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

David West has an ankle injury

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

  • #46
    Re: David West has an ankle injury

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Several repies on this. Hill said something to the effect that he wouldn't be relegated to the corner presumably since Lance is gone. Maybe he meant Paul too. Well, he's going to get his shot at being the man. We shall see how that works out for him. Same with Hibbert and his talk about selfish dudes.

    Apparently he wanted the ball a lot more. Well, he's going to get the ball more and be asked to do something with it. It's time for both of them to put up or shut up because they are getting their chance to show what they're made of. IOW, be very careful what you wish for, especially since the one guy who can cover for them has a sprained ankle.
    I know that you have replied on this several times. I just wanted to make sure that you were talking about those particular statements.

    "Karma" is usually associated with someone's previous actions. "Bad Karma" usually means that someone has wrong someone else and that fact is coming back to bite him.

    Did Hill wrong someone when he said that he isn't going to be relegated to the corner anymore? No, he was telling the truth. He was obviously relegated to the corner last season to make room for the rest of the perimeter players. Even Vogel said that this was the case.

    Did Hibbert wrong someone with his "selfish dudes" comment? Couldn't everyone see that the ball was not moving? Couldn't everyone see that our ball movement suffered in the second part of the season and that both wings settled for long-range jumpers? Wasn't that obvious? Didn't someone have to call them out in order to stop doing it? Personally, I'd prefer Vogel to be that person but someone had to do it eventually. We wouldn't make the ECF if we kept firing long 2s all game long.

    So, who was wronged by either statement? If no one was wronged then it cannot possibly be "bad karma". It's exactly what CableKC is saying. You can call it "should be careful what you wish for" but using the term "bad karma" has a whole different set of connotations.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: David West has an ankle injury

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      This is a team game.
      The problem is that some people think that their holy oxes are way above the rest of the team.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: David West has an ankle injury

        I had a bad grade 2 last year on my left ankle from bball. Was in a boot for 7-10 days as a minimum. So that tells me that either David West is a wolverine (possible) or his ankle is at least better than a grade 2. Once i Had the boot off i had a brace for about 2 weeks, plus about 6 weeks of PT twice a week.


        Comment


        • #49
          Re: David West has an ankle injury

          Tore my ankle up playing BB in HS, been weak and easily turned all my life. Finally got to the point the foot would turn and lock in that position, I'd have to fall down and turn it back by hand.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: David West has an ankle injury

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

            Did Hibbert wrong someone with his "selfish dudes" comment? Couldn't everyone see that the ball was not moving? Couldn't everyone see that our ball movement suffered in the second part of the season and that both wings settled for long-range jumpers? Wasn't that obvious? Didn't someone have to call them out in order to stop doing it? Personally, I'd prefer Vogel to be that person but someone had to do it eventually. We wouldn't make the ECF if we kept firing long 2s all game long.

            Yeah he did, he absolutely torpedoed whatever was left of the team chemistry at that point. It was, ironically, an extremely selfish thing for him to do. He knew what he was doing, he's said extremely stupid things in front of the camera before.

            Hill said he wanted to be more involved (as if it was anybody else's fault he played hot potato when he passed on open shots last season). Hibbert has made it known that he wants more touches. Now he's gonna get more touches. He's going to have more of the scoring burden placed on him this year, which is what he's indicated that he wanted. So that's where the karma/be careful what you wish for/put your big boy pants comments come from. They can essentially have all the touches they want, it's their team right now. But the guy who selfishly talked to the media about other people being selfish had better perform.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: David West has an ankle injury

              Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
              Tore my ankle up playing BB in HS, been weak and easily turned all my life. Finally got to the point the foot would turn and lock in that position, I'd have to fall down and turn it back by hand.
              If you don't rehab the ligaments and tendons it can get really bad. This won't happen with a pro athlete though.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: David West has an ankle injury

                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                Yeah he did, he absolutely torpedoed whatever was left of the team chemistry at that point. It was, ironically, an extremely selfish thing for him to do. He knew what he was doing, he's said extremely stupid things in front of the camera before.
                I guess that it depends on the way that someone looks at it. You think that this statement torpedoed whatever was left of the team chemistry. I think that it was about time that someone woke our wings up and that it saved our season.

