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

Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

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

  • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    But so far the ugliness hasn't been offset by a higher winning percentage.
    Uh....yes it has. It might not be high enough to offset your dislike of his style, but to say they aren't getting better results is false, and you know it.

    If you want people to stop barking at you, stay within the lines of factual debate. (And I don't mean you need to be 100% on point, like when we argued with Bill over a couple of points, when the message was still the same in regards to the discussion of Mike getting lit up against Dwade)
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

      I'm not disagreeing about Tyler at all. I'm choosing not to get involved. I am just pointing out that bolded section of what I responded to in BWD's post was the same thing people were doing with Obie earlier this season. Creating balance.

      Comment


      • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        But that is the point. I'm trying to bring it back to middle. People saying Hansbrough has MVP ability or that he's getting undue flack from a fan base who nearly unanimously loves him is the political equivalent of Glenn Beck telling the world that Sarah Palin is the next Ronald Reagan or Keith Olbermann calling Barack Obama a modern day John F. Kennedy.

        If the few skeptics among us were saying that Hansbrough sucked or he'd be out of the league in a year we could be compared to that far wing lunatic. But we are not. At all. We are saying slow down and lay off the propaganda. Let's look at things the way they've actually been versus how they appear right now.

        We are the bipartisan contingent. The undecided voters who still want more information before making a decision. Not the other way around.
        That may be what you're trying to do, but it ends up being not much more than a downer on all Tyler fans, when you're only targeting the uber fans. That's why I mentioned collateral damage earlier.

        It's hard to feel good when you walk out of the doctor's office with a relatively good report on your health, only to have someone come around a corner and remind you that you're eventually going to die from any number of statistically probable health failures.

        I'm still struggling with the right analogy here. I'll keep trying.

        Comment


        • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          See what I mean?
          But it really isn't..he was just a terrible coach. Doesn't mean he didn't have reasons for doing what he did. But that doesn't make them good reasons or him a good coach.

          But here..there's also two guys..One group saying one guy is playing fantastic and clearly better than all the other options..and the other group saying "HOLD ON" ..latter group is just more wordy.
          Last edited by Sookie; 03-25-2011, 12:31 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

            Sorry, but Brush and Mackey claiming their bi-partisan in this is IMO pretty laughable, they've both been firmly in the Josh camp from day 1. There's nothing wrong with that, because they are still more moderate maybe than most in this debate, but they're still very Josh biased. They both seem to have real world connections to him that make it almost impossible to expect anything else.


            Comment


            • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I'm not disagreeing about Tyler at all. I'm choosing not to get involved. I am just pointing out that bolded section of what I responded to in BWD's post was the same thing people were doing with Obie earlier this season. Creating balance.
              If you think you're creating balance, by trying to get people to the middle but you don't disagree with what they're saying, then how are you the middle and they are not?
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                But it really isn't..he was just a terrible coach. Doesn't mean he didn't have reasons for doing what he did. But that doesn't make them good reasons or him a good coach.

                But here..there's also two guys..One group saying one guy is playing fantastic and clearly better than all the other options..and the other group saying "HOLD ON" ..latter group is just more wordy.
                I'm not saying he was a good coach, I'm saying he wasn't nearly as bad as everyone made him out to be. That's it. Let's move on. No point in discussing it any further.

                Comment


                • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                  Originally posted by dohman View Post
                  Against physical defenders he disappears... this is coming from a supporter though.
                  Chicago and Philadelphia are very physical teams defensively. What games are you basing this on?
                  Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    If you think you're creating balance, by trying to get people to the middle but you don't disagree with what they're saying, then how are you the middle and they are not?
                    What are you talking about? I'm not saying anything about Tyler at all. I was talking about balance with JOB, not Tyler. I get what he's trying to do.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      See what I mean?
                      It may be a highly negative viewpoint, but it's still the truth. This is especially evident in retrospect.

                      There isn't always a middle ground. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        What are you talking about? I'm not saying anything about Tyler at all. I was talking about balance with JOB, not Tyler. I get what he's trying to do.
                        You're not talking about Tyler at all in this post?

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I'm not disagreeing about Tyler at all. I'm choosing not to get involved. I am just pointing out that bolded section of what I responded to in BWD's post was the same thing people were doing with Obie earlier this season. Creating balance.
                        If not, you need to clarify who "Tyler" is then.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Uh....yes it has. It might not be high enough to offset your dislike of his style, but to say they aren't getting better results is false, and you know it.

                          If you want people to stop barking at you, stay within the lines of factual debate.
                          But that's the thing. Everything I've said has been factual.

                          If you are simply comparing the last 7 games to the 6 that came before them, of course the results are better. By a mile.

