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

What's the situation with the wings?

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

  • #16
    Re: What's the situation with the wings?

    Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
    Pshhh... Small ball. Let's have some fun.

    Here's my lineup:

    PG - Tinsley
    SG - Dunleavy
    SF - Williams
    PF - Granger
    C - Foster
    -----
    SG/PG Daniels
    PG McLeod
    PF Diogu


    Sure, we wouldn't win jack **** but it would at least be fun to watch
    If Marquis is available...then I would prefer to play him ahead of the rotation as the Starting SG and have Dunleavy backup Marquis and Granger.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What's the situation with the wings?

      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
      Dang.. I thought they were bring the sitcom back! These subject lines are killing me tonight!
      To be completely honest, and this probably doesn't reflect well on me, but I thought this was a "forum party" related thread.


      I say keep the young two (Granger and Williams), lose the rest. But we'd better keep Rawle (even though the man has toothpick legs) because we did lose a future dunk contest champion to keep him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What's the situation with the wings?

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        I don't want to see either Danny or Shawne go.
        Then you've got to look at moving Dun or Quis. Because they're both natural SFs as well.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What's the situation with the wings?

          I'm intrigued by Quis, but I fear the injury bug. My gut tells me to keep him, but my gut is also hungry. Wings. Yum.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What's the situation with the wings?

            Originally posted by 31andonly View Post
            If we really had to give away either Granger or Williams, I'd say Granger can be traded!
            Are you nuts!?!

            If anything, you let Granger and Williams hold down the 3, starter and B/U in that order. I like the Quis/MDjr duo, but MDjr must improve his shot from downtown before I'm truly sold that this pairing could work (not to mention Quis needs to stay healthy).

            Granger's problem last year was more of the same from the year prior - he was asked to perform at too many positions within the same season. People quickly forget he played SF, PF and SG all last year much as he did during the '04-05 season. And as has been reported, it's not easy going from being the 4th scoring option among the starters or the 2nd or 3rd among the reserves to becoming the 2nd or 3rd option among the starters and sometimes the 1st among the reserves. This man's role changed so much it's no wonder he had it rough last year. I wouldn't be surprised if he really couldn't keep up with what he was suppose to be doing from one day to the next. Not to make excuses 'cause I'm certainly on the outside looking in speculating, but I'm willing to bet the phrase "be prepared" took on a whole new meaning with him.

            Give him a clear role and let him work at "perfecting" that role, and then we'll see what he can really do.

            Note: The reason so many are so hyped up on Shawne Williams might be because he only played 1 position whenever he was on the floor - SF - and not much was expected of him. For the record, he performed quite well, but you can't be up on Williams and down on Granger when there really isn't a true comparison. Williams wasn't asked to do anywhere near what Granger had to do.

            We all expected Granger to come into this season fully ready to take on the very best offensive players out their. I'd say he did a pretty good job. But it's unfair to "grade" him compared to a rookie who didn't really see playing time until well after the 2nd half of the season began, and even then only filled one role. Granger will be good; you just have to give him a stable atmosphere to work from.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What's the situation with the wings?

              Regardless, the fact remains that there's simply not room in the rotation for 4 small forwards, even if you play two of them at guard. Especially when we often play two point guards, and when Oreo and Rawle can give you minutes at 2.

              I'd happily move Dun and Quis for a 2 that could shoot, play a little D, and create his own shot when necessary. He doesn't need to be a 20ppg scorer, although that wouldn't hurt.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #22
                Guess you

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Rawle has shown me very little during his stint as a backup SG....I would much rather give whatever minutes that we have to Shawne.

                In fact...I would tolerate seeing Dunleavy play the backup SG spot before giving Rawle some minutes.
                Only watch the offensive half of the floor????

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                  Originally posted by rommie View Post
                  It would not be wise to trade Shawne or Danny at this point. This team isn't going anywhere fast so they might as well let them reach their potential here, and then later on down the road if we need to trade them we can get some better value for them.

                  I really think that there are teams out there that might want Daniels. Minnesota is one of them. San Antonio, Miami, and Orlando are other teams I could see wanting Daniels. I think that we could get something done with the Spurs, something as simple as Barry for Daniels or a bigger deal like Daniels/Foster/Harrison for Barry/Finley/Butler.

                  At worst we stay put with the wings. If this team really wants to win now this is going to be an issue. If they really want to win that championship then we will do things right, build this team back up slowly, and probably keep things the way they are at the wing positions.
                  You're forgetting Ike and Dunleavy. Can't play 4 forwards.
                  We NEED to trade somebody for a guard.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                    Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                    Pshhh... Small ball. Let's have some fun.

                    Here's my lineup:

                    PG - Tinsley
                    SG - Dunleavy
                    SF - Williams
                    PF - Granger
                    C - Foster
                    -----
                    SG/PG Daniels
                    PG McLeod
                    PF Diogu


                    Sure, we wouldn't win jack **** but it would at least be fun to watch
                    NO, that would be extremely ugly to watch.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                      Originally posted by PacerMan View Post
                      NO, that would be extremely ugly to watch.
                      I'm with PacerMan on this one. That lineup won't win games, and it won't look good doing it.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                        What if TPTB decided to try Dun and Quis at SF and SG (the two hard-to-trade but decent players), while trading Danny and Shawne for improvement at PG and/or C?