                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                Hill said he wanted to be more involved (as if it was anybody else's fault he played hot potato when he passed on open shots last season). Hibbert has made it known that he wants more touches. Now he's gonna get more touches. He's going to have more of the scoring burden placed on him this year, which is what he's indicated that he wanted. So that's where the karma/be careful what you wish for/put your big boy pants comments come from. They can essentially have all the touches they want, it's their team right now. But the guy who selfishly talked to the media about other people being selfish had better perform.
                A team doesn't have infinite touches. So, yes, it was someone else's fault that Hill was relegated to the corner. It was someone's else fault that West and Hibbert were relegated to screeners and almost never got the ball when they posted up. You cannot have 5 guys taking 14+ shots.

                I understand where the "be careful what you wish for" comment is coming from. I said that in my reply as well. I just don't agree that this is "bad karma". That's all.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: David West has an ankle injury

                  Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                  I heard it was a cane, which means nothing since we're talking about David West....
                  A cane? A cane? This only confirms that his ankles are old, just like his knee.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: David West has an ankle injury

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    A cane? A cane? This only confirms that his ankles are old, just like his knee.
                    A source close to David West told me that his ankles are, indeed, the same age as his old knees.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: David West has an ankle injury

                      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                      Yeah he did, he absolutely torpedoed whatever was left of the team chemistry at that point. It was, ironically, an extremely selfish thing for him to do. He knew what he was doing, he's said extremely stupid things in front of the camera before.

                      Hill said he wanted to be more involved (as if it was anybody else's fault he played hot potato when he passed on open shots last season). Hibbert has made it known that he wants more touches. Now he's gonna get more touches. He's going to have more of the scoring burden placed on him this year, which is what he's indicated that he wanted. So that's where the karma/be careful what you wish for/put your big boy pants comments come from. They can essentially have all the touches they want, it's their team right now. But the guy who selfishly talked to the media about other people being selfish had better perform.
                      Great post. It is apparently OK to call your team mates selfish to the media...and not be wronging them or the team. I see.

                      In any event, I am a big Hill fan. I am sooo thankful we don't have Darren Collison attempting to guard Derrick Rose...or Russell Westbrook..or...or...without Paul George or Lance backing him up. It's going to still be brutal. Think those guys are the exception? Jeff Teague is going to tear us apart too. Hill simply could not handle him in the playoffs and Hibbert wasn't helping.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: David West has an ankle injury

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Great post. It is apparently OK to call your team mates selfish to the media...and not be wronging them or the team. I see.
                        If two players are hoisting 30+ shots night in and night out then it's ok if the rest of the team brings to their attention that they have 3 other teammates willing to help them.
                        Last edited by Nuntius; 10-20-2014, 06:17 PM.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: David West has an ankle injury

                          Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                          Yeah he did, he absolutely torpedoed whatever was left of the team chemistry at that point. It was, ironically, an extremely selfish thing for him to do. He knew what he was doing, he's said extremely stupid things in front of the camera before.

                          Hill said he wanted to be more involved (as if it was anybody else's fault he played hot potato when he passed on open shots last season). Hibbert has made it known that he wants more touches. Now he's gonna get more touches. He's going to have more of the scoring burden placed on him this year, which is what he's indicated that he wanted. So that's where the karma/be careful what you wish for/put your big boy pants comments come from. They can essentially have all the touches they want, it's their team right now. But the guy who selfishly talked to the media about other people being selfish had better perform.
                          Any player on any team in the league is going to want more touches. Thats basketball. Its silly to call someone selfish for wanting a larger role within a team. Both Roy and Hill had large roles during the 2012 ECF run that saw us get within a game of the finals. In fact, both guys had leading roles, especially offensively. So no its not selfish for them to think the way they did because they showed what they could do with more touches/being more Involved offensively.

