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

So the depth chart is... what now?

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

  • #16
    Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Playoff time? Seriously? Our moves make it pretty clear that making the playoffs is not the primary goal. Sure, we may get in because the players we have will probably play hard and bust their *** but playoffs are far from a given.



    Why does it matter? He's going to play starter minutes anyway so it makes no difference whatsoever. I never understood why people care so much about who's the nominal starter. It's the amount of minutes that the player spends on the court that matters, not whether he starts or not.
    Why does it matter? Because the team needs to practice together and get accustomed to their roles. If Lance is going to be asked to run the point like he did quite a bit against the Heat and Cavs in the playoffs, why not give him time to practice? Maybe get experience in the regular season so they can run some set plays and get better at it? What has become irritating is that the point guard, whether it be George Hill or Jeff Teague, has not run the point at times in the playoffs. Instead, that job is often given to Lance because he can get guys the ball easier and he can handle the physical pressure. Why not give Lance a chance to practice and improve that game they continue to ask him to play during the playoffs? That includes times where they back off of him and dare him to shoot. He needs to show he can do that. He did fine shooting nearly 40% last playoffs but he may do better given a chance to operate the offense year round and as his primary role.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      I'm not considering Joe Young at all. He's terrible.

      All these depth charts have Lance plugged into like three positions' rotations. Unless he's going to play 42 minutes, we need some more bodies there. Even if that is the plan, we need more bodies. Lance was banged up the vast majority of last season.
      I've since edited my post for more content, but yeah, I agree. GR3 is the only big wing we have who can play defense, as Lance and Dipo are a bit short and Bojan doesn't play defense. I was hoping maybe we could deal CJ Miles for Tyus Jones of the T-Wolves to give us a young point guard off the bench, but it looks like we might be holding out for an actual pick. I really do like Reggie Bullock for us though, he was the first guy I thought of for a bench role and happens to be a free agent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
        I've since edited my post for more content, but yeah, I agree. GR3 is the only big wing we have who can play defense, as Lance and Dipo are a bit short and Bojan doesn't play defense. I was hoping maybe we could deal CJ Miles for Tyus Jones of the T-Wolves to give us a young point guard off the bench, but it looks like we might be holding out for an actual pick. I really do like Reggie Bullock for us though, he was the first guy I thought of for a bench role and happens to be a free agent.
        Man, I don't know where this comes from. Lance is too short yet he's guarded LeBron James for years.

        I can only say I am thankful that KP is in charge. He will do the right thing, even if I disagree with it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

          Originally posted by PR07 View Post
          I've since edited my post for more content, but yeah, I agree. GR3 is the only big wing we have who can play defense, as Lance and Dipo are a bit short and Bojan doesn't play defense. I was hoping maybe we could deal CJ Miles for Tyus Jones of the T-Wolves to give us a young point guard off the bench, but it looks like we might be holding out for an actual pick. I really do like Reggie Bullock for us though, he was the first guy I thought of for a bench role and happens to be a free agent.
          That's pretty interesting. I saw the pick being reported in a S&T, but not the Tyus Jones thing. That would be a very worthwhile flier for the Pacers to take. CJ's probably going to walk anyway, and while I don't think Tyus Jones is going to be much of a player in the NBA, he's worth a look.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

            Yeah I don't buy the Lance is too small to be a SF talk. We stuck him on LeBron for long stretches, and he's easily the most physical wing in the league.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Man, I don't know where this comes from. Lance is too short yet he's guarded LeBron James for years.

              I can only say I am thankful that KP is in charge. He will do the right thing, even if I disagree with it.
              In certain matchups, Lance is fine, but in other, he's not going to be fine. I think someone like Kevin Durant would have a field day shooting over him for instance. I'm not saying Lance is a liability by any means, but when GR3 is your only wing above 6'5" who can play defense, I think that's a roster deficiency and seems to be one that could be cured relatively easily at this point in the offseason and for pretty cheap.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                Yeah I don't buy the Lance is too small to be a SF talk. We stuck him on LeBron for long stretches, and he's easily the most physical wing in the league.
                Lance has a large wing span and he is very strong. However, now that he's lost weight I don't know how that will change his game. He will probably be a bit faster, but bodying up LeBron will actually be harder IMO. Still, he can handle the SF position easily. Heck, we had freaking CJ Miles at PF and he's 10 lbs lighter...and people thought the dude was the greatest PF of all time. ...smh.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  That's pretty interesting. I saw the pick being reported in a S&T, but not the Tyus Jones thing. That would be a very worthwhile flier for the Pacers to take. CJ's probably going to walk anyway, and while I don't think Tyus Jones is going to be much of a player in the NBA, he's worth a look.
                  I'm not huge on him either, but if you just wanted more of a natural point guard who could pass and take care of the basketball and effectively run an offense, he might not be a bad 3rd point guard to have to limit Lance's minutes.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                    In certain matchups, Lance is fine, but in other, he's not going to be fine. I think someone like Kevin Durant would have a field day shooting over him for instance. I'm not saying Lance is a liability by any means, but when GR3 is your only wing above 6'5" who can play defense, I think that's a roster deficiency and seems to be one that could be cured relatively easily at this point in the offseason and for pretty cheap.
                    Kevin Durant destroys just about any SF in the league. We don't have a single player who can come close to guarding Durant. Heck, Lance might be the best option.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Kevin Durant destroys just about any SF in the league. We don't have a single player who can come close to guarding Durant. Heck, Lance might be the best option.
                      My point is, he fits well matching up against LeBron because LeBron's game isn't shooting over you. It's using his immense strength and power to get to the rim, that's why Lance's height is never an issue against LeBron because he's well built at 6'5". However, his height could very well be an issue against taller wings who rely less on strength and more on shooting.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        I'm not huge on him either, but if you just wanted more of a natural point guard who could pass and take care of the basketball and effectively run an offense, he might not be a bad 3rd point guard to have to limit Lance's minutes.
                        I'm also not a guy who thinks Lance is going to log heavy minutes at the point. He will play there some, but I think he's going to spend most of his time on the wing and will initiate a good chunk of the offense from there.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                          Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                          My point is, he fits well matching up against LeBron because LeBron's game isn't shooting over you. It's using his immense strength and power to get to the rim, that's why Lance's height is never an issue against LeBron because he's well built at 6'5". However, his height could very well be an issue against taller wings who rely less on strength and more on shooting.
                          We could use a long athletic wing. Problem is, they tend to want to play in LA.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            I'm also not a guy who thinks Lance is going to log heavy minutes at the point. He will play there some, but I think he's going to spend most of his time on the wing and will initiate a good chunk of the offense from there.
                            Yeah, I could see that. I do like the idea of having more of a natural point guard on the roster though. If Collison ever were to go down, I don't really like a roster that has Lance and Joe Young as it's only other point guard options.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                              I like having Collison available. I do not and will never like a miniature back court. The Pacers seem to have a love affair with runt guards and it's beginning to show in their ability to compete. The last two times we made the ECF, Lance Stephenson was in the back court playing with a combo guard. He has his chance again with Dipo. Not sure why people don't see how good of a combination that could be. But OK. If you want to continue the pattern of getting beat up in the playoffs that's fine I guess.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: So the depth chart is... what now?

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                We could use a long athletic wing. Problem is, they tend to want to play in LA.
                                True, but if we're just looking for a big 3&D wing to play 10-15 minutes a game (if that), I don't think it should be that hard to find someone at this point in the offseason. It's not a huge need, but I still think it's a need.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X