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

Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

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

  • #16
    Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

    Hayward would be a complete waste of a pick for Indiana, unless we're using him in a trade to get a good PG. Period. We have more than enough perimeter players. I would burn The Fieldhouse to ground, if we picked Hayward, but didn't make a trade with him.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

      I believe the point is to use an all-star level SF, Granger, to get an all-star level PG. Whatever your attachment to Danny, and I like him, you must admit that his skill set is easier to replicate than is the skill set of a high quality pass-first PG who also can score and is not a defensive sieve. So in theory it is not a half-baked idea. But identifying that PG and a team willing to give him up is a task probably too great for Larry Bird.

      Regarding Gordon, I'm more strongly in favor of trading up or down than taking him, reaching for Bradley or Bledsoe, or taking Davis
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-17-2010, 01:06 PM.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        I believe the point is to use an all-star level SF, Granger, to get an all-star level PG. Whatever your attachment to Danny, and I like him, you must admit that his skill set is easier to replicate than is the skill set of a high quality pass-first PG who also can score and is not a defensive sieve. So in theory it is not a half-baked idea. But identifying that PG and a team willing to give him up is a task probably too great for Larry Bird.

        Regarding Gordon, I'm more strongly in favor of trading up or down than taking him, reaching for Bradley or Bledsoe, or taking Davis
        We need an All-Star PG for what? That's like trading an All-Star SG for an All-Star PF. What's the point? You already have an All-Star player. Why not just build around that All-Star player?


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

          Isn't Granger a top 5 SF? LeBron, Melo, Durant, Pierce...I'm sure there's 2-3 guys you could argue are on or near Granger's level. But for those saying they'd trade him for top 5 at another position, why do that when we've got one? Why not add to him?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            We need an All-Star PG for what? That's like trading an All-Star SG for an All-Star PF. What's the point? You already have an All-Star player. Why not just build around that All-Star player?
            Because a great PG does more to elevate the game of every player on the floor with him than does a great SF, unless that SF has exceptional all-around skills that go beyond scoring (passing, rebounding , defense, leadership...)

            The way most teams are configured (and the triangle offense is a rare exception) you have no shot at contending for anything unless you have an all-star level PG. The triangle is an exception because the PG responsibilies are transferred to uber-skilled swingmen like Kobe or Jordan that we will never have.
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-17-2010, 01:16 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

              Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
              Isn't Granger a top 5 SF? LeBron, Melo, Durant, Pierce...I'm sure there's 2-3 guys you could argue are on or near Granger's level. But for those saying they'd trade him for top 5 at another position, why do that when we've got one? Why not add to him?
              I agree, he is certainly in the top 5 SF. I just think most Pacer fans just don't think the Pacers can get more than one really good Player. So if that really good player isn't cutting the mustard by himself they just want to ship him out and try another one. Hey we got a guy who can score 25pts, but we still stuck, lets get rid of him!
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                "Getting rid of him" is what we did with Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson. I don't see anyone advocating that.

                If you assume that Bird is an incapable team president and can't find a PG who would do more for the team than Danny does as a SF, then you don't contemplate trading Danny. Maybe that's what we have.

                If the team management has any clues about building a team, I would hope that all options are on the table since this team is stuck in perpetual lottery mode even with Danny, as far as I can tell.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  If you assume that Bird is an incapable team president and can't find a PG who would do more for the team than Danny does as a SF, then you don't contemplate trading Danny.
                  Okay so, a guy is an incapable team president if he can't acquire a better player for a worse. It's all so clear now.
                  "man, PG has been really good."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                    Who said Danny is a bad player? Who?

                    This is pointless. A one-time all-star, yet he is our Jordan. Some minor tweaks and a dynasty will be born.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                      We need an All-Star PG for what? That's like trading an All-Star SG for an All-Star PF. What's the point? You already have an All-Star player. Why not just build around that All-Star player?
                      Unless you have Dwight Howard in the middle, you build around a point guard.
                      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        Who said Danny is a bad player? Who?
                        That is what I am trying to figure out. What I said was, "How does it make Bird a bad team president if he can't turn Granger into a player that impacts the team more - i.e. a BETTER player via trade?"
                        "man, PG has been really good."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                          His FG% has tumbled as his role has expanded.
                          Epic fail

                          Granger shoots the 3 more, and this shot has 150% value compared to hitting a 2.

                          Danny's AdjFG% in each season to account for this
                          49.4
                          52.2
                          51.7
                          51.8
                          49.8

                          That's a mark of consistency that spans 2 coaches/styles and a couple of injuries, not to mention being one of the few good players on his team.

                          This you label as "tumbled".


                          The sweet irony that if someone's shooting "tumbled" it was Haywards 3pt shot from last year to this.


                          And throw in the "don't like Aminu" who would be a perfect replacement for Danny if you were using him to adjust the roster by trade. See, I'm not even against a Danny trade if it makes sense from a position overload adjustment, created by being able to draft a better SF than another position at 10th (or say equal if Aminu falls).

                          But you aren't stuck at the team's ceiling with Danny, nor stuck financially because of his deal in the sense that he's got to be your only great player.

                          It's just so much easier to take equal or lower risk guys at other spots, or trade the pick for 2 picks of similar risk than to force some Danny trade. And I'm not even getting into forcing Hayward to fit.


                          Question - have you watched James Anderson play extensively, or Luke Babbitt? If not then you've got to let go of the Hayward love affair. Other wings played some outstanding NCAA ball last season and don't have to cost you your 10th pick plus trading your current AS who played better AFTER signing his new deal.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                            Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                            Unless you have Dwight Howard in the middle, you build around a point guard.
                            Tell that to the Lakers, the Heat, the Cavs, heck even the 2008 Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, Olajuwan's Rockets. The Spurs started out building around Duncan and won a championship with a diminutive PG.

                            You wanna argue that Danny's not good enough to be the number 1 fiddle on a championship team? Fine, I'll play that, but any PG you are gonna get for him isn't going to be good enough to be number 1 fiddle on a championship team either. You're just rearranging the food on your plate to make it more palatable to you, it's not going to change the way it tastes.

                            Great PGs don't guarantee championships, I don't know where this theory comes from, they rarely even create them. The last team that won multiple championships with a PG as their best player? Isaiah's Pistons.

                            Talent wins championships. I don't care what position it is.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                              Originally posted by Jim R View Post
                              His FG% has tumbled as his role has expanded
                              I'm pretty sure this describes Mr. Hayward as well.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                                Granger shoots the 3 more, and this shot has 150% value compared to hitting a 2.
                                I think that you are probably right that Danny isn't going downhill, but I quibble more than a little with any correctled FG% analysis. While hitting the shot while not getting fouled has 150% more value than hitting a two, shooting the three and missing it is far more disruptive on average than shooting and missing a two.

                                In shooting a three you are far less likely to draw foul on the opponent, meaning fewer "and-ones", more importantly fewer opponents get in foul trouble so that their bench can be exploited, fewer bonus situations arise at the end of quarters, more transition baskets will be given up to the opponents due to long rebounds that are more likely to directly wind up in the hands of guards.

                                A 50% shooter on two pointers is a much greater asset than a 33% shooter from 3-point land. We call a 30% three-point shooter a bad outside shooter, whereas a guy who shoots only two but with 45% effectiveness can be considered efficient.

                                If someone can't approach 38 (or so) percent from three, I want them shooting it less, unless that is the only thing that they can do. If they have no mid-range, inside, or slashing game and still can't shoot 38% or more in their one offensive specialty, then in that case I want the player's role limited.
                                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-17-2010, 03:04 PM.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X