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

I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

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

  • I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

    AL HARRINGTON.

    A few other former players who have been gone a lot longer have been mentioned, but no one has mentioned Al Harrington.

    I think the Pacers miss Al's energy coming off the bench, they miss his defense, they miss his ability to score.

    The trade was a good trade, but the pacers do miss Al


    sorry about the horrible grammar in the title. I should just go to bed

  • #2
    Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

    I thought Al was just turning into "the player we do not discuss".......

    You guys have been all over Brad, Siggy, and Primoz this year, but AL is never mentioned. Just figured that was why.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

      I don't really want him back. He can stay in Atlanta. He never did very well in the playoffs, and never passed when he got the ball.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

        Ya don't get a nickname like "The Blackhole" for nothing....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

          Yeah, good riddance, Al. It was time for you to go.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            AL HARRINGTON.

            A few other former players who have been gone a lot longer have been mentioned, but no one has mentioned Al Harrington.

            I think the Pacers miss Al's energy coming off the bench, they miss his defense, they miss his ability to score.

            The trade was a good trade, but the pacers do miss Al


            sorry about the horrible grammar in the title. I should just go to bed
            I like S. Jackson.

            I like Al Harrington.

            I have never ever understood the bitter hatred that came about for him from Pacers fans.

            This is a guy who played through pain, unlike other players who's name we won't say. He played whatever position that was asked of him. At one point he played 4 of the 5 positions on the floor & this was a guy who was well on his way to being the starter when he was taken out by injurys only to come back & have the spot not there because the team had traded for another player instead. Al never was anything but a good trooper while the other player was a nutball. Yes, he might have been better than Al but never by margins so wide that other issues couldn't have made up for them (example he is a nutball).

            I see the whole black hole theory discussed but nobody ever takes into consideration that he was told to do this by I.Thomas. Yes, Thomas told everybody that Al was the offense from the bench so he should shoot early & often. But whenever Al started he would meld into a team player & never shoot more than the offense gave him.

            Yes he asked to start or be traded. I guess that is unforgivable to some people. But yet these same people have no problem with a player who retires from basketball because he was unhappy with the team design.

            One thing that we are missing from Al was both his physicalness & his toughness. Al would body up on anybody on defense & there were plenty of times that he & J.O. were on the floor that he would guard the other teams center or power player. We don't have that right now.

            I like Jackson, I have no problems with him.

            But if I had to have it done over again Al would not have been the trade I would have put out there for him.


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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

              Originally posted by Peck
              I like S. Jackson.

              I like Al Harrington.

              I like Jackson, I have no problems with him.

              But if I had to have it done over again Al would not have been the trade I would have put out there for him.
              Couldn't we have used the mid-level exemption for SJax (instead of using it on AJ) and still kept Harrington with our options open as far as trading, restructuring the team, etc?

              IOW, we didn't have to trade Al to get SJax did we?

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                Originally posted by Bball
                Couldn't we have used the mid-level exemption for SJax (instead of using it on AJ) and still kept Harrington with our options open as far as trading, restructuring the team, etc?

                IOW, we didn't have to trade Al to get SJax did we?

                -Bball
                IMO using the mid-level exemption on AJ and gill is the biggest mistake management has done last offseason...

                the pacer brass should have gotten a better backup pg...

                I would rather have one good backup pg then two ok pg....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                  I suppose they could have used the MLE to get Jax, but that would have meant upping the total team salary for the year w/o securing a BU PG and Al would have still wanted to start or be traded. By doing it the way DW did, he increased the salary only slightly, avoided the AH problem, and got SJax into the fold. Did it weaken the bench? Yes, but AL made his demand and just like situations previous (AD) when the demand is made, DW tries to find a way to accomodate them.

                  Al had become athe blackhole as mentioned and his game copied JO's too much (turn around fade away...that was about it). His man defense had gone south ever since the knee injury and the 40 point game.
                  As I recall, once he scored the 40 and once he saw all the attention JO and RA were getting he became more selfish with the ball and tried to do too much scoring and not enough passing.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                    Originally posted by indygeezer
                    I suppose they could have used the MLE to get Jax, but that would have meant upping the total team salary for the year w/o securing a BU PG and Al would have still wanted to start or be traded. By doing it the way DW did, he increased the salary only slightly, avoided the AH problem, and got SJax into the fold. Did it weaken the bench? Yes, but AL made his demand and just like situations previous (AD) when the demand is made, DW tries to find a way to accomodate them.

                    Al had become athe blackhole as mentioned and his game copied JO's too much (turn around fade away...that was about it). His man defense had gone south ever since the knee injury and the 40 point game.
                    As I recall, once he scored the 40 and once he saw all the attention JO and RA were getting he became more selfish with the ball and tried to do too much scoring and not enough passing.
                    I guess I never understood why people had such a problem with that 40 point game. Did Al like to score? Yes. But can you tell me that Jermaine O'Neal hasn't become the exact same player as Al (selfish wise) since he had his 55 point game? But nobody has a problem with it.

                    Al was a black hole because Isiah told him to be & Rick never really discouraged it. The reason is, Al was our main source of offense once the starters left the court. Whenever Al started with Jermaine he never took shots outside the offense & usually would settle for 10 points a game.

                    As to his defense? Yes, without a doubt he lost some speed when the knee went out. But guess what, he kept on playing. He wouldn't sit for a game, play a game, sit a game, etc., ect.

