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

All star reserves

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

  • #61
    Re: All star reserves

    Hope Lance uses this experience as another maturation opportunity. I hope he didn't expect it or doesn't pout about it.

    He keeps playing the way he's played this year (within himself, more focus on quality and less flash), and he'll be an All-Star soon enough. On this team. Count on it.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: All star reserves

      ****ing Joe Johnson.....are u kidding me?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: All star reserves

        Lance should have made it over Johnson. I would have taken Lowry over DeRozan too, but I'm fine with either one.

        In the West, I would have picked Dragic over Harden. Harden has been one of the very worst defenders in the league this season.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: All star reserves




          So Lance wasn't even next in line. Jeez.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: All star reserves

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post

            By that logic Robert Horry should have had 5 All-Star appearances.
            And I am the one being told not to be unrealistic.?


            From my understanding all star selections are often determined by overall team success. If our team success considers DWEST the second best option at the end of the game then yes, I would consider DWEST as the player who should represent the Pacers over Lance Stephenson.

            I love Lance as much as the next pacer fan, but I am willing to bet money that if we are drawing up a play to win the game Lance is the 4th option behind PG, DWEST, G Hill (how many game winners did Hill hit for us last season).

            Per the tweet below I would presume Coach Vogel believes the same.

            Anyone that thinks Lance has a bigger impact on this teams success is very "unrealistic." From the sound of Lances' comments I don't even believe he would suggest that his importance is more vital to this teams success than DWEST.

            the Robert Horry line is completely illiogical and has no relevance whatsoever to the point being made. whats next.. D Fisher the Lakers ex player who hit bigtime game winners had more importance to those teams than did Kobe, Shaq, Gasol or LO?

            My point is DWEST is in fact more instrumental to this teams success currently than Lance is. not a knock on Lance, because I almost can say the very same of Hibbert.

            Without DWEST you would see a ****ton of double teams on Roy and PG along with Lance. DWEST's presence alone allows others to succeed. Nevermind the fact the guy is who we want to have the ball in his hands more often than not at the end of a game.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: All star reserves

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              Yea, it's almost like he assumed Lance was in and wanted to get four Pacers in there.
              DWEST has absolutely zero interest in taking part in the ASG activities. I would trust that Coach Vogel is aware and fine with allowing DWEST an extra weekend of rest.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: All star reserves

                Lance is a top 25 player in this league. He might even be our most consistent player. Very undervalued. But hopefully he remains to be undervalued this offseason.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: All star reserves

                  Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                  Lance is a top 25 player in this league. He might even be our most consistent player. Very undervalued. But hopefully he remains to be undervalued this offseason.
                  Lance is a lot of things, but our most consistent player he is not. Hell he's probably our most inconsistent player.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: All star reserves

                    Lol

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: All star reserves

                      This is the biggest snub of all time!! I cannot remember ever when the top SG in the conference doesn't make the team. Beyond ridiculous
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: All star reserves

                        They need to pick the best 24 players regardless of conference Joe Johnson making the team is a joke. West had 3-4 guys who deserved to be in the game who make it under the format I suggest.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: All star reserves

                          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                          I agree.

                          Everyone respects DWest. However, people here are arguing he has played like an All-Star this year - that is simply not true.
                          I am arguing he deserves the AS appearance over Lance if a 3rd pacer is nominated. Not that DWEST should be an all star which he clearly has no interest in.. so by default Coach Vogel would probably "campaign" more so for Lance knowing full well DWEST would prefer the rest.

                          Honestly, these all star games are a joke to me anyways and I would prefer all the Pacers skip it and just get extra rest. Let Vogel coach and have bron, bosh, and gimpy dwade play all 48 minutes.

                          Simply basing it on who I believe is more vital to this teams success and I would place DWEST as potentially second behind only PG.


                          for those arguing Lance,, your essentially saying Lances has a more prominent role on this teams success than DWEST ??????????
                          Last edited by PacersPride; 01-30-2014, 07:25 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: All star reserves

                            Knowing what Lance can do and how much of a showboat he is, can be and IMHO wants to be....I think that not including Lance is a mistake. Not because he deserves it over other Players....but purely from an entertainment perspective. Who wouldn't want to see Lance playing in a game ( on a national audience ) where he's allowed to go all "Rutgers Park" without any care of committing a turnover?
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: All star reserves

                              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                              I love Lance as much as the next pacer fan, but I am willing to bet money that if we are drawing up a play to win the game Lance is the 4th option behind PG, DWEST, G Hill (how many game winners did Hill hit for us last season).
                              Your entire post was filled with a lack of logic or understanding of basketball, IMO, but this part in particular is about as flawed as they get. Guys like Shaq, Wilt, Rodman, Rondo, etc. often aren't or weren't even in at the end of games. Just because a player isn't the guy you draw up a play for, doesn't mean he's not arguably the most integral part of your team. We took the league's best defender out of the end of the Miami game in the postseason last year. Does that mean that Roy's a poor defender, because he was taken out on the most crucial defensive possession of the game? Also, odds are likely that while Lance isn't taking the last shot, he's the one you'd most likely have creating it.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: All star reserves

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I'm as big of a David West fan as anyone, but he simply has not had an all-star level season this year. Last year he definitely deserved to make it, but not this year.

                                Lance has had an all-star season though.
                                Again... so then I can assume you believe Lance is more vital to this team winning an NBA Championship than DWEST. who gives a ripp about AS appearances. Im talking NBA Championship Banners.


                                I have to respectfully disagree that Lance is more vital to this team hanging a banner than is DWEST and will simply leave it at that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X