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

OJ may solve some problems for us

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

  • #16
    Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

    I may not have been as clear as possible. A few of you seem to have got it. I'm saying decrease Tyler's minutes and give them to Danny. Give those extra 10 minutes or so at the wing to OJ.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      I may not have been as clear as possible. A few of you seem to have got it. I'm saying decrease Tyler's minutes and give them to Danny. Give those extra 10 minutes or so at the wing to OJ.
      I'm not convinced that OJ is more than a flash in the pan. But we do need to keep feeding him and see where it goes.

      But I do like the idea of giving Danny time at the 4. It's just for different reasons. He's 6'9" and a strong player who is maturing into his body. He can defend the position and make life difficult for another 4 trying to guard him. Big time mismatch and I like it especially for this team. It frees up the SF position for Paul George. I really don't like Paul at the 2 because he hits the boards so well. Why give that up having him guard a little SG 30 feet from the rim??? IMO Paul is easily the best player and he's probably the best player in Pacer history including ABA. Yes. ABA too. He should be playing his natural position.

      The key question. Do you really think if Paul came first that Danny would supplant him at SF?

      We'll see how Danny does, but it's time to move past the idea that he has to be the starting SF. IMO, I truly believe that both Lance and Paul George are better basketball players. My only question is whether Lance should start at PG or SG.

      Understandably, this is a nice problem to have. I don't think West or Hibbert should come off the bench. The best option might be to have Lance start at PG and have Danny and Paul on the wing with West and Hibbert at the 4 and 5 positions. ...leaving George Hill as a perfect combo guard 6th man. Of course, that leaves the question about who guards the other team's SG.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-23-2013, 08:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        I may not have been as clear as possible. A few of you seem to have got it. I'm saying decrease Tyler's minutes and give them to Danny. Give those extra 10 minutes or so at the wing to OJ.
        I think the teams better off letting Tyler have those minutes. Grangers minutes have to come from somewhere but I'd rather see him stay at the wing and take all of those minutes from our current wing rotation while Lance gets split between the 1/2.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          We'll see how Danny does, but it's time to move past the idea that he has to be the starting SF. IMO, I truly believe that both Lance and Paul George are better basketball players. My only question is whether Lance should start at PG or SG.
          It's still questionable as to if PG is better. He will be at first but as of last year Granger was still the better scorer and that's not all he does for this team. Lance isn't even close to Grangers level. They'll both be free agents at the same time and I'll bet Granger nets 2-3 times what Lance does on the market. Closer to 3, I'd say Danny gets an offer in the 10-12 mil range and I don't see Lance getting more then 4.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
            I think the teams better off letting Tyler have those minutes. Grangers minutes have to come from somewhere but I'd rather see him stay at the wing and take all of those minutes from our current wing rotation while Lance gets split between the 1/2.
            That opinion has merit as well, obviously. But here's another way to look at it: during the playoffs, with a scaled down rotation, does giving Tyler 10 minutes or OJ 10 minutes help us more? I think Danny at the 4 with OJ on the wing helps us more.

            Tyler just is appearing more and more like a liability to me with his defense, rebounding, and low fg percentage. Granted, he's improving somewhat and he's getting to the line a lot. He also has that crazy, psycho intangible that is probably good for playoff ball. Hmmm . . . maybe I'm talking myself out of this.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
              It's still questionable as to if PG is better. He will be at first but as of last year Granger was still the better scorer and that's not all he does for this team. Lance isn't even close to Grangers level. They'll both be free agents at the same time and I'll bet Granger nets 2-3 times what Lance does on the market. Closer to 3, I'd say Danny gets an offer in the 10-12 mil range and I don't see Lance getting more then 4.
              Well, we'll just have to see. If I was another GM, I would be offering a lot of money for Lance as a restricted free agent.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                To me the line-up situation is real simple: Put Granger in place of Green in the second unit and you're done. If Granger plays so well to squeeze into the starting unit eventually, then so be it, but don't force it. I look at our starting unit and I'm fine with it. I look at our second unit, and I'm fine with it except for SF, which just so happens to be what Granger does best. It's a duh situation, to me. First unit --- Hill, Lance, PG, West, Hibbert. Second unit --- DJ, OJ, Granger, Hansbrough, Mahinmi. We almost have two starting-capable units. Granger would be that #1 scoring option for the bench that is currently lacking.... until he eases into the starting role, if that even happens this year. With only 27 games left, I don't know if I'd go tinkering too much with what's working right now, unless the coaching staff just felt that Granger had progressed so much that it was the obvious choice to make.
                ^^^ Best use of common sense award

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  To me the line-up situation is real simple: Put Granger in place of Green in the second unit and you're done.
                  Green isn't in the rotation any more.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                    It's still questionable as to if PG is better. He will be at first but as of last year Granger was still the better scorer and that's not all he does for this team. Lance isn't even close to Grangers level. They'll both be free agents at the same time and I'll bet Granger nets 2-3 times what Lance does on the market. Closer to 3, I'd say Danny gets an offer in the 10-12 mil range and I don't see Lance getting more then 4.

