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
    Yep. This is why we keep hearing about Roy's offensive game falling to pieces, yet his statistical output matches within tenths of his career averages.

    Roy hasn't changed. Roy is the same guy. Our expectations changed, and they changed big when PG/GHill sat out most of the year.
    That's completely misleading (and not entirely true)! Roy was signed to a max contract on the back of his 2011-2012 season. When you compare per 36 numbers for the last 2 seasons to the 11-12 season, his shooting is down 12%, offensive rebounds down 25%, assists down 25%, and true shooting percentage down 13.5%. He had an excellent 11-12 and very good 12-13, but 13-14 and 14-15 have not come close to the same productivity or impact on the court.
    Danger Zone

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Agness is just like some others on the anti-Roy side of the fence, looking for any interpretation of any comment (or lack of comment) that reflects badly on Roy. I can't for the life of me understand how wanting to be coached by someone with NBA experience is in and of itself any kind of slam to Frank Vogel. He didn't say "Frank didn't help me" (he actually said the opposite), he didn't even claim that the way he was coached hurt him in any way. He just wants to play for a guy who was a player himself. Might not turn out the way he thinks it will, but so what? Why is this supposed to be some terrible insult to Frank?
      It is funny though how on point the Pacers P.R. machine is, isn't it.

      When a player is here and in favor nary a single word is uttered across the board about him.

      But when a player leaves and management wants something painted a certain way the reporting seems to fall in line.

      I wonder how much Benner being an old newspaper man has anything to do with that? Either way you have to admire their ability to set the narrative even if you don't agree with it.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        It is funny though how on point the Pacers P.R. machine is, isn't it.

        When a player is here and in favor nary a single word is uttered across the board about him.

        But when a player leaves and management wants something painted a certain way the reporting seems to fall in line.

        I wonder how much Benner being an old newspaper man has anything to do with that? Either way you have to admire their ability to set the narrative even if you don't agree with it.
        Is Agness that close to the FO? I see him speculating an awful lot about things that don't come true.
        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 BillS View Post
          Is Agness that close to the FO? I see him speculating an awful lot about things that don't come true.
          I'm not sure anymore, but just last year (or the year before I can't remember) he took over Brunner's job. So while he may not be totally tied in, he certainly has connections.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            I'm not sure anymore, but just last year (or the year before I can't remember) he took over Brunner's job. So while he may not be totally tied in, he certainly has connections.
            Hmm. Interesting. Let's just say I hope this really isn't the organization deciding to go full on character twisting on former players.
            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 Peck View Post
              I'm not sure anymore, but just last year (or the year before I can't remember) he took over Brunner's job. So while he may not be totally tied in, he certainly has connections.
              I don't think he's with the Pacers any more since he has his own website. I can't figure out the "agenda" here either for taking such offense to a fairly benign comment. Good lord, what David said on his way out the door was a different story but was easier to dismiss I guess because it was easy to see why David was so frustrated and disappointed with how the last 16 months had turned out. It seems to me also that there was a lot more substance to get riled up from David's comments than from Roy who really has been trying hard to take the high road in spite of being treated like the villain that ransacked Indianapolis of all its pride and glory.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                I don't think he's with the Pacers any more since he has his own website. I can't figure out the "agenda" here either for taking such offense to a fairly benign comment. Good lord, what David said on his way out the door was a different story but was easier to dismiss I guess because it was easy to see why David was so frustrated and disappointed with how the last 16 months had turned out. It seems to me also that there was a lot more substance to get riled up from David's comments than from Roy who really has been trying hard to take the high road in spite of being treated like the villain that ransacked Indianapolis of all its pride and glory.
                Right, he has his own website now (vigilant sports, I think) but he did do electronic media for the pacers for a season.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  I'm not sure anymore, but just last year (or the year before I can't remember) he took over Brunner's job. So while he may not be totally tied in, he certainly has connections.
                  Agness doesn't even work for the Pacers anymore. He wanted to branch out, so now operates his own website and does radio play by play (small college I think?).

                  While he has sources still, and he still seems to be the best person to read for Pacers news and stories... I doubt he is still feeding the company line, that's why they have Montieth there.
                  "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                  Comment


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

                    Kind of a knock on Vogel when 2 players make comments about wanting to play for a coach who played. They're saying there's something he doesn't understand.

