution. It would be worse because if he had a couple of bad games with teeny-tiny minutes he'd look even worse than he is.
    I'm pretty sure we were paying close to that amount to Lou and then Pendergraph and I was OK with it, Solo was like 2mil and I was OK with that too, your prediction is wrong.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

      Originally posted by P_George View Post
      Questioning someone's interpretation of a game they watched when Person A says Player A played a good game(particularly defensively) and the vast majority of people that saw Player A said that he stunk up the joint, defense included. How's that offensive to question what game he watched? I'd love to know how he came to the conclusion that Player A did anything well, because shooting %'s dropped when he was in? That's a poor argument at best.
      Trying not to go down the rathole, adding "[H]ow [did you come] to the conclusion that Player A did anything well, because shooting %'s dropped when he was in?" makes a huge (positive) difference. We're trying to stop the posts that just question other people's observation rather than asking specific questions.

      And laughing at someone's conclusion without providing a rebuttal, or asking what game they watched without asking what they saw, or extrapolating someone saying "not as bad" into saying they were excellent, is a passive aggressive way of calling people incapable of holding rational conversations - stupid, idiot, troll, homer, hater, whatever you want to use as the term for it. Disrespectful implications abound around here, they make people uncomfortable, and they need to stop.

      Originally posted by P_George View Post
      And the person I quoted originally specifically said, "We must look for different things in Centers. Ian was really good tonight IMO his defense was huge." Sorry, that is not referencing a "team" thing that's referencing Mahimi specifically. Would you argue that Mahimi was good defensively, or "huge" defensively(his words)? That comment is baffling to me.
      That's as maybe, but first "very good" is not "awesome", second it was used in referring to a specific part of the game, and third no matter how "baffling" it is there's no reason to get snide in a response. Just stop responding to a person whose opinion you so completely disagree with you can'ty think of a way to get the point across. People can disagree without slamming each other.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

        I wish the bench was better. Then maybe we would have the best record in the league.

        Seriously, though, we could use DG's shooting off the bench or Copeland to find his touch. I Don't know if it would win more games, but it would provide more solid options.

        Comment


        • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

          I really hope the Pacers can swap Ian out for a good defensive backup center. Instead of giving up 72pts per 48mins against the best offense in the world, maybe they'll hold them to 50pts per 48mins
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            I'm pretty sure we were paying close to that amount to Lou and then Pendergraph and I was OK with it, Solo was like 2mil and I was OK with that too, your prediction is wrong.
            I can remember you not being particularly happy with Pendy, though, and I also think I remember you actually liking Lou's skills in some areas. But fair enough, it was just a thought.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

              Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post
              Has anybody taken a look around the league at other current backup Centers? I can see where the general consensus would be Ian isn't in the Top 5, but he's certainly in the Top 10. It would be nice to have the money for Asik or Hakeem in his prime coming off the bench, but unfortunately for us all of our money is tied up in the best starting unit around. Wait... is that unfortunate?

              When you have George Hill, Lance Stephenson, Paul George, David West, Roy Hibbert, Danny Granger, and Luis Scola in a small market... you can't really supplement them with Mike Conley, Kevin Martin, and Marc Gasol off the bench. In my opinion, if a backup center who only needs to give us 15-17 minutes a game is our biggest problem, we must be doing something right.

              Larry Bird.



              But even as a backup Ian sucks. He turns the ball over, commits foolish fouls, can't even shoot a lick. It would be different if he was a rebounding beast. And got like 12 points off tap ins and put backs, but he can't even o that right. Management agrees with me obviously, because they pursued Robin Lopez in off season. They didn't do that just to pass the time.

              Comment


              • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                Originally posted by P_George View Post
                Sorry apparently an acronym of WTF is a offensive on these boards.
                To clarify on this, the problem isn't the use of 'WTF', the problem is the implication that those who disagree with you must not watch the game.

                Comment


                • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                  Originally posted by P_George View Post
                  I don't think anybody expects that, at all.

                  We expect more then 2.5PPG(35% shooting), 2.8 RPG, .9 BPG, 1.0 TOPG, 2.7 FPG in 15.0 MPG.

                  These are the numbers that are scary. 15MPG is pretty high for a back-up big. The fact he's shooting so poorly, turning it over, and fouling at such an incredibly high rate in those 15 minutes is scary. When you continue to factor in that he's regressing defensively the last several games, what's the justification for keeping him? No better options? I'd contest that all day. There's a lot of better(IMO) back-up bigs that aren't on huge prices tags.

                  FWIW - his PER36 are scary bad. He's being completely inefficient this year.
                  Exactly he is a back-up C who is a defensively specialist. Very few back-up big men are good both defensively and offensively, and if they are they are not a back-up. If you are expect Ian to do anything offensively you are expecting too much, and if they team looks for him to do anything offensively that is a Vogel problem not an Ian problem. If he was decent offensively he would probably be starting somewhere right now and be making $9 million+ instead of being a back-up.

                  Having a bad game or two is not regressing. It is just having a bad game. He had bad games last year too, then came back and had good games. It won't be any different this year. He will have bad games and good games. The facts are we are a better team because we have Ian. He plays an important role, and helps this team win. Defensively he is huge for this team, and his abilities are a huge reason why this team has only lost 3 games this season. I highly doubt you can find more than 2 or 3 back-up Cs who are better rim protectors than Ian.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    Really? WHO said he was "awesome"? In fact the very post you seem to be referring to specifically stated it said nothing about how Ian did individually, just that it wasn't as much of a problem for the team as people seem to be thinking.

                    There is a lot of area between "sucks and should never see the floor" and "is awesome a #1 center in the league", and some of that includes things like "below average", "ok in some areas and horrible in others", and "not the worst". It grinds my gears that anyone trying to make a reasonable assessment gets accused of being a jocker or hater, like the only opinions allowed are that someone is the best or that they are the worst.