                        I don't want Danny or Shawne to go, just sayin' it's a possiblity...
                        Unfortunately this makes the most sense to me. As much as I dont want to see either of those players go, I could see them getting us a really good PG if we traded them both together. And that would give us a pretty good starting 5:

                        Foster
                        JO
                        Dun
                        Quis
                        Any Star PG, take your pick.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                          Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                          Unfortunately this makes the most sense to me. As much as I dont want to see either of those players go, I could see them getting us a really good PG if we traded them both together. And that would give us a pretty good starting 5:
                          Shawne's not really well known, and another team isn't going to want both.

                          But it wouldn't surprise me to see us move Danny.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                            I think TPTB are looking at Williams as a future 4.

                            Here is the article with bolded comments.

                            http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/digest_061009.html

                            White, Williams On Different Paths

                            By Conrad Brunner | Oct. 9, 2006
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            In most respects, James White is not a typical NBA rookie.
                            In many respects, Shawne Williams is.



                            Though both of the Pacers' prized draft acquisitions are considered integral parts of the team's future, their training camp experience thus far couldn't have been much different.

                            White, who turns 24 this month, is a veteran of five years at two major universities (Florida and Cincinnati) under three different head coaches, which prepared him well for the transition to the NBA ? so much so, in fact, that with Stephen Jackson sidelined due to minor injuries sustained in an incident early Friday morning outside an Indianapolis nightclub, White has filled his spot with the first unit in practice.

                            "He plays the game and doesn?t look like a rookie player," said Coach Rick Carlisle of White. "He'll make a few rookie mistakes but he carries himself with a veteran affect which is great to see. (Danny) Granger was like that last year. Tayshaun Prince was like that my second year in Detroit. Generally, guys that have been in college three, four, five years have those characteristics. He's done pretty well."

                            Williams, 20, who played just one year at Memphis, is struggling with the learning curve accelerated by the requirement that he be able to play multiple positions.

                            "This is by far more difficult on Shawne Williams than any of our other players," Carlisle said, "because he's learning a perimeter position and a post position and he's a rookie player trying to observe a lot of things for the first time. He's working hard at it, but it's a challenge."



                            White

                            White has a confident aura about him, not quite cocky but definitely not intimidated by his new surroundings. His quick adjustment has not been entirely surprising but doesn't make it any less gratifying. He could start the Pacers' first preseason game Wednesday night against New Jersey in Conseco Fieldhouse, assuming Jackson is unable to play.

                            "The things we do here, I've really seen it all before," White said. "I played in college for five years for three different coaches. They all run their different systems. When we do different things, eventually one of the things I did in the past will come out, so it's pretty easy to pick up on things."

                            So does that mean he doesn't really feel like a rookie?

                            "Nah, not really," he said. "I still feel like I get blamed for everything. The games harder because the guys are a little bigger, a little faster, things like that but as far as picking up plays and the defensive rules, it's all the same."



                            Williams

                            Williams is a lithe 6-9 forward who may be best suited for the perimeter now, but the Pacers believe he will grow into a strong interior force. He's facing essentially the same demands as Granger last year in learning very different positions, though Williams has far less experience to draw upon.

                            "That makes it a whole different level, trying to learn outside and inside," Williams said. "It's totally different positions. For one person to go out there and learn one position is kind of easy. But to learn two or three else, that's something. Coming from college, we'd run the 3-2 set. Now you come down and we've got probably 20-30 plays they put in on one day and you're trying to learn the four, then they switch to the three and you forget the four, then they put you back at the three. It's a big challenge, man.

                            "It's like the ACT test all over again. It's something I've got to deal with. It's part of becoming an NBA player."


                            ************************************************** ***

                            I know this doesn't clear anything up as far as the SF spot is concerned but Granger should get all of his minutes at SF. Williams, if not next season, in the future should move to the 4.

                            Dunleavy can play behind Granger & get some minutes at 2.

                            Daniels can play the 2 as well as get some minutes at 1.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                              I say keep the young two (Granger and Williams), lose the rest. But we'd better keep Rawle (even though the man has toothpick legs) because we did lose a future dunk contest champion to keep him.
                              How do you propose that we do this?

                              Do you know if any team that would want to trade a Bad contract for another?

                              The answer is no team...unless you want to take back a worse contract or a player that serves no purpose for this team.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                                Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                                Unfortunately this makes the most sense to me. As much as I dont want to see either of those players go, I could see them getting us a really good PG if we traded them both together. And that would give us a pretty good starting 5:

                                Foster
                                JO
                                Dun
                                Quis
                                Any Star PG, take your pick.
                                This PG would have to be not only good in distribution, handles, and court generalship, but also a very good outside shooter paried with Quis and Dun. That's not saying anything about defense. If you can get that guy for Granger, (don't know sounds like at top 5 PG to me. Can he bring that much?) then this might work.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X