                          That 2012 team was one of my all time favorite Pacer teams because of their selflessness, competitivness, and team chemistry. There's no reason we shouldn't have been able to duplicate that style of play last season. However we weren't, as the team suffered from individualism and a lack of chemistry that you absolutely need in order to compete with amd beat a team with Lebron on it. The "selfish dudes" comment was nothing but a confirmation from what we had already seen and known about the way the team was playing. Even when we got off to the hot start (against lesser competition mind you) many posters complained of the individualism and the showboat style of play that got us away from our brrad and butter of the previous season - the grind it out, unselfish, tough style of play.

                          Selfishness isnt always about FGA or touches, it can often be about putting yourself over your team while chasing stats or highlights. Last season, we had a few players that did that more than they had in the past when we saw the most success. Again- that's where the selfish dudes comment could have came from.

                          But to say its karma or to "be careful what you wish for" is ridiculous. Hill and Roy wanting more touches or to be more involved doesn't mean they dont deserve to play with good players around them. They simply wanted to be as big of a part of the team as they were the previous season. I dont take that as being selfish, I take it as being competitive and wanting more responsibility--something all athletes want (ESPECIALLY pros)
                          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-20-2014, 06:56 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: David West has an ankle injury

                            Roy makes one comment to the media without naming names and all of a sudden he's a terrible teammate. The same guy that was applauded for his openness to the media when he said "yall mf's dont watch us play" is butchered for ONE comment that basically confirmed what we and the rest of the league were watching during last season.

                            No it is typically not okay to call out your teammates. But it doesn't make what he said incorrect either.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: David West has an ankle injury

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Any player on any team in the league is going to want more touches. Thats basketball. Its silly to call someone selfish for wanting a larger role within a team. Both Roy and Hill had large roles during the 2012 ECF run that saw us get within a game of the finals. In fact, both guys had leading roles, especially offensively. So no its not selfish for them to think the way they did because they showed what they could do with more touches/being more Involved offensively.
                              Somehow you missed the key point, which was that he didn't think this to himself or bring it up in a team meeting, he said this in public, with a mic in his face. If that isn't an athlete being selfish then we have two different understandings of a basic word.


                              Originally posted by Nuntius
                              If two players are hoisting 30+ shots night in and night out then it's ok if the rest of the team brings to their attention that they have 3 other teammates willing to help them.
                              Sure, but: 1) Don't do it in public. Bring it up to the team when you're with the team. It wasn't his thinking that was selfish, it was his act.

                              2) This example is very far from reality. PG had a tendency to hoist 20+ FGA, but Hibbert made a point to say that he has no problem with him taking selfish shots, because he earned it (whatever that means). The reality is that Lance was very efficient with his 11.2 FGA, hence he had a higher FG percentage than the 7'2 center who was whining. The second part is that if Hibbert shot a high percentage and didn't have a tendency to airball shots at the rim, he would have received more touches, but does a selfish person think about what they could have done better? No, they assign blame to other(s), and often in public.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: David West has an ankle injury

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                Roy makes one comment to the media without naming names and all of a sudden he's a terrible teammate. The same guy that was applauded for his openness to the media when he said "yall mf's dont watch us play" is butchered for ONE comment that basically confirmed what we and the rest of the league were watching during last season.

                                No it is typically not okay to call out your teammates. But it doesn't make what he said incorrect either.

                                So if you believe what he said was true (despite the fact that he didn't name the teammate but you were psychic enough to figure out who he was talking about, since you agree with him), then it means it wasn't a selfish thing to do it publicly? Come on, son. Put the 55 glasses down and have some objectivity.

                                Also, he apparently got quite pissy about seeing how Bynum played in those 3 games or whatever it was. Bynum was producing, so he got the rock. Hibbert was sour about it. I don't know what you've heard/seen that makes him seem like a good teammate to you, but last year he was visibly pouting like a spoiled child. Poor effort, poor body language, and of course those choice quotes. If Vogel had some fire in him he would have lit into him for letting the team down when they needed to see some effort from him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X