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

Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

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

  • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    So the Pacers not trying to sign, or atleast leaking their attempt to sign, a player they had no shot at signing that's really the biggest complaint?
    How do you know they had no shot at signing him? Kidd left Dallas, the place where he won a title just a year before, because he felt that NY had a better chance at winning a championship. Well by any objective measure, the Pacers had a more successful season than the Knicks last year. So if Kidd thought that the Knicks were in better shape than Dallas, then logically he would have thought that the Pacers were too. Kidd had to have been aware that the Pacers had the 5th best record in the league last year and put up a fight against Miami. So why wouldn't he have at least listened if we came to him with a slightly better offer than NY?

    I just don't buy the whole "they wouldn't come here, so why try" mindset. Kidd likely would have chose NY anyway, but why not try? I think we could have put together an attractive enough offer to make him think.

    And George Hill was restricted and not going anywhere. We could have waited a few more days to finalize that deal and try for some amnesty players, as Peck mentioned.

    Comment


    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      So the Pacers not trying to sign, or atleast leaking their attempt to sign, a player they had no shot at signing that's really the biggest complaint?
      No... The Pacers going conservative when they had needs to fill and the rest of the NBA contending/playoff teams were making real moves to improve is the argument. There is no argument the Pacers had no shot at certain players because the Pacers didn't try. If they had tried then by all normal accounts it would've been leaked. Only then would we know if they had a shot or not. This is not Basketball Siberia.

      I cannot believe it's Groundhog Day all over again and Donnie Walsh is back in charge of the Pacers and we're having these discussions. Please get rid of him once and for all.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

        Does trying to sign Mayo outright fall into that conservative POV? Nutinus has had a convo going with Vnzla in another thread, showing where the Pacers were one of the teams chasing Mayo. We never heard much, or anything really, about that.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I just don't buy the whole "they wouldn't come here, so why try" mindset. Kidd likely would have chose NY anyway, but why not try? I think we could have put together an attractive enough offer to make him think.
          I've never given the "why try" line, nor would I. You said it yourself that you think Kidd picking Indy over NYC would be a long shot.

          I just don't think you can say, "well it wasn't leaked, so therefore there was no attempt."
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I've never given the "why try" line, nor would I. You said it yourself that you think Kidd picking Indy over NYC would be a long shot.

            I just don't think you can say, "well it wasn't leaked, so therefore there was no attempt."

            True, I can't affirmatively state that they didn't try since it wasn't leaked. But in the 24/7 internet media sports world, it's usually always leaked when a team makes a serious run at a free agent. Teams almost always want it out there that they are trying to improve their team.

            And I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth with the "why try" line. I was responding to your "no shot" in post 103. I'll concede that NY had an advantage with the bright lines of NYC and Melo. Not a bad way to end your career. Nevertheless, I still think that the Pacers could have at least grabbed his attention if they sweetened the pot a little, if winning was the major factor in his decision.

            Comment


            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

              Scola was a surprise amnesty to everyone other than Houston. It was just crap timing for us. Could they have backed off their already-announced press conference for Roy and Hill and made them wait to sign their deals? Yes/maybe. Do I blame them for not doing that to those two? I'm not sure, but my immediate gut reaction is to say no. It's my head that has me thinking maybe I should feel differently, but I'm not sure.

              My only real hindsight complaint about the summer is we didn't get an upgrade at backup 4. I really thought we would. At the time, I thought DJ was a good get for backup 1 and Green was an interesting (in a good way) choice for a new backup wing.

              I kept thinking we might try to get Landry.

              Comment


              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                I didn't know that the Pacers actually offered Mayo a FA contract. Maybe it was discussed, and I just missed it, but I have a very good memory and don't recall it.

                EDIT:
                The Augustine signing is really what screwed everything up, IMHO. I don't think anyone could have foreseen how truly awful he's been.
                Last edited by Since86; 12-10-2012, 11:58 AM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  EDIT:
                  The Augustine signing is really what screwed everything up, IMHO. I don't think anyone could have foreseen how truly awful he's been.
                  It has to be the #1 problem with the bench. Green's a dumb basketball player, but if DJ played the 1 as we expected, I think he could have been more of a straw stirring the drink with that backup crew. Maybe when Lance goes back to the bench he can bring some of that at the SG spot when he handles the ball.

                  Which brings us back to the #1 problem with the team: Danny's injury.

                  I think we could live with everything else as it is if only we could get 2011-12 (which really isn't asking for much) Augustin and 2011-12 Danny on this current team, and I think we'd be right at the top of the east.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                    I was kinda hoping for that also. Couldn't believe we didn't work the backup 4 replacement harder. If Plumlee had worked out better for a backup 4/5, maybe Mahinmi could have taken a lot of the 4 rotation minutes. We badly need some offense from the 4 position in the 2nd unit and Tyler is clearly not going to give it to us. Still think we need a change before the deadline for trades. Tyler's expiring should be movable to some team with salary problems.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                      Originally posted by MAStamper View Post

                      I think we could live with everything else as it is if only we could get 2011-12 (which really isn't asking for much) Augustin
                      But is it possible for 2011-12 Augistin to play that way on a good team like the Pacers that requires far more discipline and team basketball than the putrid Bobcats a season ago? I'm beginning to think that his season last year was a complete mirage and that a ton of players are capable of putting up some misleading numbers if they have the opportunity to shoot a bunch.

