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

Pacers looking to trade Danny?

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

  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    I'm talking about the game of Basketball and their abilities I don't give a damn about their leadership abilities.
    Yea, you wouldn't give a damn about leadership abilities, lol...

    Hint: basketball abilities *include* leadership. Not just putting a f'n basketball through a hoop.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I know some people are going to come up with some numbers but I watched the games and he wasn't great
      And this is where people get frustrated with your arguments. You use numbers unless the numbers disagree with your conclusions, in which case you throw the numbers out and say "well, I watched the games and I disagree". You need to really define which numbers are valid and which ones aren't rather than define the situations in which the numbers match your conclusion and the situations in which they do not.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
        And if you think that Danny's ability is equal to Rashard Lewis, then you don't know damn about Rashard Lewis.
        Not to the Rashard Lewis of today but the the Rashard Lewis of years ago? hell yes.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Not to the Rashard Lewis of today but the the Rashard Lewis of years ago? hell yes.
          Oh...well. Maybe. I don't disagree enough to garner the dialogue of stating why I disagree.

          So Carry-on.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            And this is where people get frustrated with your arguments. You use numbers unless the numbers disagree with your conclusions, in which case you throw the numbers out and say "well, I watched the games and I disagree". You need to really define which numbers are valid and which ones aren't rather than define the situations in which the numbers match your conclusion and the situations in which they do not.
            I used numbers but as I told you I didn't say they were the tool and regarding those comments I expect somebody to tell me that Danny wasn't that bad because he averaged X amount of numbers and that those numbers were just as good as Reggie's in his second time of the playoffs or something like that.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              [

              "Irrationality and deception. Powerful agents... to the uninitiated. But we are initiated, aren't we?" - PacerfanBane

              This is approximately the 3,536,226,236th time I've seen the "I'll prove my bias is the truth by picking and choosing my statistics" method to 'win an argument' in my time here.

              I'm not falling for it.

              If I'm expected to weigh in, just put me down for "We ought to appreciate Danny Granger if for nothing else than from the perspective of who he is/was at a time when we needed someone like him to be the face of this franchise."
              I thanked you for the first part of your post, but I hope your not implying that if we don't like Danny's game we don't appreciate who he is/was. He's been a good soldier, I just don't like the way he plays sometimes. I do appreciate him for what he's done for the organization, though.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Since86, the "efficiency" rating that vnzla81 posted has nothing to do with shooting efficiency.

                http://www.nba.com/statistics/efficiency.html

                It's a combo stat used by NBA.com, as opposed to the PER used by Hollinger/ESPN. The 2 stats have a similar concept actually, but use slightly different formulas. As a result, they share a lot of the same weaknesses.

                Btw, if you compare last season's PER, Danny actually had a better season that Monta or JJ, which goes back to BillS's point that the statistical difference among them is quite small - small enough that a change in formula changes the rankings.

                And oh, Troy Murphy used to post out of this world EFF numbers. Just sayin'
                This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

                Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                  Because Rondo's game is not stat-based. PER is completely stat based. PER doesn't measure a player's ability to set up other players and execute an offense and impact defense. It only measures tangible quantifiable stats.

                  • TS%: True Shooting Percentage - what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = Total points / [(FGA + (0.44 x FTA)]
                  • AST: Assist Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
                  • TO: Turnover Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that end in a turnover. Turnover Ratio = (Turnover x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
                  • USG: Usage Rate - the number of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. Usage Rate = {[FGA + (FT Att. x 0.44) + (Ast x 0.33) + TO] x 40 x League Pace} divided by (Minutes x Team Pace)
                  • ORR: Offensive rebound rate
                  • DRR: Defensive rebound rate
                  • REBR: Rebound Rate - the percentage of missed shots that a player rebounds. Rebound Rate = (100 x (Rebounds x Team Minutes)) divided by [Player Minutes x (Team Rebounds + Opponent Rebounds)]
                  • PER: Player Efficiency Rating is the overall rating of a player's per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
                  • VA: Value Added - the estimated number of points a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' (for instance, the 12th man on the roster) would produce. Value Added = ([Minutes * (PER - PRL)] / 67). PRL (Position Replacement Level) = 11.5 for power forwards, 11.0 for point guards, 10.6 for centers, 10.5 for shooting guards and small forwards
                  • EWA: Estimated Wins Added - Value Added divided by 30, giving the estimated number of wins a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' would produce.
                  • Player Efficiency Rating (PER) League average: 15.0
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

                    Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...
                    Huh? How in the world can a stat overrate one particular player?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      And this is where people get frustrated with your arguments. You use numbers unless the numbers disagree with your conclusions, in which case you throw the numbers out and say "well, I watched the games and I disagree". You need to really define which numbers are valid and which ones aren't rather than define the situations in which the numbers match your conclusion and the situations in which they do not.
                      The other point to be made about disregarding non-supporting stats and going with the "well, I watched the games and I disagree" argument is that it discounts the fact that "all of us watched the games, too" and we still come up with honest differences from Vlnza's point of view.

