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

Hollinger chat live now

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

  • #46
    Re: Hollinger chat live now

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    You're right on the first part, I forgot to exclude the unqualifiers, but you're wrong on the second part.

    If you'll notice, you put the whole "above 6'9"" qualifier in there, one that I didn't have. I said the entire league.

    The point is that very few heavily relied on scorers shoot above 50%, and that's something you're now trying to criticize him for.

    If you want to say he needs to shoot a higher percentage, then okay. If you're going to start bashing him, because he isn't doing a vast majority of the league can't do, it's a whole different level.

    Which is BillS point from a different thread (I think) where you started bashing him for not shooting.

    You bash him for shooting too much.
    You bash him for not shooting at all.
    You bash him because he doesn't shoot 50%.
    You bash him because he's still a Pacer and Josh isn't.

    You just like bashing him, and you will use anything and everything in order to do it, whether it's relevant to the conversation or not.
    Well good thing Mackey is "wrong".

    Tyler is a limited player. What is "wrong" about that? I love the way he hustles and rebounds and tears people's heads off, but he is not that great. Mackey's metrics were "right" based on what he put in. Please stop telling everybody they are wrong for their opinion. And I agree with you most of the time. Your delivery is just very defensive.

    Tyler needs to show better decision making out on the floor just like the other nine guys I see getting minutes.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Hollinger chat live now

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      You're right on the first part, I forgot to exclude the unqualifiers, but you're wrong on the second part.

      If you'll notice, you put the whole "above 6'9"" qualifier in there, one that I didn't have. I said the entire league.

      The point is that very few heavily relied on scorers shoot above 50%, and that's something you're now trying to criticize him for.
      Wrong again.

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/..._asc=&offset=0

      The 6'9" height qualifier was used for a reason. Big men should naturally shoot a higher percentage than guards. The thought is, shooting a higher portion of their shots from closer to the rim will result in a higher percentage. Taller guys, usually get better shots. It doesn't make sense to compare Hansbrough's shooting percentage to a bunch of point guards. But since that apparently doesn't jive with you, we can use every player in the NBA and the point still stands.

      449 players got playing time last season in the NBA. A full 100 of them shot over 50%. So 22% of all the players who played, did it.

      Using your cut off of 8 shots attempts per game, the total number is cut down to 153. Only 29 had a straight shooting percentage over 50%, so only 19% did it. Tyler was 53rd out of 153.

      However, using the better eFG% since we're comparing guards with big men now, 74 of these heavily relied on scorers had an eFG% of 50% or better or 48% of them. Tyler was 126th out of 153.

      Again, all of these numbers are still significantly higher than the 10% you suggested.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      If you want to say he needs to shoot a higher percentage, then okay. If you're going to start bashing him, because he isn't doing a vast majority of the league can't do, it's a whole different level.

      Which is BillS point from a different thread (I think) where you started bashing him for not shooting.

      You bash him for shooting too much.
      You bash him for not shooting at all.
      You bash him because he doesn't shoot 50%.
      You bash him because he's still a Pacer and Josh isn't.

      You just like bashing him, and you will use anything and everything in order to do it, whether it's relevant to the conversation or not.
      First of all, it is not "bashing him," by posting his numbers in relationship to his peers. These are facts. Not insults. That is ridiculous. I've posted several numbers showing that his shooting percentage as a power forward, is not up to par. I haven't called him a flailing weirdo, or said his mom was fat. I've just showed that his performance is worthy of criticism, and have criticized that performance.

      He needs to shoot a higher percentage. I didn't realize that's all the elaboration this topic was allowed to have, but we'll roll with it. He needs to shoot a higher percentage.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Hollinger chat live now

        I find it funny that you're complaing about the lack of elaboration I'm supposedly not giving you, and you're busting my balls over the fact the difference between 78% (100/449) and 90% not shooting over 50%.

        My point, even exaggerated a bit, was a vast majority of NBA players don't shoot above 50%.

        You pass out snide comments like "homers gonna homer" and then turn around and do something equal, like try to bash someone for not shooting above 50%.

        It gets old to see you ***** about Tyler in every other thread.

        With that, I'm out.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Hollinger chat live now

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I find it funny that you're complaing about the lack of elaboration I'm supposedly not giving you, and you're busting my balls over the fact the difference between 78% (100/449) and 90% not shooting over 50%.

          My point, even exaggerated a bit, was a vast majority of NBA players don't shoot above 50%.

          You pass out snide comments like "homers gonna homer" and then turn around and do something equal, like try to bash someone for not shooting above 50%.

          It gets old to see you ***** about Tyler in every other thread.

          With that, I'm out.
          You're point doesn't make sense though. By comparing a power forward to every player in the NBA when it comes to shooting percentages, you are failing to recognize the fact that some positions should shoot higher percentages than others.

          I don't expect every player in the NBA to shoot 50%. I don't expect every scorer in the league to shoot 50%. I don't even expect Tyler shoot 50%. I never said that I did. But when a guy is a career 43% shooter, it doesn't make any sense to pretend that he's in the midst of some cruel, and unusual shooting slump just because he's at below 40% right now.

          The "homers gonna homer" line was a joke, and based on the fact that he said Tyler is taking open jumpers he should hit. That's fine if you think he should hit them, but I don't know why you'd expect him to. When you consider the percentages that he shoots on jumpshots, it's far more likely that he's going to miss on these open looks, than he is going to hit them.