                      His FG% is beyond awful this year at 26%, so you'd logically expect that to inevitably improve at some point. However, in his "good" season last year, he still only shot 37%. For comparison's sake, Collison shot a solid 44% a year ago.

                      IMO, Augistin is just a sloppy player who had a misleading season last year because he was able to get 10 field goal attempts per game. But his FG percentage was still complete crap last year. Here he has an even worse percentage and is shooting the ball less.

                      He did have 6.4 assists a game last year though, so it definitely wasn't unreasonable for us to think he could get assists here.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                        DJ's inability to run an offense is more troubling than anything. I'm sure Travis Best is sitting somewhere getting jealous at the amount of dribbling, with players standing around watching.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                          Now that I think about it, we don't have a single player on our team who has been a contributor on a team that went to the conference finals. I bet we are the only "contender" in the league who you can say that about.

                          No, I'm not going to count Mahinmi. He only played in 6 games for a total of 33 minutes in Dallas' 2011 run. That's hardly contributing.

                          Experience is extremely valuable. You don't want a team of all young players. West and Granger are veterans, but last year was just the first time that Danny advanced past the first round of the playoffs. It was only the second time for West. I know I've harped on this a lot lately, but I'll do it one more time since that stat just popped into my head. This team desperately needed to add a player that has "been there" before and who could show the rest of the group how to take the next step in the playoffs. I know all of that sounds cliche', but it's true. Reggie in his book mentions multiple times how Byron Scott's presence changed the attitude of those mid 90's Pacer teams. I've heard plenty of old-timers say that here over the years too. Scott used to bring his Laker rings into the locker room to motivate the players.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-10-2012, 12:30 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            But is it possible for 2011-12 Augistin to play that way on a good team like the Pacers that requires far more discipline and team basketball than the putrid Bobcats a season ago? I'm beginning to think that his season last year was a complete mirage and that a ton of players are capable of putting up some misleading numbers if they have the opportunity to shoot a bunch.

                            His FG% is beyond awful this year at 26%, so you'd logically expect that to inevitably improve at some point. However, in his "good" season last year, he still only shot 37%. For comparison's sake, Collison shot a solid 44% a year ago.

                            IMO, Augistin is just a sloppy player who had a misleading season last year because he was able to get 10 field goal attempts per game. But his FG percentage was still complete crap last year. Here he has an even worse percentage and is shooting the ball less.

                            He did have 6.4 assists a game last year though, so it definitely wasn't unreasonable for us to think he could get assists here.
                            Statistically his numbers last year in 30 minutes are similar to Price's per 36 numbers, except DJ was a better 3-point shooter, while Price was a better rebounder. Not in the statistics is Price is at worst an adequate defender, and is much better at running an offense. I said at one point in the offseason, based on stats and the way people described him, that DJ was basically a mixture of DC and Price. So far that is true. At the time it made me a little nervous, but I had hope that DJ would be able to run and offense and find open people for easy scores. Instead we got a player that is only the worst parts of DC (defense, running an offense) and the worst parts of Price (shooting).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Now that I think about it, we don't have a single player on our team who has been a contributor on a team that went to the conference finals. I bet we are the only "contender" in the league who you can say that about.

                              No, I'm not going to count Mahinmi. He only played in 6 games for a total of 33 minutes in Dallas' 2011 run. That's hardly contributing.

                              Experience is extremely valuable. You don't want a team of all young players. West and Granger are veterans, but last year was just the first time that Danny advanced past the first round of the playoffs. It was only the second time for West. I know I've harped on this a lot lately, but I'll do it one more time since that stat just popped into my head. This team desperately needed to add a player that has "been there" before and who could show the rest of the group how to take the next step in the playoffs. I know all of that sounds cliche', but it's true. Reggie in his book mentions multiple times how Byron Scott's presence changed the attitude of those mid 90's Pacer teams. I've heard plenty of old-timers say that here over the years too. Scott used to bring his Laker rings into the locker room to motivate the players.
                              Hopefully we pick up a vet PG and PF in the offseason to replace DJ and Hansbrough.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                So because Cuban spends $80M on his team, unless Simon matches, they're not as committed?


                                I'm just trying to figure out your guy's standards here.
                                Salary has nothing to do with the issue. Cuban spent very little on the players he brought in this year. It's just a matter of competent management.
                                The Mavs organization made smarter moves this year with the money they spent and made Walsh look like an incompetent fool with what he spent our hard earned cap space on.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X