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 things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Ed Davis, Amir Johnson, Brendan Wright.

    Are those guys fixes for the position? No, not even close. But they could have definitely filled a need.
    Been away from PD but why would you spend significant money on a guy like Amir Johnson if he doesn't fix the problem? If you sign Amir or Lopez you will not have Monta. For guys like Ed Davis or Wright how much are they better than what the Pacers signed already this off season.

    My argument before is that there wasn't a significant up grade to be signed and two those who wanted player X instead of player Y for balance seemed to limit Franks ability to coach D and get results with players that seem unlikely to perform at a reasonable level. I mean like I said before CJ Miles, Stuckey etc have all proven themselves to be atleast average defenders in his system and most people just argued it was entirely big based and this is the reason. So damn if you do damn and if you don't? Did the players need MOnta over a defensive interior guy? Is Monta more of a proven impact player than many listed? I am pretty sure Bird spent the money not to just fill a need but to get the best player in the FA market that the Pacers could afford and had a mutual interest. I also think the certain posters just look at players x,y.z as sub par FA targets in their evaluation while giving there papal blessing to other free agents as if this is the deciding factor to team roster balance and success. These points get hammered to death as if one season or one year is how the NBA teams are built.

    That was my argument with Nunitus before and will continue to be. We have a need at PF but last years FA class was pretty weak and the money was a tad slim. My hope is that 2016 will be better and who knows maybe we draft a big or trade but I would take Monta over freaking Robin Lopez but that's just me.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      That was my argument with Nunitus before and will continue to be. We have a need at PF but last years FA class was pretty weak and the money was a tad slim. My hope is that 2016 will be better and who knows maybe we draft a big or trade but I would take Monta over freaking Robin Lopez but that's just me.
      We didn't need to use Monta's money to get an extra big to fix our depth. Brandan Wright makes 464k more than Chase Budinger. Now, I like Chase a lot and I was glad when we got him (well, I wasn't glad that Damo had to leave but I was glad that at least we got a player I liked back) but we're already stacked on the wings.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        Been away from PD but why would you spend significant money on a guy like Amir Johnson if he doesn't fix the problem? If you sign Amir or Lopez you will not have Monta. For guys like Ed Davis or Wright how much are they better than what the Pacers signed already this off season.

        My argument before is that there wasn't a significant up grade to be signed and two those who wanted player X instead of player Y for balance seemed to limit Franks ability to coach D and get results with players that seem unlikely to perform at a reasonable level. I mean like I said before CJ Miles, Stuckey etc have all proven themselves to be atleast average defenders in his system and most people just argued it was entirely big based and this is the reason. So damn if you do damn and if you don't? Did the players need MOnta over a defensive interior guy? Is Monta more of a proven impact player than many listed? I am pretty sure Bird spent the money not to just fill a need but to get the best player in the FA market that the Pacers could afford and had a mutual interest. I also think the certain posters just look at players x,y.z as sub par FA targets in their evaluation while giving there papal blessing to other free agents as if this is the deciding factor to team roster balance and success. These points get hammered to death as if one season or one year is how the NBA teams are built.

        That was my argument with Nunitus before and will continue to be. We have a need at PF but last years FA class was pretty weak and the money was a tad slim. My hope is that 2016 will be better and who knows maybe we draft a big or trade but I would take Monta over freaking Robin Lopez but that's just me.

        That is a great point. Bird has always preached patience. It would not have been a good move to bring in some "meh" big man at a bad contract just so you could say that you had a big man. Ellis/Miles/Stuckey might seem redundant on the surface, but they are all really good players who can clearly help the team win games. I would rather have them than a worse player whose only purpose was to say that the team was "balanced".

        Mahinmi has stepped in just fine to the starting center role, Hill is a better player than David West in the 15-16 season, and Turner & Allen are fine for their roles. Our big man situation isn't near as dire as some make it out to be. This wasn't going to be a championship team this year, so I'm glad that Bird is being patient. I'm sure he has a big man in mind that he would like to have on this team. The 2012-14 teams weren't built overnight. They were the culmination of a couple of years of good GM work. With this rebuild, we are already a damn good team that is exceeding a lot of expectations. Another move and this team could be sitting in pretty elite position.

        I agree that this team could use a quality big man, but the difference is that I don't think Bird screwed up the off-season simply because he didn't add an extra "meh" one right now. I would rather be patient and get the right player than I would throw money at some meh so-so guy just so we could claim "balance". I don't care what Bird said in the off-season, actions speak louder than words, and he would not have drafted Turner if he didn't think that big men were still important.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-25-2015, 08:46 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

          Do you understand why I said that I don't care about the record now? It is because the process is independent from it. The process isn't going to change no matter if we're 82-0, 48-34 or 20-62. It's going to change at the trade deadline. Because that's when the teambuilding happens.

          I understand what your complaint is about the roster construction of the team. I'm just saying that it's easy to allow yourself to remain dug in on a certain position when you brush off the record and the product. I'm not saying the W-L record is the ONLY thing that matters, but it can't just be thrown out when judging Bird's performance. At the end of the day, this is a results-oriented business. People keep jobs or lose jobs based on how the team performs in the W-L column. Right now the pieces Bird together are winning games. That matters a helluva lot when determining whether he had a good off-season or not.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-25-2015, 08:46 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

            I'm going to go ahead and say wins and losses are the only things that matter.