                      Does Vlnza believe that his abilities to break down players and teams are superior to the abilities of all of the rest of us? Some of us, maybe... all of us, no way.

                      The deal is that one's POV in breaking down a player and putting a value on the what that player brings to the table differs greatly because we all have different preferences in how we like to see the game played, what we believe should be provided to the team from each position on the floor and so forth. Some of us, including myself, put far more emphasis on the synergy of the five players on the floor at one time than on the accomplishments of any one player.

                      That likely means that some of us 'honestly' value so players more than others on this forum do because of our differing beliefs. However, when I experience someone who tends to take the negative aspects of any one player to extremes, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the individual simply hates the player much more than they dislike how the player plays the game.

                      As an example, those that have followed my posting through the years could reasonable conclude that I had/have an intense dislike of Jalen Rose and Jamaal Tinsley. And no matter what positives either could bring to the court, that dislike for them could certainly cloud my perspective.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        The other point to be made about disregarding non-supporting stats and going with the "well, I watched the games and I disagree" argument is that it discounts the fact that "all of us watched the games, too" and we still come up with honest differences from Vlnza's point of view.

                        Does Vlnza believe that his abilities to break down players and teams are superior to the abilities of all of the rest of us? Some of us, maybe... all of us, no way.

                        The deal is that one's POV in breaking down a player and putting a value on the what that player brings to the table differs greatly because we all have different preferences in how we like to see the game played, what we believe should be provided to the team from each position on the floor and so forth.

                        That likely means that some of us 'honestly' value so players more than others on this forum do because of our differing beliefs. However, when I experience someone who tends to take the negative aspects of any one player to extremes, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the individual simply hates the player much more than they dislike how the player plays the game.

                        As an example, those that have followed my posting through the years could reasonable conclude that I had/have an intense dislike of Jalen Rose and Jamaal Tinsley. And no matter what positives either could bring to the court, that dislike for them could certainly cloud my perspective.
                        I don't dislike Danny or hate him so stop it with that BS, I think is possible that one person can disagree with a lot of people and be right, just remember last year when I was the only one saying that DC was just a bench player and I was called a hater for it they also said that I was too negative towards him, sounds familiar? there was even a poll and I was the only person voting to send him to the bench, did you get to watch the same games I was watching? sure, at the end of the day I was right and close to a 100 people on that poll were wrong.

                        Not saying that that is happening right now but I think is possible, again.

                        I also remember how overrated DC was that people wouldn't even take just a 1st round pick for him(I even thought the same thing) and at the end of the day the Pacers ended up trading him for a bag of cheetos because nobody in the NBA thought the things Pacers fans thought about DC.
                        Last edited by vnzla81; 08-28-2012, 04:19 PM.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Huh? How in the world can a stat overrate one particular player?
                          Because of the way Hollinger quantifies the stat. It rewards high volume shooters regardless if they're efficient or not, and it's nearly useless when trying to determine a players defensive capabilities.

                          All you have to do is look at the stats and it's clear JJ had the better season on both sides of the court but Danny somehow still manages to beat him in PER.
                          Last edited by CJ Jones; 08-28-2012, 05:55 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I don't dislike Danny or hate him so stop it with that BS, I think is possible that one person can disagree with a lot of people and be right, just remember last year when I was the only one saying that DC was just a bench player and I was called a hater for it they also said that I was too negative towards him, sounds familiar? there was even a poll and I was the only person voting to send him to the bench, did you get to watch the same games I was watching? sure, at the end of the day I was right and close to a 100 people on that poll were wrong.

                            Not saying that that is happening right now but I think is possible, again.

                            I also remember how overrated DC was that people wouldn't even take just a 1st round pick for him(I even thought the same thing) and at the end of the day the Pacers ended up trading him for a bag of cheetos because nobody in the NBA thought the things Pacers fans thought about DC.
                            Actually everyone in the NBA though the Pacers got straight fleeced in the DC trade. So there goes that idea out the window. Infact DC will be the starter for the Mavs next year, and probably end up having a career year. Make Walsh and Pritchard look like fools.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I think is possible that one person can disagree with a lot of people and be right
                              I think this is the dream of all of the pseudo-troll types. At least you're honest and forthright with why you behave the way you do.

                              In one of those 100 attempts to distinguish your opinion from the "wisdom of the crowd", you'll be able to proudly crow: "yes, I was smarter and more informed than all of the rest of you unwashed Joe Six Pack types"

                              Have fun with that.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                                Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                                I think this is the dream of all of the pseudo-troll types. At least you're honest and forthright with why you behave the way you do.

                                In one of those 100 attempts to distinguish your opinion from the "wisdom of the crowd", you'll be able to proudly crow: "yes, I was smarter and more informed than all of the rest of you unwashed Joe Six Pack types"

                                Have fun with that.
                                Hate me all you want but The fact is that I've been more right than wrong so nope I'm not trying to distinguish myself from others and nope I'm not trying to prove than I'm smarter than anybody I'm just telling it like I see it and if people like you don't like it oh well...
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X