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

Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

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

  • #16
    I could have been referring to Brandon Roy.....

    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


    • #17
      Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      44% for a Center is real bad.
      IF that was his career average I would agree but Hibbert and Kaman pretty much have the same number for TS%. Also consider Hibbert on a new team with no training camp and forced in and out of the lineup with trade speculations.

      IF JOB trashed his confidence then I fully expect if the roles were reversed that HIbbert TS% would also plummet.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

        Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA

        RT @coreywallace_: ---> if Omer Asik just got a $25 million offer, Kaman will command even more.
        Expand

        Reply
        Retweeted
        Favorite

        1m Steve Kyler Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA

        RT @coreywallace_: What so you think is a better option for the Pacers. Cheap Chris Kaman or an overpaid Hibbert? ---> Both will be pricey.
        Collapse

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

        10:38 AM - 2 Jul 12 via TweetDeck ยท Details
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

          Yuck. Asik can at least defend the paint at an elite level. Anybody willing to pay Kaman more than an average of 8 or 9/yr doesn't deserve an NBA gig.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            I could have been referring to Brandon Roy.....
            good recovery.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

              Well if Kaman is going to be pricey too, we might as well sign Roy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                I guess if its 10 for Kaman, you can probably only do two years. I really am starting to just say okay sign Roy, ya its an inflated price, but it just is what it is...

                Side note, heres a unlinked obscure reference. I know about a year or two ago I saw something that said Kaman is just horribly inefficient and his numbers are misleading. Basically saying his number production was tied to volume, not effectiveness. Not a guy who really improves the whole. I have no link and I didn't see this in the small sampling against the Pacers, so who knows.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Can with stop with this player A and player B crap, like were pretending to be clever? Just say hibbert and kaman.
                  Well, I did it as rhetorical bait and switch to see if anyone wrongly assumed the guy with the inferior stats was Kaman. And somebody did just that.

                  For the record, I'm fine with paying Roy. It's going to cost us, and Roy pushing for a max deal is his way of saying I'm fine if the Pacers don't have the long-term solvency to win me a title, but I'm fine with it.
                  "Reggie Miller is the hardest player to guard." --Kobe Bryant

                  "Playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts. It's like chicken-fighting with a woman." --Michael Jordan

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                    No disrespect, but I have seen this player A player B crap in several threads.

                    It is petty, and quite silly. Just say the two players names.

                    EDIT: Kstat beat me to it, my bad

                    As Ramitt said, it is crazy how some arguments are only based on stats. There is a reason why teams and agents negotiate after watching games, and dont just read the box score after every game.

                    lies, damn lies, and statistics

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                      Originally posted by Reginald View Post
                      For the record, I'm fine with paying Roy. It's going to cost us, and Roy pushing for a max deal is his way of saying I'm fine if the Pacers don't have the long-term solvency to win me a title, but I'm fine with it.
                      lol ok. I think it's hilarious how some fans think this. Roy should have foregone millions to maintain the "Pacers' long-term solvency to win him a title" which is, mind you, nowhere near guaranteed. And how many players have ever done this before?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        No disrespect, but I have seen this player A player B crap in several threads.

                        It is petty, and quite silly. Just say the two players names.
                        I'm sure you have seen it. And those posters had their reasons for using it, and I had mine. My reason was well-considered and intentional, and it had the desired effect; i.e. a poster simply assuming Hibbert has had the better career.
                        "Reggie Miller is the hardest player to guard." --Kobe Bryant

                        "Playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts. It's like chicken-fighting with a woman." --Michael Jordan

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                          Corey Wallace ‏@coreywallace_

                          @HPbasketball Considering the price tag, who is the better option for the Pacers, Roy Hibbert or Chris Kaman?
                          Collapse

                          Reply
                          Retweet
                          Favorite

                          11:45 AM - 2 Jul 12 via web ยท Details
                          23m Hardwood Paroxysm Hardwood Paroxysm ‏@HPbasketball

                          @coreywallace_ Roy Hibbert a hundred times over
                          Expand

                          Reply
                          Retweet
                          Favorite
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                            As hard as Roy works, he's going to get better. Match.

                            Roy and PG. Our future.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              No disrespect, but I have seen this player A player B crap in several threads.

                              It is petty, and quite silly. Just say the two players names.

                              EDIT: Kstat beat me to it, my bad

                              As Ramitt said, it is crazy how some arguments are only based on stats. There is a reason why teams and agents negotiate after watching games, and dont just read the box score after every game.

                              lies, damn lies, and statistics
                              I'll defend the Player A vs Player B method. If you do not realize who the players are (everyone already did because we have seen it 10x), it tends to take the emotional bias out of it. We all know how emotionally tied a lot of posters are to Roy, myself included. This was probably not the best time to use it, but it was a little disturbing the first time I saw it. Centers certainly have inflated salaries, but a max contract for a 13, 9 and 2 player is hard to swallow for me. Considering what these other scrubs are getting offered, we have to match. Kaman is a no for me. Hibbert is a yes.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why am I not supposed to like Chris Kaman?

                                Hicksey, I agree. It can be effective. To me it a cheap ploy, however, because it relies on baiting another poster.

                                However, I think it is just as effective (if not more) to lay out your argument, then say "While you may be attached to Roy Hibbert because all he has done, look at these numbers. Can you tell me you would be this attached if his name was not Hibbert or if you never knew who this player was"

                                Regardless, it is even lamer the 10th times you see it.

                                __________________________

                                Back on topic, I 100% agree with you. I am torn on Hibbert (I think he will improve, but he has a lot of work left to do) but I remember how mad I was when we lost Brad Miller. I was vocal about wanting Miller, and I agreed with a lot of posters who thought he was a huge key for us (Hicks and Jay come to mind, though I may be wrong about Jay).

                                Others were proven correct over time (most Bulletproof) that he would not hold up and it could be a bad investment. Botton line is the same now as it was back then. Big men are hard to come by, and they are often what we would call "overpaid" (that really is a funny phrase when tallking about millionares and billionares isnt it?)

                                Regardless, as has been pointed out numerous times this is all posturing, and when it is all said and done I expect Roy will be a Pacer. If he moves on it will suck, but nothing would suck more for me then seeing the Pacers letting him go then seeing him turn into an amazing All star type player...and or winning a NBA Title ala Ron Artest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X