                    I took it as more of a knock on McMillan. Hibbert mentioned having Shaw as the buffer of a player with the needed experience to relate to players, but nothing about McMillan.

                    There's probably more to this story. Hibbert's comment elicited a pretty quick and strong response from Sloan.

                    Either way, I don't understand Roy's line of reasoning. As a coach who's on the floor every time a player is, in practices/games/shootarounds/etc., what in the hell could Vogel not see that only a player can?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Right, he has his own website now (vigilant sports, I think) but he did do electronic media for the pacers for a season.
                      He hasn't been with the Pacers for at least a season. I'm pretty sure Wheat Hotchkiss has his old job.

                      I think your assertion that Agness is a Pacer's puppet is absurd.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        Kind of a knock on Vogel when 2 players make comments about wanting to play for a coach who played.
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	960x540.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	36.0 KB
ID:	3241337
                        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                        Comment


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

                          I thought this was interesting in the Agness article. I hadn't heard about West and George talking to Frank about resting the core players. I definitely thought Frank rode them too hard in the 2013-2014 season.

                          Obviously a former NBA player would have a better understanding on the workload and the hits a player takes throughout a trying 82-game season. Again, that’s why B-Shaw was beloved in the locker room.

                          “He helped (Roy) out a lot as far as dealing with players and being able to adjust to different things because of the NBA season that only players understand,” one former Pacers player wrote to me in a text.

                          What that player may be hinting at is player usage and wear and tear during the season. Like in 2014, when David West and Paul George suggested to coach for some of the core group to get some rest. We’ve seen Spurs coach Gregg Popovich take heat for sitting guys when he feels right. Communication has to go both ways.
                          http://vigilantsports.com/2015/07/27...ng-experience/

                          Comment


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

                            I don't know how the hell people are slamming Roy for his quotes about Frank. These are the actual quotes from Scott's article:

                            "And I wanted to play for a coach who actually played in the league if I had my own choice. Not to say that Frank (Vogel) wasn’t great. I had some real good times with Frank and we played well. But I told my agent that I possibly wanted to play for a coach that played in the league."

                            “Just playing for BShaw, he went through the things that a player has gone through. He had a lot of real good insight to help myself, my game, with other guys on the court. Because he went through those things."

                            Get the **** over Roy not playing well.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                              He hasn't been with the Pacers for at least a season. I'm pretty sure Wheat Hotchkiss has his old job.

                              I think your assertion that Agness is a Pacer's puppet is absurd.
                              Yes, that is exactly what I was getting at.

                              I'm making the statement that the local media in general (not just Agnes) tends to follow a certain agenda/narrative regarding players that are no longer in favor with the org.

                              Roy is one example however one needs to look no further than Danny Granger to see the other example. While he was here it was all Batcaves, community events and loyalty. Soon after he was traded we were hearing lazy, not team oriented and some what of a locker room problem. Not once in all the years that he was here was that ever brought up by someone in the media. That narrative soon dropped though as it did not stick (for whatever reason).


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Yes, that is exactly what I was getting at.

                                I'm making the statement that the local media in general (not just Agnes) tends to follow a certain agenda/narrative regarding players that are no longer in favor with the org.

                                Roy is one example however one needs to look no further than Danny Granger to see the other example. While he was here it was all Batcaves, community events and loyalty. Soon after he was traded we were hearing lazy, not team oriented and some what of a locker room problem. Not once in all the years that he was here was that ever brought up by someone in the media. That narrative soon dropped though as it did not stick (for whatever reason).
                                The "lazy" was yet another extrapolation from a Larry Bird comment (that he didn't think Danny worked hard enough in the offseason), wasn't it? I don't remember credible media reports involving "not team oriented" or "a locker room problem", you'll have to refresh my memory. I'd also be interested in some research on who "broke" each of those narratives.

                                I am finding that social media and clickbait oriented reporting is becoming much more focused on making a sensationalist interpretation of what someone said - and, of course, Bird's dry style and tendency to say whatever he wants makes that pretty easy to try to do. The only person I really trust any more is Candace and even she goes for the clever instead of the accurate more often than I would like.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X