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 sign Rodney Stuckey

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

  • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
    If Roy doesn't revert back to his old form, we lost 2 starters and worse the team's lack of a real PG indicates we may need a new third starter.
    George Hill will be a stud this year, he will be aggressive minus Lance, just watch.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
      Ok, he is not WORTHLESS. He is GREAT at putting up numbers on a bad team.
      He was 6th man on two playoff teams. The good numbers on bad teams doesn't really mean all that much to me anyway. You still got to produce the numbers against NBA competition.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        I don't think he's worthless at all. Also, if we wanted him back I'm sure Bird would have turned to him immediately following Lance's departure.

        But just an fyi - he only averaged those types of numbers last season. The season before that was his first yr avg double figures so it's not like he was exactly KILLING it previously.

        Hypothetically you wonder if his versatility could have helped replace some of what we lost in Lance. But he looked so bad for us last year, I think Bird was ready to move on.
        Thanks, I glanced at per 36 my bad.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          I'm not sure what posters feel they can get for the vet min, whatever you get isn't going to be perfect w/o some flaws. Some on here make Stuckey out like he throws a bag full of kittens in White River to see how fast they'll sink, or throws candy in a busy street for kids to run out in traffic to get. If I was Stuckey and read this thread, I wouldn't even want to come to Indianapolis to play for the Pacers. The negativism is beyond believe for our newest Pacer team member. Give the guy a chance to see what he can do b4 throwing him to the wolves.

          I get that some are frustrated that Stephenson went to Charlotte, but Stuckey only signed a "1" year contract. Instead of worrying if he will be a contributor, you might want to be more concerned if Vogel will use him, and if he does to his strengths.

          For those moaning and groaning about the signing, show what players you feel is better at a vet min. NO trades Grimp, but a FA player that could be gotten for the vet min. Speak up now or forever hold your tongue!
          Agree completely....

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
            This place cracks me up with the Evan Turner hate. 18/6/4 last couple yrs, and this place thinks he's worthless lol. He's a versatile player that came to a poisonous locker room last year and struggled like everyone else. The mob mentality here is strange sometimes.
            Evan Turner has never averaged 18, 6, and 4 for an entire season let alone the last couple years lol. He was at 17, 6, and almost 4 for 50 some games for one of the worst/least efficient offenses in the NBA.


            Comment


            • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
              He was 6th man on two playoff teams. The good numbers on bad teams doesn't really mean all that much to me anyway. You still got to produce the numbers against NBA competition.
              He was actually a start his one extended playoff run with Philly and in 13 games (12 of them as a starter) he averaged 11 ppg, 7.5 rpg, and 2.5 apg on 36% shooting.


              Turner is an OK player, just like Stuckey is probably an OK player. But there was no way the Pacers were bringing him back after the way he performed in the playoffs for us. Just wasn't going to happen.


              Comment


              • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                He was 6th man on two playoff teams. The good numbers on bad teams doesn't really mean all that much to me anyway. You still got to produce the numbers against NBA competition.
                I agree you have to look deeper than the record and in this case, you see that Turner's numbers for his 50 or so games in Philly are extremely inflated by Philly's ridiculous pace. They played little to no defense and really just looked to get up as many shots as possible.

                For example, consider how much most of us disliked watching the Pacrs offense for large stretches this year. And then consider this...philly was even worse than we were

                FG%
                Pacers: 45% Sixers: 43%
                3P%
                Pacers: 36% Sixers: 31%
                Turnover PG:
                Pacers: 14.5 Sixers: 16.4


                Philly scored more PPG by attempting about 7 more shots per game but it was at a major cost to efficiency and their defense.

                The one thing that is kind of funny about Evan's time here is that he shot the 3 ball much better than he ever had previously in his career which IMO is a reflection of the difference between Philly's and Indy's philosophies.


                Comment


                • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  Here's also a view of Turner from Paul George, a guy who's played against him and is one of the top defenders in the league.....

                  http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...urner/5739433/



                  Paul seems to have thought Evan's game was pretty good. This coming from a guy who's actually out there playing these games, a guy who's defended him as a conference rival, and speaking as one of the league's currently top and soon to be elite (if not already) defenders.
                  Paul George isn't Kobe he isn't going to trash his own teammates

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                    Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                    I feel like this sort of absurd reasoning doesn't even warrant a legitimate response. But for the same of it, I'll throw a couple words out there and you should know exactly what I mean.

                    1. Darko Milicic
                    2. Turner put up numbers on a bad team with no results
                    3. Stuckey put up numbers on a team that's actually been to the playoffs with him on it and playing a decently large role
                    4. Potential is a bad word and means nothing if it isn't achieved
                    5. What people say about players is irrelevant. If that's what you base it off of, you shouldn't want Lance because a lot of people view him as a clown.
                    6. Idk what game you've been watching, but Stuckey is fairly adept at getting to the hoop. What is it that Turner can do that Stuckey can't to get to the hoop?


                    7. Turner? Good passer????? REALLY???????

                    Turner was a good passer.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                      Originally posted by BornReady View Post


                      the league probably feels the same way that most of us do - I don't see a lot of teams coveting him or lining up to try and sign him.
                      You do realize you just described Stephenson's FA?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        You do realize you just described Stephenson's FA?
                        Yes, I did that intentionally.
                        Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Turner was a good passer.
                          If Turner is a good passer, nobody should ever complain about Hill as starting PG.
                          Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Turner was a good passer.
                            I wonder why people call him Evan Turnover.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                              I honestly feel we've spent way too much time discussing Evan Turner in a thread about Rodney Stuckey lol


                              Anyway here are some quotes from Candace who just got off the phone with Stuckey

















                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey














                                Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-17-2014, 04:56 PM.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X