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

Uncle Buck speaks....

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

  • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

    No, it's actually not. I'll ask you, again, who you think Roy was talking about the other day.

    It's cool that you think Lance hasn't been playing one-on-one ball to the detriment of the team, I respect that you'll defend your guy til the bitter end, but when his teammates/coaches/GM are all talking about it, well yeah..... At some point in time, the opinion of people actually in the trenches has to enter the picture.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      Missing the point entirely.

      You do not **** around with the chemistry on championship caliber teams. Period. Larry should have known that. They should be able to pull themselves out of it. But if they don't, my finger points here.
      Why would Larry believe that when his playing career told him the exact opposite? In 1985, the Celtics traded the beloved Cedric Maxwell for Bill Walton. Maxwell was a vital part of two Celtics championships, and even won the 1981 Finals MVP. The 85-86 Celtics didn't mope around about their lost teammate. Instead, they only went on to become one of the greatest teams in league history.

      Heck, Larry's coaching tenure told him the exact opposite too. We traded Antonio Davis in 1999 for a bust draft pick. Davis was a vital part of multiple Pacer ECF's and popular amongst teammates. Did guys like Reggie and Smits spend all season moping? No, all they did was make the NBA Finals that year.

      Of course, the Celtics had incredible mental strength, as did the 2000 Pacers. I'm sure Bird thinks that this Pacer team should have good mental strength by now. This is their third season together. West is an old vet, and guys like Hibbert and George Hill have been in the league for a while now. If the Pacers can't get over Granger by now, then they are not a mentally strong group. I still don't think that it's anywhere near the big problem though. These are basketball problems amongst the key starting players.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-26-2014, 09:00 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Bird, Frank, Roy, West, Scola, PG...... They've all said the exact opposite.
        Not so sure about Bird. That article where he called out Vogel sounded to me like he was referencing PG, not Lance. For two reasons.

        1. The beginning of the article quotes Bird as saying, "A lot of times we don't take the fight to the opponent."
        That doesn't sound like Lance. Or West. Could be Roy or Hill (offensively) but I don't think they are important enough. PG has been pretty bad about relying on long range shots rather than pushing it to the opponents.

        2. Bird says at the end of the article: "Sometimes, I think, they're not 100 percent committed to their jobs.''
        This is in the context of Kravitz mentioning all this media attention and photo ops, etc, and while the other players get some of those, PG is by far getting the most.
        So, I think it's PG. And that makes sense. Our slump somewhat overlaps with his performances.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Why would Larry believe that when his playing career told him the exact opposite? In 1985, the Celtics traded the beloved Cedric Maxwell for Bill Walton. Maxwell was a vital part of two Celtics championships, and even won the 1981 Finals MVP. The 85-86 Celtics didn't mope around about their lost teammate. Instead, they only went on to become one of the greatest teams in league history.

          Heck, Larry's coaching tenure told him the exact opposite too. We traded Antonio Davis in 1999 for a bust draft pick. Davis was a vital part of multiple Pacer ECF's and popular amongst teammates. Did guys like Reggie and Smits spend all season moping? No, all they did was make the NBA Finals that year.

          Of course, the Celtics had incredible mental strength, as did the 2000 Pacers. I'm sure Bird thinks that this Pacer team should have good mental strength by now. This is their third season together. West is an old vet, and guys like Hibbert and George Hill have been in the league for a while now. If the Pacers can't get over Granger by now, then they are not a mentally strong group. I still don't think that it's anywhere near the big problem though. These are basketball problems amongst the key starting players.
          Not talking about the Danny trade. Talking about Lance pounding nails while his teammates watch, and then ***** in the press, while Tater tries to argue Lance doesn't do it.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Not so sure about Bird. That article where he called out Vogel sounded to me like he was referencing PG, not Lance. For two reasons.

            1. The beginning of the article quotes Bird as saying, "A lot of times we don't take the fight to the opponent."
            That doesn't sound like Lance. Or West. Could be Roy or Hill (offensively) but I don't think they are important enough. PG has been pretty bad about relying on long range shots rather than pushing it to the opponents.

            2. Bird says at the end of the article: "Sometimes, I think, they're not 100 percent committed to their jobs.''
            This is in the context of Kravitz mentioning all this media attention and photo ops, etc, and while the other players get some of those, PG is by far getting the most.
            So, I think it's PG. And that makes sense. Our slump somewhat overlaps with his performances.
            I think it's both of them. I don't try and differentiate which one is playing that way, when both are.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Not talking about the Danny trade. Talking about Lance pounding nails while his teammates watch, and then ***** in the press, while Tater tries to argue Lance doesn't do it.
              I was quoting a Sookie post that blamed chemistry after the DG trade.

              Comment


              • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Their stats aren't similar. Lances are better across the board. And he's going to get better, Hill isn't.
                Actually GH last year and Lance this year stats are not all that different.

                PPG
                GH - 14.2
                LS - 14.2

                FGA
                GH - 11.5
                LS - 11.4

                AST - AST%
                GH - 4.7 - 23.4
                LS - 4.8 - 22.3

                TO - TO%
                GH - 1.5 - 10.7
                LS - 2.7 - 17.9
                I bet this will blow some minds, to the point most will be in denial.

