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

Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

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

  • #91
    Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
    Kobe at 19 aved 15 ppg and made the all-star game. LBJ at 18 aved 20. I could go on and on all im saying his 8ppg at 20 isnt all that impressive. T mac at 18 only aved 8ppg and was as raw as PG give him time. But 8ppg at 20 isnt "really impressive" to me.
    It is if you are the fifth option and you don't get the ball very often.

    Kobe (maybe not as much as the others..but still plenty) LBJ, TMac, Evans all had the ball in their hands an extraordinary amount of time.

    Now, because PG is raw I don't think he'd be more efficient than them, but if we included him more than he would have better numbers. (Granted, that is partially his fault. )

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I don't think it takes the NBA that long to figure players out. They don't need a whole offseason.

      Roy started off the season playing really well, and then teams adjusted after the first month. If Tyler can string together two whole months of this, I think it's a safe assumption that he can continue it into next season as well.
      I'm saying it may take an off-season for the player to re counter. I thinking that for a guy like Roy, he'll work in the off season to counter, since you're limited on what you can add to your game, in season.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        When it comes to wins and losses for this team, over the course of the full season, there is no question in my mind that Roy Hibbert playing well has been the single most important factor when it comes to the team's success. Granger is a distant second, probably followed by Collison.

        Tyler has had a very good stretch of games here, that is indisputable. But to say he is consistent is simply not true. Just go back to the month of February. His points totals for February were: 13, 13, 8, 18, 2, 14, 2, 16, 8, 17, 21, 3, 13. He was all over the map.
        In all fairness February was the first month Tyler ever had the minutes per game on a consistent basis to even get out of the starting gate. Had he not had the health issues last year and had O'Brien not been the coach I think you might have a more valid point here. The way it is I don't think so. Just my opinion, nothing against you. If you think I am crazy that's fine. Tyler's career really began in February and I say the progress has been remarkable.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

          Originally posted by PacerHound View Post
          In all fairness February was the first month Tyler ever had the minutes per game on a consistent basis to even get out of the starting gate. Had he not had the health issues last year and had O'Brien not been the coach I think you might have a more valid point here. The way it is I don't think so. Just my opinion, nothing against you. If you think I am crazy that's fine. Tyler's career really began in February and I say the progress has been remarkable.
          What about January? He averaged basically the same number of minutes per game as February, and was similarly inconsistent.

          Are you saying O'Brien is at fault for that?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            What about January? He averaged basically the same number of minutes per game as February, and was similarly inconsistent.

            Are you saying O'Brien is at fault for that?
            duh JOB is the reason for global warming everything he does is horrible JOB's is at falut for everything that goes wrong in the world

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              What about January? He averaged basically the same number of minutes per game as February, and was similarly inconsistent.

              Are you saying O'Brien is at fault for that?
              Yeah, if you want to know the truth. It is not just how many minutes you get but when and how. You can put a guy in for 3, 4, and 5 minute segments and if you do it often enough he can rack up some minutes but you cannot get it going in short segments like that, not on a consistent basis, no way and that is exactly how O'Brien played him. I didn't like it then nor now. To Vogel's credit those short segments came to an end.

              You are the stat expert not me so tell me how many minutes Tyler averaged per game in January and then in February and now in March. I can tell you for I well remember whatever minutes he got under O'Brien were generally of a short duration even if he got in for X number of minutes per game plus better not mess up Tyler or else you will be over here on the pine. Those were the conditions he played under way back when. Got to go watch Butler now.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                What about January? He averaged basically the same number of minutes per game as February, and was similarly inconsistent.

                Are you saying O'Brien is at fault for that?
                Actually Tyler insinuated that himself...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                  Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                  In regards to Tyler, I think everyone should keep ****ting on Tyler Hansbrough's play. It seems to be working in his favor.

                  Keep it up, Pacers Digest! For the good of the team!
                  The worst a** kicking of a straw man since Wizard of Oz.


                  That's right all you 5% of PD, you just keep on saying Tyler isn't going to be an all-star or maybe Larry Bird. He'll show you.