            Bird has said many times, the best way to build a team is patience. No reason to get locked into Amir or RoLo just because that's all thats available. The one year JHill contract is an amazing deal and keeps us flexible.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I understand what your complaint is about the roster construction of the team. I'm just saying that it's easy to allow yourself to remain dug in on a certain position when you brush off the record and the product.
              I'm not brushing the record off. I'm just saying that it doesn't alter the teambuilding process and thus it has no reason to change my stance on it. I obviously thought that we had a darn good team when I predicted 48 wins before the start of the season.

              My chance on this season will change when I see Bird's next move. If Bird makes an attempt to move towards a more balanced roster then I'll be happy. If he replaces one of our bigs with even more wings then I'm not going to be happy. It's as simple as that.

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              I'm going to go ahead and say wins and losses are the only things that matter.
              If wins and losses are the only things that matter then small teams could never keep their fanbase. Everyone would be a GSW fan this year and a Miami Heat fan a couple of years ago.

              The reality is that fans aren't that simple (thankfully). Some people value more things in a team than its W-L record.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                If wins and losses are the only things that matter then small teams could never keep their fanbase. Everyone would be a GSW fan this year and a Miami Heat fan a couple of years ago.

                The reality is that fans aren't that simple (thankfully). Some people value more things in a team than its W-L record.
                Whoa, I'm not saying wins and losses are the only thing that matters as far as what team you root for. I'm saying it's the only thing that matters (outside of character or criminal issues which is clearly not an issue here) to the people running the franchise and the people rooting for the team.

                If the team keeps winning, and people are still complaining, the complaints are illogical if the goal is whats best for the team. It's about the Pacers as a team, not individual favorite players.
                Last edited by freddielewis14; 11-25-2015, 10:16 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                  Ian > Roy.

                  What kind of deal is Roy going to get next offseason and who's going to give him that money? This is his contract year and he isn't playing like a guy who wants paid. Roy is so trash. Pacers are so much better with him gone.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                    My theory is this.

                    In general, wins are what matters to fans of a team.

                    Other factors can sustain fans of a team through periods where the wins aren't coming - liking the players, childhood connection, loyalty to the city, even tradition - but every losing season puts pressure on those factors.

                    Those early 2000s teams won games, but the players were not very likable outside of Reggie. When the brawl happened, there was a little momentum but after Reggie left and the other stuff started hitting the fan, the general fanbase was not going to be in a position to survive the losing records of subsequent years - and the attendance showed it.

                    I would maintain that if this group were to go through some bad years for most reasons, fans would stick around because of what has been built back up. We saw pretty good attendance last year compared to the end of the JOB years, for instance, even though it was pretty much a given we were going to make the playoffs.

                    tl;dr - a winning team can always have plenty of fans. A losing team has to have something else.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      If wins and losses are the only things that matter then small teams could never keep their fanbase. Everyone would be a GSW fan this year and a Miami Heat fan a couple of years ago.

                      The reality is that fans aren't that simple (thankfully). Some people value more things in a team than its W-L record.

                      Huh? No one is saying that fans should hop around from team to team based on who is winning. What we are saying is that wins and losses are pretty much the most important thing when determining whether a franchise is being run well.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                        Watching Roy play right now, the guy is basically a non-factor most of the time. He'll block a few shots for just being 7'2", but other than that I barely notice him out on there on the court.

                        Right now, he's basically the modern day Greg Ostertag.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                          First batch of NBA real plus minus is out. ESPN's DRPM top 10 centers…

                          Duncan
                          Deandre Jordan
                          Drummond
                          Ian
                          Dedmon
                          Asik
                          Chandler
                          Hibbert
                          Ezeli
                          Gasol

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rp...RPM/position/9

                          Pretty cool, last year Ian finished 11th and Hibbert finished 13th.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                            I just get very amused how Bird is very accomplished in basketball (MVP, CotY, EotY), yet so many armchair GM's think they know more/better than him.
                            Gotta be a pretty boring way of life to read someone else's opinion and just blindly agree, depending on who it came from.

                            Larry has been wrong many times. Should I start the list? Jim O'Brien. PG playing the 4.

                            There's two without even thinking about it.

                            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                            Show me a GM that has never made a mistake.

                            Now a good GM is one that has more hits than misses and creates an organizational culture of winning. I think it's safe to say we have that in Bird (Spurs and Pacers are two small market organizations with long track records of this).
                            It's amazing how you went from not believing someone would disagree with Bird to saying everyone, including Bird can be wrong, within 29 minutes.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Gotta be a pretty boring way of life to read someone else's opinion and just blindly agree, depending on who it came from.

                              Larry has been wrong many times. Should I start the list? Jim O'Brien. PG playing the 4.

                              There's two without even thinking about it.
                              Just like you to try and argue about job again. Boo

                              Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                                Just like you to try and argue about job again. Boo

                                Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                                Not arguing about JOB. Arguing about Bird's omniscience. Tad can't believe people would ever disagree with Bird, and then admits Bird *gasp* has been wrong.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X