                          But over the short course of Vogel's tenure the results are basically the same regardless of who starts at PF. We are 5-4 starting Tyler and 10-9 starting Josh. So you are correct, our winning percentage is better over that time frame. By 3%. Over the course of the season we've won 37% of the games Tyler's started and 47% percent of the others. And that isn't a big enough jump in winning percentage to offset my dislike of his style.
                          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                          -Lance Stephenson

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            But that's the thing. Everything I've said has been factual.

                            If you are simply comparing the last 7 games to the 6 that came before them, of course the results are better. By a mile.

                            But over the short course of Vogel's tenure the results are basically the same regardless of who starts at PF. We are 5-4 starting Tyler and 10-9 starting Josh. So you are correct, our winning percentage is better over that time frame. By 3%. Over the course of the season we've won 37% of the games Tyler's started and 47% percent of the others. And that isn't a big enough jump in winning percentage to offset my dislike of his style.
                            But the starters were struggling even before the six game skid. We won games before..because of our bench. The starters (as a unit) have gotten better since we've inserted Tyler into the starting unit. That's not debatable. Now, if Tyler has a 1-18 game..the starters aren't going to look as good. Because it has been because of Tyler's outstanding offensive performances. But currently..he's being pretty darn consistent.

                            Winning percentage is hard, because its a smaller sample size with Tyler. But the starters production has been as good as it has all season. (Bench..not so much..)

                            But I think it's pretty obvious we needed another scoring threat in the starting lineup. We couldn't keep digging holes and trying to get back in it. Josh works in the starting lineup with four other scorers. Rush works in the starting lineup with four other scorers. But 3 other scorers..and those three not being consistent. It doesn't work.
                            Last edited by Sookie; 03-25-2011, 12:58 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                              But the starters were struggling even before the six game skid. We won games before..because of our bench. The starters (as a unit) have gotten better since we've inserted Tyler into the starting unit. That's not debatable. Now, if Tyler has a 1-18 game..the starters aren't going to look as good. Because it has been because of Tyler's outstanding offensive performances. But currently..he's being pretty darn consistent.

                              Winning percentage is hard, because its a smaller sample size with Tyler. But the starters production has been as good as it has all season. (Bench..not so much..)

                              But I think it's pretty obvious we needed another scoring threat in the starting lineup. We couldn't keep digging holes and trying to get back in it. Josh works in the starting lineup with four other scorers. Rush works in the starting lineup with four other scorers. But 3 other scorers..and those three not being consistent. It doesn't work.
                              I haven't seen anyone even argue that Tyler in the staring lineup hasn't helped that group. BWD has made a pretty good argument that it hasn't helped the team as a whole, however. The starting lineup might have become more productive, but by sacrificing his scoring in the second unit, that group has suffered. Both groups are part of the team. Yet those numbers are discounted for some reason.

                              I've said all along, that it is pretty much inconsequential who starts at the power forward position between Tyler and Josh. I still believe that. It doesn't matter who starts, but the minutes each gets should be relative to how they are playing that night. It is a fluid situation. There is no question that they are completely different players. The only similarities are the position they play, and the color of their skin.

                              Sometimes Tyler's style is a huge help, and sometimes it is somewhat detrimental. Sometimes Josh's style is a huge help, and sometimes he's somewhat invisible. There are positives and negatives to each, and I've written several times what those are for each player.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                I haven't seen anyone even argue that Tyler in the staring lineup hasn't helped that group. BWD has made a pretty good argument that it hasn't helped the team as a whole, however. The starting lineup might have become more productive, but by sacrificing his scoring in the second unit, that group has suffered. Both groups are part of the team. Yet those numbers are discounted for some reason.

                                I've said all along, that it is pretty much inconsequential who starts at the power forward position between Tyler and Josh. I still believe that. It doesn't matter who starts, but the minutes each gets should be relative to how they are playing that night. It is a fluid situation. There is no question that they are completely different players. The only similarities are the position they play, and the color of their skin.

                                Sometimes Tyler's style is a huge help, and sometimes it is somewhat detrimental. Sometimes Josh's style is a huge help, and sometimes he's somewhat invisible. There are positives and negatives to each, and I've written several times what those are for each player.

                                The impact the starters have is almost always greater than the impact that the bench has. The starters are always on the floor longer, and relying on your bench to try to get your team back in teh game night in and night out is a losing proposition wherever you go.

                                What benefits the starters benefits the team. During our six game skid our bench was amazing, but it didn't matter because the starters sucked as a group. Since stabilizing the starters with Tyler and Paul we have been comparatively better by a fair amount. If tyler has admittedly made the starting group stronger than he has made the team stronger moreso than if were playing with the bench.
                                Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X