                  Let's put a poll up, this Pacers player might make an all-star team:
                  Tyler
                  Josh
                  Rush
                  George
                  Roy
                  AJ

                  or this player should start, same list. Tell me Tyler doesn't lead the PD vote even over Roy or George.


                  Freaking Pacers fan with this artificial "the world is against us" chip about everything. Tyler has shot well for about 20 days max and people are ready to say Tyler has defied all critics and blown away his top 15 draft slot and that despite a ton of other people saying the same thing the world must be against Tyler.



                  People "against" Tyler, ie people that doubted his chances to match where he was drafted - me
                  , um, maybe MackeyRose I think, maybe 3 other people. The majority of fans loved the Tyler pick since day 1.

                  There are more PD Pacers fans that still think Josh shouldn't be in the NBA than aren't on the Tyler is great bandwagon around here. Again that's "in NBA" vs "should be starting". The list of people that would let Josh start for the Pacers now is about maybe 2-3 PD members total. Would. Let. Start.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                    Jrue Holiday in a Pacers uniform instead

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                      Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                      Actually Tyler insinuated that himself...
                      Yep. I think Tyler slams Jim more than the basketball.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                        Jrue Holiday in a Pacers uniform instead
                        Maybe a month ago I'd be saying the same thing, but I'm pretty satisfied with what we got in 09.

                        It was either a PG or PF.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Yep. I think Tyler slams Jim more than the basketball.
                          It actually cracks me up, because he's one of the last guys that I thought would say anything.

                          Not because Jim wasn't terrible to him..but because Tyler just didn't talk before.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                            Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                            Maybe a month ago I'd be saying the same thing, but I'm pretty satisfied with what we got in 09.

                            It was either a PG or PF.
                            Tyler is good but undersized PF's are easier to find than a big defensive pg as good as jrue.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              IF you didn't LOVE Duke so much then you would realize how good Tyler really is?!?!?!
                              Exactly.


                              What sucks is that if it weren't for all this bizarre overreaction we could have really sane, interesting discussions of his progression and how he might be well on his way to making my projection that he didn't have what it takes to make it look stupid.

                              It doesn't have to be this crazy debate about how the most cheered player in Conseco is being "hated".


                              Things I was wrong about initially - Tyler won't be able to draw fouls the same way. This went wrong for me right away, although at least I recognized that a major portion of his scoring was via FTAs (in college).

                              That's it. What I was right about was that he was undersized, didn't have the power scoring game that Bird suggested and didn't have a quality set of go-to scoring moves, and all of this would keep his scoring/FG% down.

                              That was happening. I said he would get stuffed a lot inside and he did. Not at the rim, below the rim. If he didn't draw fouls it would have been a disaster.


                              AND THEN...

                              Dude dialed in this jumper, Vogel started putting him in PnR to get him that shot and he partially reinvented himself as this dagger machine from 18 feet.

                              It's not really what we were supposed to be drafting for at the time because we already had a PF that could shoot from the outside, and as nice as Tyler is shooting it's still not 40% from 3 for a full season or two.

                              Tyler is what Troy was EXCEPT that he gives you defense and much higher value rebounds (ie, tough ones that you might not have gotten without Tyler).

                              He's not the true power guy that Blair is or that the Pacers were in need of at the time, but what he has become does fit the team's need quite well at this point. His shooting opens up the lane for Collison and flat out puts points up at a HIGH PPS, higher than what his PPS was running up until the last month.


                              I AM NOT COMPLAINING when it comes to Tyler's play. I'll eat the humble pie happily as he becomes something I never saw him becoming. I'm a Pacers fan after all.

                              I am tired of people acting like people like me aren't saying what I just said. It's even worse when some of those people are just as happy to rip on Josh, Rush or George because they somehow view them as direct competition for Tyler's fanbase. It's not an either or situation.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                                The majority of fans loved the Tyler pick since day 1.

                                This is wrong, I can tell you by been one of the few guys in PD that wanted Tyler (me and Pwee), I argued with a lot of people for months about the pick and the majority of the people were either meh or gross out by the pick.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X