                    Can we please stop labeling people with differing opinions as blind idiots or extrapolating a "wait, this part wasn't so bad" into "OMFG HE'S AMAZING I WANT TO HAVE HIS BABIES"?

                    I mean, really, the part of the discussion between vnzla81 and FlavaDave is the ABSOLUTE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS. Example and counter example without anyone (so far) calling anyone names.


                    This needs to be kept in mind by everybody, so I'm highlighting it again.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The new guidelines are being posted soon, and part of what will be cracked down on is the implications that someone isn't intelligent or didn't watch the game (or watch the game "properly")

                      ...

                      Calling someone out like they didn't have a basis for their opinion is going to have to stop because it shows a marked disrespect for posters.


                      This as well

                      Comment


                      • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Exactly he is a back-up C who is a defensively specialist. Very few back-up big men are good both defensively and offensively, and if they are they are not a back-up. If you are expect Ian to do anything offensively you are expecting too much, and if they team looks for him to do anything offensively that is a Vogel problem not an Ian problem. If he was decent offensively he would probably be starting somewhere right now and be making $9 million+ instead of being a back-up.

                        Having a bad game or two is not regressing. It is just having a bad game. He had bad games last year too, then came back and had good games. It won't be any different this year. He will have bad games and good games. The facts are we are a better team because we have Ian. He plays an important role, and helps this team win. Defensively he is huge for this team, and his abilities are a huge reason why this team has only lost 3 games this season. I highly doubt you can find more than 2 or 3 back-up Cs who are better rim protectors than Ian.

                        You're missing the point. He's not that good defensively. At all. And he's not just bad offensively, he's horrid. He used to have a mid range shot, where'd that go? The only good thing defensively he does is occasionally challenge shots, that's it. He's bad at playing defense without fouling and he's often late on rotations. What has he done this year to make you think he's good defensively? Some "rim protector efficiency" stats that are very skewed by his lack of PT that do not account for the other weaknesses he has on D? We'll agree to disagree, but your mind is made up on how good he is defensively when it doesn't match reality.
                        Dear P_George,
                        You have received an infraction at Pacers Digest.

                        Reason: Unacceptable Comment and/or Content

                        Comment


                        • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          But even as a backup Ian sucks. He turns the ball over, commits foolish fouls, can't even shoot a lick. It would be different if he was a rebounding beast. And got like 12 points off tap ins and put backs, but he can't even o that right. Management agrees with me obviously, because they pursued Robin Lopez in off season. They didn't do that just to pass the time.
                          This. And, I suspect we'll see them snoop around a bit more before the deadline. Copeland + Mahimi is around 7.9M in cap - we can easily find a good replacement big with that sort of money. Or even a younger guy like Solomon Hill + Mahimi. Either way, I think Bird is smart enough to realize that Mahimi isn't 1) living up to his contract and 2) giving us good minutes right now.

                          What's going to happen to this team when Hibbert's in foul trouble early? Scary thought. Especially if we roll out Scola and West at the same time. Who's going to shotblock and rebound then?
                          Dear P_George,
                          You have received an infraction at Pacers Digest.

                          Reason: Unacceptable Comment and/or Content

                          Comment


                          • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                            Originally posted by P_George View Post
                            The irony in your post is amazing. You're trying to act like we're overreacting to another poor performance by Mahimi when in reality, you're overreacting to the discussion at hand. From what I've read, no one has called anyone an idiot. Questioning someone's interpretation of a game they watched when Person A says Player A played a good game(particularly defensively) and the vast majority of people that saw Player A said that he stunk up the joint, defense included. How's that offensive to question what game he watched? I'd love to know how he came to the conclusion that Player A did anything well, because shooting %'s dropped when he was in? That's a poor argument at best.

                            And the person I quoted originally specifically said, "We must look for different things in Centers. Ian was really good tonight IMO his defense was huge." Sorry, that is not referencing a "team" thing that's referencing Mahimi specifically. Would you argue that Mahimi was good defensively, or "huge" defensively(his words)? That comment is baffling to me.
                            The opinion is fine, the delivery method was not fine. You can share your opinions respectfully, that's what we want.

                            Also, he had already told you this wasn't the place to argue about it, and you ignored him, so that post received an infraction. I mention that so others get an idea of how we're going to be handling things moving forward.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                              Originally posted by P_George View Post
                              I don't think anybody expects that, at all.

                              We expect more then 2.5PPG(35% shooting), 2.8 RPG, .9 BPG, 1.0 TOPG, 2.7 FPG in 15.0 MPG.

                              These are the numbers that are scary. 15MPG is pretty high for a back-up big. The fact he's shooting so poorly, turning it over, and fouling at such an incredibly high rate in those 15 minutes is scary. When you continue to factor in that he's regressing defensively the last several games, what's the justification for keeping him? No better options? I'd contest that all day. There's a lot of better(IMO) back-up bigs that aren't on huge prices tags.

                              FWIW - his PER36 are scary bad. He's being completely inefficient this year.
                              In contrast, a post like this is absolutely fine, by the way. Just to try to clarify the POV of the admins.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The bench still isn't good enough

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                Hmm. I'd predict that if we were paying Ian $1.9M to sit on the bench as the emergency big guy you'd probably still think that was too much, but that's because I know you place a lot of emphasis on what someone makes compared to their contribution. It would be worse because if he had a couple of bad games with teeny-tiny minutes he'd look even worse than he is.
                                I would imagine Bird would be criticized for wasting money if he paid someone $2m to be the third string. After all, there are complaints about Copeland being paid $3m at the moment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X