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

Andrew Bynum 13-14 General Discussion

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

  • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

    I don't care about the numbers. My only question is can Bynum catch the ball?
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

      Gamble, you are the man! Ian is routinely the worse offensive player off the bench. He contests shots well but commits fouls on probably half of his attempts.

      Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
        FOCUS!!!

        FOCUS!!!

        FOCUS!!!

        This thread is about matters relevant to the recent signing of one Andrew Bynum. Nothing more. Nothing less.
        Guy literally can't post in a topic without trying to trade Granger and/or Hill

        Comment


        • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

          I guess for me Bynum is not a great risk like he was with the Cavs or Philly.
          But he is a bigger risk than Lance. Bigger than any other mid-season acquistion by any team out there. So excuse me for saying that it isn't a low-risk move. He isn't some second rounder without history. If it doesn't work, it will be reported. Discussed. Asked about to our players in interviews.

          There will be questions to Frank and the players until we see him play. Not questions on why this team is struggling. But about Bynum.

          That will be annoying. And it could be risky.

          Comment


          • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            I guess for me Bynum is not a great risk like he was with the Cavs or Philly.
            But he is a bigger risk than Lance. Bigger than any other mid-season acquistion by any team out there. So excuse me for saying that it isn't a low-risk move. He isn't some second rounder without history. If it doesn't work, it will be reported. Discussed. Asked about to our players in interviews.

            There will be questions to Frank and the players until we see him play. Not questions on why this team is struggling. But about Bynum.

            That will be annoying. And it could be risky.
            If theres any problems he gets cut. And we will have months to get the lockerroom back in order.

            Comment


            • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              Except the team as a whole played worse with Bynum on the court, both offensively and defensively. There are two parts to this story. It is hard to predict how that will translate over to this team with this teams defensive system. I've already said a healthy and motivated Bynum is better than Mahinmi, but it isn't a guarantee that will be the case so stop acting like it is. It all depends on how hard he is willing to work, how much he buys into the system, and if he is capable of performing in this system. We won't know any of that until he actually steps on the floor and plays. Until that point there is no reason to assume either way. You have stats saying he did well individually, but you have contradicting stats saying his play made the team worse. Why that is, I have no idea, but I do know it makes him being an improvement far from a guarantee.
              I understand its all relative and that goes without saying which is why I was upfront with ALL the stats and how I see it playing out. His points per possesion is either better or not and defesnively the system we run is not rocket science so I am not sure how long you guys think it will take him to adjust but I don't think it will be a long time at all.

              Opposing teams will attack your weakness and Ians weakness was very glaring against post ups. There is not much you can do to cover that up without double teaming and exposing yourself to 3's. Bynum has the same weaknesses as Roy with spot ups and its simply the function of having a bigger guy on the court.

              The most important point though is that teams use postups more than spot ups to attack the center which is especially true for the Pacers. With Bynum there will be more continuity going from the starting unit to the bench which is important. People think we would give up rim protection but really you don't see the stats playing out that way which is why I posted the SportsVU data.

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              Except the team as a whole played worse with Bynum on the court, both offensively and defensively.
              I am not sure what stat measure you are using but I hope its not on/off the court stats becuase by that measure we are barely better defensively with Roy on the court. I simply don't buy into those stats since guys like Anthony Bennet and Tristian Thompson can have a major impact on them.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 02-03-2014, 03:56 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                I don't get these people saying "it may not work, there's no guarantee". Duh. Every transaction you ever make runs that risk. This one is no different. Gerald Green was a "may not work" and whaddaya know -- he didn't work. CJ Watson worked, Scola worked, West worked, George Hill worked, Ian also worked, Lance Stephenson worked against many odds.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                  Although it would have been a close call and sure maybe my position on this might have changed if I spoke with Bynum, but if I am the Pacers I would not have signed Bynum. I don't think he helps much on the court and the possible risk it too great. But I hope it works out.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    I don't get these people saying "it may not work, there's no guarantee". Duh. Every transaction you ever make runs that risk. This one is no different. Gerald Green was a "may not work" and whaddaya know -- he didn't work. CJ Watson worked, Scola worked, West worked, George Hill worked, Ian also worked, Lance Stephenson worked against many odds.
                    Just assuming that if it doesn't work it will automatically result the same as Gerald Green is a gross understatement to what has happened.

