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

Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

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

  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    The deepest team in the league has never been how I've ever heard someone describe any of the NBA champions, ever. I've heard best starting 5, I've heard best player, I've heard about the Big 3, Hall of Fame duos... never has anyone said, at least within my ear shot, "that team won it all because they were the deepest team in NBA."
    Last season our starting 5 was one of the top units in the league. And that was with either Collison or Hill. With Collison, it led the league in 5 man +/-. With Hill, they had an even better +/- per minute. They kept what worked and attempted to work over the bench. Keeping Collison or Hill on the bench wouldn't work because our bench was still terrible last year.

    Maybe you don't agree with what they decided to do, but they're doing it in an acceptable way of how you view great teams.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I call bs on that.
      That's valid, but there are many who have a higher opinion of Ian than you do. I am one of those.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        Last season our starting 5 was one of the top units in the league. And that was with either Collison or Hill. With Collison, it led the league in 5 man +/-. With Hill, they had an even better +/- per minute. They kept what worked and attempted to work over the bench. Keeping Collison or Hill on the bench wouldn't work because our bench was still terrible last year.

        Maybe you don't agree with what they decided to do, but they're doing it in an acceptable way of how you view great teams.
        And that's exactly why this off season was so frustrating. We have FIVE really good players. Hill, George, Hibbert, West, Granger. We have 5. We have the assets to increase this to 6. With that 6th player, a difference maker, we would have had a shot at the title. Especially important for us to have SIX because one of our five, Hibbert, can only play 30 good minutes a night, instead of the 40 you can get out of your usual top 5. Guys, it's not that I think we have a bad team, it's never been that, I've said over and over, we're good, we're a 50 win club. But without another difference maker we WILL NOT win a title. We had SO many assets this off season to acquire one with, or to give up one of our 5 to get 2 back (5-1+2=SIX!), and instead we said no, this 5 is enough when it very clearly is not.

        Comment


        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          And that's exactly why this off season was so frustrating. We have FIVE really good players. Hill, George, Hibbert, West, Granger. We have 5. We have the assets to increase this to 6. With that 6th player, a difference maker, we would have had a shot at the title. Especially important for us to have SIX because one of our five, Hibbert, can only play 30 good minutes a night, instead of the 40 you can get out of your usual top 5. Guys, it's not that I think we have a bad team, it's never been that, I've said over and over, we're good, we're a 50 win club. But without another difference maker we WILL NOT win a title. We had SO many assets this off season to acquire one with, or to give up one of our 5 to get 2 back (5-1+2=SIX!), and instead we said no, this 5 is enough when it very clearly is not.
          I think you're being unfair. How can we say that the 5 are or are not enough when the 5 haven't played together this year? Regardless of what they could or should have done in the offseason, we did what we did. Until we see the team we put together actually play together, I don't think it is too much to ask to be patient and enjoy the good that they bring.

          I think the acquisitions of Green and Ian look a lot better when our true starting wings are out there. I think the whole bench looks better when you have both Green and Stephenson as bench players. As of right now, when that unit is together they're playing with a guy who failed to fill in as a starter. Just give them time to play together and then make your assessment before pronouncing doom.
          Last edited by aamcguy; 12-18-2012, 08:47 PM.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            The deepest team in the league has never been how I've ever heard someone describe any of the NBA champions, ever. I've heard best starting 5, I've heard best player, I've heard about the Big 3, Hall of Fame duos... never has anyone said, at least within my ear shot, "that team won it all because they were the deepest team in NBA."
            So, the Mavs weren't the deepest team in the league when they won it? Wasn't it Barea (their back up PG) that was able to cut through Los Angeles' and Miami's defense like swiss cheese?
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              Barea game 1 (L) 1-8 in 18 minutes
              Barea game 2 (W) 2-7 in 14 minutes
              Barea game 3 (L) 2-8 in 19 minutes
              Barea game 4 (W) 3-9 in 22 minutes
              Barea game 5 (W) 6-11 in 26 minutes
              Barea game 6 (W) 7-12 in 30 minutes

              So the guy had 4 bad games and 2 good ones, not sure I'd call that slicing it like butter -- also of note, JET was playing 6th man behind Deshawn Stevenson to start, then 6th man behind Barea in the last 2 games... essentially Barea WAS their 6th best player, Deshawn isn't that good. In game 6 their top 6 players played 30+ minutes, Ian Deshawn and Brian Cardinal played 10-12 minutes. I'd say the Mavs had 6 difference makers, and 3 warm bodies. Same as my argument would expect.

              Edit: those numbers are his shooting, he shot 1 for 8, etc.
              Last edited by Dece; 12-18-2012, 08:51 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                And that's exactly why this off season was so frustrating. We have FIVE really good players. Hill, George, Hibbert, West, Granger. We have 5. We have the assets to increase this to 6. With that 6th player, a difference maker, we would have had a shot at the title. Especially important for us to have SIX because one of our five, Hibbert, can only play 30 good minutes a night, instead of the 40 you can get out of your usual top 5. Guys, it's not that I think we have a bad team, it's never been that, I've said over and over, we're good, we're a 50 win club. But without another difference maker we WILL NOT win a title. We had SO many assets this off season to acquire one with, or to give up one of our 5 to get 2 back (5-1+2=SIX!), and instead we said no, this 5 is enough when it very clearly is not.
                You want a 6th difference maker, look no further than Lance.

                you want someone who can play 18 minutes a game and adequately replace Roy, I give you Ian, who if he didn't have hands of stone would be a competent starter.

                So what the hell are you looking for? A bench that is full of starter level players? I have bad news for you, those types of benches don't exist. Some teams might have one player, a couple might be lucky with two, but that is all.