          Tyler has proven that he can get hot, and he will hit several shots in a row. He goes on good shooting streaks that might last a quarter, 2 quarters, a game, or even a week. He puts up good numbers, and has good efficiency because his shooting percentage for a power forward isn't near the bottom of the league.

          For some reason, when he has these streaks, everybody acts like that's just always how he is. He isn't. What's he's doing now, is really no farther from the norm than if he was a better than 50% shooter.

          His percentage will go up this season. He'll probably end up somewhere right around 45%, and still, he'll need to shoot a higher percentage. Unless sub-mediocrity is all we'll looking for, than by all means, be satisfied.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Hollinger chat live now

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS TEAM ANYONE LIKES ANYMORE??? GEEZ
            **** mediocre players. I want 5 all stars.
            PSN: bhm184

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Hollinger chat live now

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I find it funny that you're complaing about the lack of elaboration I'm supposedly not giving you, and you're busting my balls over the fact the difference between 78% (100/449) and 90% not shooting over 50%.

              My point, even exaggerated a bit, was a vast majority of NBA players don't shoot above 50%.

              You pass out snide comments like "homers gonna homer" and then turn around and do something equal, like try to bash someone for not shooting above 50%.

              It gets old to see you ***** about Tyler in every other thread.

              With that, I'm out.
              Maybe you would be better off not making statements that can be shown to be completely erroneous with a 5 second search of the internet.

              That kind of thing gets old.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Hollinger chat live now

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I have a dream....
                It better not be a wet one if your going to talk about it here.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Hollinger chat live now

                  Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                  It better not be a wet one if your going to talk about it here.
                  The post before this was unnecessary but this wasn't?
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Hollinger chat live now

                    League average FG% for fowards last year (20mins or more a game)? 47.2%
                    Tyler Hansbrough FG% for last year? 46.5%

                    http://www.hoopdata.com/scoringstats...1&gp=0&mins=20

                    Tyler is just about average. But yeah, let's pretend he's downright awful and then get our panties in a bunch every opportunity.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Hollinger chat live now

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      League average FG% for fowards last year (20mins or more a game)? 47.2%
                      Tyler Hansbrough FG% for last year? 46.5%

                      http://www.hoopdata.com/scoringstats...1&gp=0&mins=20

                      Tyler is just about average. But yeah, let's pretend he's downright awful and then get our panties in a bunch every opportunity.

                      Well he certainly can't play a wing position, so there is no reason why you should have used all forwards when it allows you to break it further down to power forwards only. When you do that, there are 51 guys.

                      Using straight field goal percentage, he is 35th on the list. That means that 69% of the power forwards that played 20 minutes a game shot better than he did. So no, he's really not about average.

                      Using eFG%, he's 44th out of 51. So the fact that he shoots a below average percentage, while not being able to shoot 3's makes it even worse.

                      Perhaps if John Hollinger wasn't mad that Tyler is a Pacer and McRoberts isn't, he wouldn't have felt the need to point out Tyler's shot selection. Obviously there is nothing that would indicate he has any improving to do in that area. Clearly, that was an unprovoked attack in his chat session that he only wrote because he loves to bash Hansbrough.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Hollinger chat live now

                        The topic of conversations isn't about John Hollinger's constant infatuation with bashing Tyler. It's about you.

                        Cdash has already asked you, who on this team do you even like? Since Josh has been gone, I don't think you've said one positive word about a Pacers player. It would certainly be a rare exception, if you did.

                        When you come into every freaking thread and ***** constantly about the same players and the same issues, it get's rather annoying.

                        It's the same thing we went over the NO trade. I understand that people think I argue things into the ground, but ****, atleast I don't hijack multiple threads in order to do so.

                        It's like Tyler had sex with your mom or something. It's borderline obessive. You should just put something in your signature about Tyler. That way every time you post, you can get your potshots in.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Hollinger chat live now

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          The topic of conversations isn't about John Hollinger's constant infatuation with bashing Tyler. It's about you.

                          Cdash has already asked you, who on this team do you even like? Since Josh has been gone, I don't think you've said one positive word about a Pacers player. It would certainly be a rare exception, if you did.

                          When you come into every freaking thread and ***** constantly about the same players and the same issues, it get's rather annoying.

                          It's the same thing we went over the NO trade. I understand that people think I argue things into the ground, but ****, atleast I don't hijack multiple threads in order to do so.

                          It's like Tyler had sex with your mom or something. It's borderline obessive. You should just put something in your signature about Tyler. That way every time you post, you can get your potshots in.
                          What would you like this thread to be about? How was it hijacked?

                          It was about a Hollinger chat, and the only Pacers discussion in the entire chat was about Hansbrough's shot selection. Maybe we shouldn't discuss it, since it was a negative aspect that he brought up. We must only discuss the positive.

                          This team is awesome!!! World Champs!!! Go Pacers!!!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Hollinger chat live now

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Does another thread really need to be about how awful you guys think Tyler is? I would think the other 3-4 current threads would be enough.
                            Read the posts before this one. Was it a thread about "how awful you guys think Tyler is" before you posted it?

                            No.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Hollinger chat live now

                              Also, my mother is a saint.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Hollinger chat live now

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                Maybe we shouldn't discuss it, since it was a negative aspect that he brought up. We must only discuss the positive.

                                This team is awesome!!! World Champs!!! Go Pacers!!!
                                Dangerously teetering into vnzla territory with this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X