                    Some team will offer a whole lot more than 4 mil per for Lance, assuming he continues to flourish (which we have no reason to believe he won't). If Steve Blake can get 4 mil per, at the age of 32, Lance can easily expect $6 mil per when/if he hits the open market.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                      Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                      ^^^ Best use of common sense award
                      Agreed. We are playing better than we have played since JO prime years. I see no reason to take Lance out of the lineup to fit in Granger when we know Granger will get his minutes. Danny should backup Paul or move to PF unless they go big. If they go big we kill them btw.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        That opinion has merit as well, obviously. But here's another way to look at it: during the playoffs, with a scaled down rotation, does giving Tyler 10 minutes or OJ 10 minutes help us more? I think Danny at the 4 with OJ on the wing helps us more.

                        Tyler just is appearing more and more like a liability to me with his defense, rebounding, and low fg percentage. Granted, he's improving somewhat and he's getting to the line a lot. He also has that crazy, psycho intangible that is probably good for playoff ball. Hmmm . . . maybe I'm talking myself out of this.
                        I think you're letting last season's performance affect your opinion of him this year. His post defense has been excellent this year, and his team defense is improving. He's actually our fourth strongest rebounder, and he's only behind Hibbert in terms of rebounding per minute. So interms of production, he's a very good rebounder for us.

                        His FG %, while still low for his position, is offset by the fact that he DOES get to the line a lot. But even then, he's basically shooting the team average so even though he's helping the FG% problem our team has had much of the year, what he's been doing hasn't really hurt us either.


                        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                        Some team will offer a whole lot more than 4 mil per for Lance, assuming he continues to flourish (which we have no reason to believe he won't). If Steve Blake can get 4 mil per, at the age of 32, Lance can easily expect $6 mil per when/if he hits the open market.
                        6 would be a reasonable guess, but keep in mind players do not always get paid their market value. Blake is on the high end, probably because he's a point guard, while guys like Jamal Crawford (5 mil per) are getting the low end recently because of the CBA.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                          Assuming that Vogel will continue to give GH/PG/Lance/West/Hibbert/Mahinmi their current # of minutes, we are likely looking at the rotation as follows ( where Lance continues to get 28 mpg....which Vogel said he will continue to do ):

                          PG - GH ( 32 mpg ) / DJ ( 16 mpg )
                          SG - PG ( 18 mpg ) / Lance ( 28 mpg ) / GH ( 2 mpg )
                          SF - Granger ( 32 mpg ) / PG ( 16 mpg )
                          PF - West ( 33 mpg ) / Hansbrough ( 15 mpg )
                          C - Hibbert ( 28 mpg ) / Mahinmi ( 20 mpg )

                          The way I look at it....the rotations will likely tighten up come Playoff time to a 9 man rotation. The reality is that Players like OJ/Green/Young won't likely get any minutes when it's Playoff/Crunch Time. I like what OJ has done...but his improvement will likely cost Young and Green minutes...not Granger or Hansbrough.

                          IMHO....I think that Hansbrough in HUGE doses on a regular basis isn't always beneficial ( based off of the matchup ). But in 15-16 mpg....that's a different story. His skill to get to the FT line while getting Players in Foul Trouble...is really underrated, forgotten and very important come Playoff time. He's able to do a lot of damage during the minimal amount of time he plays....while his aggressive defense is able to get under the skins of a lot of Teams ( which I like ). In other words, he's very effective..in small doses.

                          I agree...my overall preference is to reduce the # of minutes that West play to roughly 30 mpg ( cuz the Playoffs is a marathon...not a race )....instead of the 33 mpg that he currently plays....while giving those spot 3 backup PF minutes to Granger.....but I am guessing that the key Starters ( GH / PG / Granger / West ) will be pushing 33 to 35 mpg in the Playoffs...with Lance getting up to 30 mpg.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                            Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                            Some team will offer a whole lot more than 4 mil per for Lance, assuming he continues to flourish (which we have no reason to believe he won't). If Steve Blake can get 4 mil per, at the age of 32, Lance can easily expect $6 mil per when/if he hits the open market.
                            I assume that because Lance is a 2nd round pick....that some Team will be d*cks about it and will try to Jeremy Lin / Omar Asik the Pacers....by offering a huge poison pill contract offer that is heavily skewed in the last year of his contract offer. it will be something like some $4 mil / $4 mil / $10 mil contract offer.

                            IMHO....the Pacers should engage Lance in an extension in the upcoming summer....just to avoid having him hit the FA Market in 2014-2015....cuz some Team will do to the Pacers what the Rockets did to the Knicks.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                              OJ has already surpassed my expectations as a basketball player. He's making his shots of course, but it goes beyond that. I thought he was a Stephen Graham level player but he's beyond that. He makes very good decisions on offense and shoots within the flow. He's strong and has great balance. He also has a quick release. But what I didn't expect is that he's quick and strong enough to guard the big, physical point guards. I think he gives us the flexibility to move Lance to PG on offense.

                              I'm impressed.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: OJ may solve some problems for us

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                I assume that because Lance is a 2nd round pick....that some Team will be d*cks about it and will try to Jeremy Lin / Omar Asik the Pacers....by offering a huge poison pill contract offer that is heavily skewed in the last year of his contract offer. it will be something like some $4 mil / $4 mil / $10 mil contract offer.

                                IMHO....the Pacers should engage Lance in an extension in the upcoming summer....just to avoid having him hit the FA Market in 2014-2015....cuz some Team will do to the Pacers what the Rockets did to the Knicks.
                                Completely agree. The front office should be trying to lock up PG and Lance THIS SUMMER, not next. If they can't, they can't, but they should at the very least be trying to.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X