                    Bynum has league clout. He was selected to be the next Laker big. He went toe to toe with Shaq. He, at one time, was considered the best big man in the NBA. He has attitude problems. He has anger and a history of being lazy. He isn't some athletic one-dimensional high school brat that worked hard to get back into the game.

                    Please this situation is altogether different from that which this team has faced. He isn't Artest. He isn't Gerald Green. He isn't Lance. He is a risky move. It may pay off. But noticing it is a risk is saying the worse will happen. But I feel like some are saying it is a risk so is breathing....then sweep it under the rug.

                    I will cheer for him. I will hope he contributes. But if he divides a club, who I think doesn't need him, then I won't be surprised. Shawn Kemp and Vin Baker comes to mind when I think of this signing more than anything.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      I don't get these people saying "it may not work, there's no guarantee". Duh. Every transaction you ever make runs that risk. This one is no different. Gerald Green was a "may not work" and whaddaya know -- he didn't work. CJ Watson worked, Scola worked, West worked, George Hill worked, Ian also worked, Lance Stephenson worked against many odds.
                      I am saying that because some people seem to be just assuming it will work out as long as he doesn't cause lockerroom drama just because his individual stats were slightly better. While ignoring the team stats. Granted he is more likely to succeed here in a winning environment. It just annoys me when people lose all sense of perspective just because a player is a Pacer.

                      Being overly pessimistic is just as annoying.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                        I wonder what everyone's thoughts would have been had he joined the Heat....

                        Comment


                        • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          There will be questions to Frank and the players until we see him play. Not questions on why this team is struggling. But about Bynum.

                          That will be annoying. And it could be risky.
                          I don't live in Indiana anymore, so I have no idea how the local media is handling this. That said, it seems to be a complete non-story as far as the national media is concerned. My TV is almost always on one sports channel or another, but if I didn't follow Pacers Digest, I probably wouldn't even know we signed him.

                          Comment


                          • Re: So what was Andrew's Bynum's conduct detrimental to the team??

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            This


                            What he did in Philly was an embarrassment. The guy was a cancer and he never even suited up because he was to lazy to get in shape like a pro. He was the ultimate me guy in Philly.


                            EDIT: And lets not forget he did this to a franchise who was ready to make him the franchise player and traded their face of the franchise Iggy too get him.
                            This is what gets me about the guy. He finally got the chance to be the guy that he wanted to be and the franchise was ready to make him their face of the franchise and he was to fat and lazy.

                            The guy is the definition of a me first player and that is somebody we do not need around our lockerroom. What magically is going to click in his head? Thankfully he will be easy to get rid of when he becomes headache, but it is a shame our guys have to deal with the headache at all.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                              After pondering it for a few days, I think the signing of Bynum is great. Bynum has encountered problems in Philly and now in Cleveland as well. If he desires to continue playing basketball NEXT year, it would not bode well for him if he causes problems in Indy and gets cut loose. With the locker room we have, if he can't find a way to fit in, then he isn't going to fit in anywhere, and everybody else would probably be hesitant to pick him up. At least not at any contract amount that Bynum might like.

                              I look forward to a model citizen who busts his butt to give us everything he has.

                              Comment


                              • Re: So what was Andrew's Bynum's conduct detrimental to the team??

                                Alot of pessimism in this thread, and not entirely unjustified considering
                                some of the murkier episodes in Mr. Bynum's history. However...

                                He is now wearing the Blue & Gold, and this is another fresh start.
                                I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt, and will be rooting for him
                                like any other member of the team unless he proves himself unworthy.

                                I hope he contributes positively and succeeds beyond anyone's wildest
                                expectations, but if he doesn't, hope he at least gives it his best shot.
                                He couldn't have picked a better place with the winning environment
                                we have going to try getting his career back on track.

                                Am sitting here daydreaming now about what it would feel like to be a
                                good enough player to be called up by Larry Bird to fill that final roster
                                spot on this Pacers squad. What an unbelievable dream-come-true
                                opportunity...heck I would tell Larry forget the contract, I'll be happy
                                to do it for free!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X