                See it takes more than just a great starting five. It also takes a good bench. What exactly defines a good bench for your team varies from team to team. No team wins a championship without a bench you can rely on. You don't hear about it for the same reason ESPN gushes all over Brady, but ignore that he probably has one of the best offensive lines ever. Without Battier the Heat do not win the championship last year. Battier is far from a sexy name for a sixth difference maker. What this team had last year was not a reliable bench, that was why we lost in the playoffs. Really at the moment we aren't far from a reliable bench. We have the true center we needed. We have a reliable defender. We just need that difference maker. Luckily he is already on the team, just for injury reasons he is starting instead of coming off the bench. Who knows once he is coming off the bench Green goes from being a disappointment, but acceptable 9th or 10th man to being what we hoped he would be, offense off the bench.

                Comment


                • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                  What are you talking about, everyone does and has loved Battier for a long time. He's long been regarded as an elite defender, glue guy, and difference maker.

                  Gonna have to see a lot more from Lance before he's a difference maker - though I hope you're right, I hope he's the next DWade.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    The Dallas Mavericks 2010-2011 game 6 best players: 204 minutes played. The rest of their roster: 36 minutes played split almost even between 3 guys.

                    It doesn't take a good bench. It takes a handful of difference making players.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      Originally posted by Dece View Post
                      Barea game 1 (L) 1-8 in 18 minutes
                      Barea game 2 (W) 2-7 in 14 minutes
                      Barea game 3 (L) 2-8 in 19 minutes
                      Barea game 4 (W) 3-9 in 22 minutes
                      Barea game 5 (W) 6-11 in 26 minutes
                      Barea game 6 (W) 7-12 in 30 minutes

                      So the guy had 4 bad games and 2 good ones, not sure I'd call that slicing it like butter -- also of note, JET was playing 6th man behind Deshawn Stevenson to start, then 6th man behind Barea in the last 2 games... essentially Barea WAS their 6th best player, Deshawn isn't that good. In game 6 their top 6 players played 30+ minutes, Ian Deshawn and Brian Cardinal played 10-12 minutes. I'd say the Mavs had 6 difference makers, and 3 warm bodies. Same as my argument would expect.

                      Edit: those numbers are his shooting, he shot 1 for 8, etc.
                      In the same post you said Barea only had 2 games out of 6 where he was important and that Barea was one of 6 difference makers. It can't be both.

                      For what it's worth, Barea was the 7th most used player in the Mavs/Lakers sweep and the 6th most used player in the Mavs/Heat game. The only difference between the two was that Peja Stojakovic didn't really play in the Finals. So they had 7 guys, and Stevenson was the 8th player barely trailiing Barea for 7th and 6th most minutes.

                      They had a deep bench. You don't think having a deep bench saved the oldest team in the NBA some energy so they could play longer minutes in the Finals?
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        What are you talking about, everyone does and has loved Battier for a long time. He's long been regarded as an elite defender, glue guy, and difference maker.
                        Then I didn't understand what you meant by difference maker, and am even more confused as what you are asking for. As you said he is a glue guy. He does one or two things extremely well, but it would take a lot more than Battier to make a difference with our bench.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                          In the same post you said Barea only had 2 games out of 6 where he was important and that Barea was one of 6 difference makers. It can't be both.

                          For what it's worth, Barea was the 7th most used player in the Mavs/Lakers sweep and the 6th most used player in the Mavs/Heat game. The only difference between the two was that Peja Stojakovic didn't really play in the Finals. So they had 7 guys, and Stevenson was the 8th player barely trailiing Barea for 7th and 6th most minutes.

                          They had a deep bench. You don't think having a deep bench saved the oldest team in the NBA some energy so they could play longer minutes in the Finals?
                          It can be both, he was their 6th best player, he made a difference in two games, making him a difference maker. If your 6th best player made a difference in 100% of games, he wouldn't be your 6th best player, he'd probably be your first or second. You could argue no, he was their 7th best player because Deshawn or Peja were starting over him, but really Deshawn was being used like Inferno used to get used for the Nuggets -- he'd start, but only play around 15 minutes.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            Barea game 1 (L) 1-8 in 18 minutes
                            Barea game 2 (W) 2-7 in 14 minutes
                            Barea game 3 (L) 2-8 in 19 minutes
                            Barea game 4 (W) 3-9 in 22 minutes
                            Barea game 5 (W) 6-11 in 26 minutes
                            Barea game 6 (W) 7-12 in 30 minutes
                            He also had 3, 1, 1, 4, 5 and 5 assists.

                            Regardless of his number, he was crucial in that game 5. He was a big part of why they won. Tyson was as well. They were their difference makers.

                            The thing with difference makers of that kind is quite simple, though. They become difference makers à propos. That means that they weren't always difference makers. Their play made them difference makers. They stepped up on that role. That's exactly what Barea did.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              Anyway, this is getting awfully specific and I'm not sure any of you are arguing that your 7-15 guys are the ones you need to worry about.

                              My point is your top 3-6 players are who matter. Is someone really arguing against that, or are you trying to find possibly, maybe, arguably one circumstance where it could be viewed that it wasn't the case...even if they were deep, do people describe them as the deepest? Did they win because they had Tyson, JET, Kidd, and Dirk, or because they were the deepest team in the entire league?
                              Last edited by Dece; 12-18-2012, 09:17 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Signing a player that was drafted five years ago and has not done anything since been drafted to a long term deal is a bad decision, trading a good backup PG with value for a career backup center and giving that player a long term deal is a bad decision.
                                I'm going to quote you Vnzla word for word here. This is what you said directly AFTER the Mahinmi trade, AFTER the Green signing, and AFTER the DJ singing - "Im loving our front office, this is what a front office is supposed to do."

                                Don't act like you saw our bench problems written all over the wall b/c you were all over the bandwagon sir

                                http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...light=augustin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X