                    Here is the part I will never understand either when it came to Al starting. Why didn't we just let him start & let Ron start at the two guard spot & let Reggie come off of the bench? Ron could play the two guard spot & as I said at the time the size of all of those guys on the floor at once was great when it came to rebounding.

                    Yes, Ron is better at the three. But is he better at the three than Reggie is at the two? In other words even if Ron would have lost some wouldn't the addition of Al & Ron together have been better than Reggie & Ron?

                    I think so. But I could be wrong, we'll never know.

                    But here is the one thing. If Al weren't traded & Ron were the one big differance would be this. Al would still be playing.

                    If Ben Wallace had done the exact same thing to Al as he did to Ron I know what Al's reaction would have been. He would have been suspended for maybe two games for fighting & Wallace probably would have killed him but I know that Al would have gone at him.

                    But that is not the point.

                    I guess I just never understood why we all stopped loving baby Al because he liked to shoot & wanted to start, yet we have people who would throw themselves on a grenade for a player who has wrecked an entire season for a franchise.

                    The funny thing is that after all he has done there will be many many fans who will once again say "let's give him another chance". Yet Al liked to take turnaround jumpers so he is the bad guy.


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                      Perhaps time is blurring things for me but, it seemed after the 40 pointer he got away from his "team" game. Yes, he had been a lock down defender but with the arrival of RA the ooh and ahhhs went to RA's defense at the expense of AL. I remember posting at the time that AL seemed envious of the attention JO and RA were getting and he was becoming more of a statsline player.
                      Now that is what I remember dislikeing about AL and that is why I wasn't disappointed when he was traded. I did worry about bench strength but I thought we had that covered.

                      As for him playing hurt, and somebody else not, I don't really have an answer for that. For whatever reason our braintrust has decided to put up with Bendie's problems. Personally, I think out medical staff needs to be horsewhipped for letting it get to this point.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                        I understand what you are saying but I don't understand why people have a problem with Al getting his but yet never had a problem with J.O. getting his back when he first came here. Talk about a stat. oriented player.

                        Put yourself in Al's shoes. You are a good soldier, you come to work everyday & you never ever cause a problem. The guy who took your spot while you were out injured is probably better than you but not by a universe worth (at least in your opinion) however that player procedes to have issues that cause team suspensions, league suspension, he comes late to practices & other times just takes the day off because he doesn't like that the offense isn't run through him.

                        Would you not feel the need to exert yourself to show your boss that you could hold the spot almost as well yet cause zero of the headache's?


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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                          Peck, I'm on your side in this discussion, except I don't think a lineup wiht Ron at the shooting guard and Al at the small forward was going to work. Don't get me wrong it wasn't a bad lineup, but in Carlisle's system, which I guess you're not to fond of anyway, it just did not work. Keep in mind I was one who was dreaming of a lineup with Al and Ron in there together. I love big strong lineups. The strange thing is if Isiah would have been the coach last season, he would have started them both at the "2" and the "3".

                          Rick played that lineup for about 3 minutes every game last season, because Al was the first guy off the bench for Reggie, but Rick only stuck with it for at most for 2 minutes each half, and he never used that lineup at crunch time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                            Originally posted by Peck
                            I understand what you are saying but I don't understand why people have a problem with Al getting his but yet never had a problem with J.O. getting his back when he first came here. Talk about a stat. oriented player.

                            Put yourself in Al's shoes. You are a good soldier, you come to work everyday & you never ever cause a problem. The guy who took your spot while you were out injured is probably better than you but not by a universe worth (at least in your opinion) however that player procedes to have issues that cause team suspensions, league suspension, he comes late to practices & other times just takes the day off because he doesn't like that the offense isn't run through him.

                            Would you not feel the need to exert yourself to show your boss that you could hold the spot almost as well yet cause zero of the headache's?
                            I completely understand what you are saying Peck and I understand his feelings. BUT, he failed to recognize what got him the recognition he did BEFORE Ron's arrival. THe Tremendous defense he played along with the scoring was what made him so amazing. Once the injury happend, and that may have had slot to do with it, he became too points orientated and let his man defense go. IOW, he regressed rather than improved. Jermaine's game has become more flexible with his outside jumper. AL went away from the other aspects of his game and became just a clone of the early Jermaine. Post-up turn around jumper...no pass-outs...an occasional rebound basket. That was it. JO eveolved...Al regressed.
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I'm surprised no one has not mentioned this name

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              Peck, I'm on your side in this discussion, except I don't think a lineup wiht Ron at the shooting guard and Al at the small forward was going to work. Don't get me wrong it wasn't a bad lineup, but in Carlisle's system, which I guess you're not to fond of anyway, it just did not work. Keep in mind I was one who was dreaming of a lineup with Al and Ron in there together. I love big strong lineups. The strange thing is if Isiah would have been the coach last season, he would have started them both at the "2" and the "3".

                              Rick played that lineup for about 3 minutes every game last season, because Al was the first guy off the bench for Reggie, but Rick only stuck with it for at most for 2 minutes each half, and he never used that lineup at crunch time.
                              I know we've talked about this before, but you'll have to refresh me. Why wouldn't it work with Ron at the two?

                              I just don't see Reggie Miller either this year or last year as an upgrade over Ron at the two. Ron can hit the three & his defense isn't even comparable to Reggies. Not to mention Ron can board & Reggie... well it's never been a priority to Reggie.

                              Al, IMO, would have decreased his shot load & played solid team ball if we played a lineup of Jamaal, Ron, Al, Jermaine & Bra..... I mean Jeff.


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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X