                USG%
                GH - 18.8
                LS - 19.5

                Ortg
                GH - 117
                LS - 107

                WS/48
                GH - .177
                LS - .141

                OWS (this season only)
                GH - 3.6
                LS - 2.7


                Outside of rebounds their stats tend to be similar or in favor of Hill. Hill has his faults too, but he is just as capable of producing the same numbers Lance does just in a smarter, more efficient, team oriented way.

                Comment


                • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  I was quoting a Sookie post that blamed chemistry after the DG trade.
                  I guess I never got passed the S in the name. Carry on.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Impossible.

                    I was rode out on a rail for suggesting that this group could in any way be distracted, let alone lose chemistry, in both the Bynum joins the team thread and my own "2003 comparison thread".

                    [/bitterness]

                    There's just no evidence to suggest that Bynum disrupted the chemistry. We went 11-3 after adding Bynum, including a 4 game winning streak which started the day we added him. We also won the two games Bynum played (albeit against lousy competition, but a W is a W). After the Celtics game, multiple teammates were in awe after witnessing the grace he brought to the center position. George Hill was practically calling him one of the greatest centers of all time, as if he was Wilt the Stilt. The "Bynum disrupted chemistry" thing has never been backed up by facts. You had some slightly irritable quotes from the Pacers the day he was signed, but it pretty much stopped there. Everyone was cool with him once he got to Indy and showed he was committed to working.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      There's just no evidence to suggest that Bynum disrupted the chemistry. We went 11-3 after adding Bynum, including a 4 game winning streak which started the day we added him. We also won the two games Bynum played (albeit against lousy competition, but a W is a W). After the Celtics game, multiple teammates were in awe after witnessing the grace he brought to the center position. George Hill was practically calling him one of the greatest centers of all time, as if he was Wilt the Stilt. The "Bynum disrupted chemistry" thing has never been backed up by facts. You had some slightly irritable quotes from the Pacers the day he was signed, but it pretty much stopped there. Everyone was cool with him once he got to Indy and showed he was committed to working.
                      Yup, but apparently losing Granger's leadership may be having a huge affect.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                        One difference between the trade situations being discussed is that I think there was a major locker room subtraction - no matter how good the incoming player is, he would not replace the hole left behind. IF (and we don't know this any more than we know anything else, really) Danny was the "big brother" who kept everyone's focus, then losing that would have a huge effect that has nothing to do with emotions - it only has to do with a vital resource who is no longer there.
                        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: Uncle Buck speaks....

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Yup, but apparently losing Granger's leadership may be having a huge affect.

                          And the Granger thing is at least a plausible theory, though I'm not sure I think it's anywhere near the top of reasons why we aren't playing well. He was here for 9 years and a lot of guys looked up to him. It's understandable that guys could get in a funk after losing a role model. However, it never made any sense to me that guys would get so offended by the addition of a backup center that they'd start to play bad, as if looking at Bynum on the bench made them see red and miss shots. Guys were definitely skeptical about Bynum in the beginning, but I think they quickly saw that he was going to work hard and not be a douche. The only tangible result of signing Bynum was that it lit a fire under Mahinmi.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            And the Granger thing is at least a plausible theory, though I'm not sure I think it's anywhere near the top of reasons why we aren't playing well. He was here for 9 years and a lot of guys looked up to him. It's understandable that guys could get in a funk after losing a role model. However, it never made any sense to me that guys would get so offended by the addition of a backup center that they'd start to play bad, as if looking at Bynum on the bench made them see red and miss shots. Guys were definitely skeptical about Bynum in the beginning, but I think they quickly saw that he was going to work hard and not be a douche.
                            Everybody talks about these things as individual events. I don't think any individual thing necessarily would've caused an issue, but there has been so much stuff in the last month and 3/4. Just a lot of little cracks that the pressure of chasing the number one seed has expanded (I think the analogy I want to use is potholes). Hopefully tonight they can play well and start filling in those potholes.....
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                              Yeah, my only real worry about Bynum was, well what has actually happened. Out indefinitely with an injury. I had a slight worry that his motivation might not be up to par, but I also thought he knows this is most likely his last chance to prove capable of being worth a sizable contract.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                                The only thing that needs to be said or changed about the Lance issue....
                                He is taking about the same amount of shots all year long. At the beginning of the year, Lance probably took half his shots in transition. Running his one man fast break. Getting out on the break like this masks the Pacers offensive woes. Now Lance takes those same shots in the half court after pounding the rock in ISO situations. Now granted he is shooting 49%? That's great, but the shots are taking away from the rest of the teams already limited offensive flow. Look its hard to have great offensive flow when you have guys like David West and Hibbert taking their time in the post. Much of our offense is just about out executing the other team at what we do, they moved the ball, but only to the extent where the match up was favorable. So the real adjustment is to keep Lance hitting that glass and jumping out in transition to get his easy points. That was easy at the beginning of the year because he wasn't a starter. They brought him off the bench as the 6th man. So the starters had a chance to get their opportunities before Lance came in like a hell on wheels. Remember they were starting a rookie or Butler before Lance got in there. I'm not sure exactly sure why Vogel went away from this other than Lance was just ballin'.

                                Vogel doesn't have the guts to make this change though.
                                Last edited by graphic-er; 03-26-2014, 09:50 AM.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X