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

Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

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

  • #61
    Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    My understanding was that Vogel asked Ellis to go to the bench, he said no, and Bird would not let Frank force the issue. That could be too nuanced.
    No, that is not to nuanced at all. That pretty much describes what I was told.


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

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      I completely trust you guys got the information and your source is reliable. But w/o context or details it's hard to trust the interpretation of what actually happened.

      And I keep going back to, who would be playing instead of Monta?Monta played the second most minutes last year and played 81. The only option would be Stuckey or Miles, who were injured a lot last season.
      I completely understand and agree with you on this.

      EDIT: As a side humerus note on this, when I moved season tickets years ago from my club level to where I sit now I had to agree to very specifically not post on here what I heard during games with my original ticket rep. Why you may ask? Well my original seat neighbor was David Morway and he was very and I mean very vocal about things during games. He would be very physically into games as well. One time he balled up both of his fists and hit his thighs so hard that I felt the pain sitting next to him. Since he's been gone awhile now I think its safe to say he was never and I mean EVER a fan of Jim O'Brien. He would cuss like a sailor during games at Jim and in particular whenever he used Solomon Jones. It was hilarious at times.
      Last edited by Peck; 07-26-2016, 02:05 PM.


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

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

        Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
        Lance was also none of these. Lance was basically fast-breaks and back doors with okay shooting. Pretty much describes Monta at this point, no?
        Lance didn't give us many mismatch problems defensively. He also is a better 3 point shooter than Ellis.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          My understanding was that Vogel asked Ellis to go to the bench, he said no, and Bird would not let Frank force the issue. That could be too nuanced.
          If that happened, why would Bird say Monta could be coming off the bench?

          And who the heck would start? And how does Candace not get this scoop and think Monta would be fine with benching.

          There's gotta be more to this. I feel like something happened (where there's smoke and I trust Peck) but we aren't getting the entire story.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

            Boston is over rated going into the season, but Boston is always over rated (especially by ESPN).
            "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

              I know hindsight is 20/20, but I really wish Bird hadn't signed Monta in the first place.

              Even at the time when he signed, there were questions about his fit with the team (which I actually didn't fully agree with at the time, go figure). And now with the changes that have been made,

              I feel like Bird wanted a "name signing" once D.West exercised his player option.

              Before some come in to defend Monta please note, I'm not saying he's a terrible player by any means. He's obviously got some game, and good (yet declining) offensive skills. But trying to fit him next to a high volume wing (Paul) and any point guard to be featured offensively, is just a mistake IMO.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                I know hindsight is 20/20, but I really wish Bird hadn't signed Monta in the first place.

                Even at the time when he signed, there were questions about his fit with the team (which I actually didn't fully agree with at the time, go figure). And now with the changes that have been made,

                I feel like Bird wanted a "name signing" once D.West exercised his player option.

                Before some come in to defend Monta please note, I'm not saying he's a terrible player by any means. He's obviously got some game, and good (yet declining) offensive skills. But trying to fit him next to a high volume wing (Paul) and any point guard to be featured offensively, is just a mistake IMO.
                Signing Monta was a mistake. No doubt about it. Monta has never been a winning player. A smart player would take a bench role. Monta would excel as a 6th man.
                "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                  Ellis would be an amazing 6th man. Perhaps so good that he might be in the running for 6th man of the year.

                  If he's really resisting coming off the bench, I feel badly for him... as he's likely to be most effective in that role.

                  If he's as focused on appearances as this seems to suggest, then I hope he recognizes that he'd get more accolades in this new role than he would be ineffective and forcing something by staying in the starting lineup.

                  Not to mention, there's a strong chance we'd win more.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    If that happened, why would Bird say Monta could be coming off the bench?

                    And who the heck would start? And how does Candace not get this scoop and think Monta would be fine with benching.

                    There's gotta be more to this. I feel like something happened (where there's smoke and I trust Peck) but we aren't getting the entire story.
                    Or something changed between the end of the season/playoffs and the run up to this season (like Monta has had his year of starting and might be more flexible). Or Monta is talking a good fight but not agreeing behind closed doors. Or Bird is talking about possibilities that make sense roster-wise but might not work when they make contact with the actual players (like PG absolutely being a PF last year).

                    We sometimes take what gets said in public (or, more often, the edited version that is printed of whatever was said in public) as some kinds of unambiguous definitive scripture, when I often think Bird in particular is just thinking out loud.
                    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


                    • #70
                      Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                      Since Monta venting is happening... does anyone remember how it seemed like Monta refused to pass to Myles (like half the year). Or that inbound play when Myles was wide open under the basket but Monta opted to get the ball himself for the final play.
                      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                        My theory has been the players openly questioned Vogel.

                        If PG refuses to play the 4, why would Monta not think he can refuse to come off the bench? maybe refuse is the wrong word, but we know from articles that the plaers questioned Vogel's choices.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          My theory has been the players openly questioned Vogel.

                          If PG refuses to play the 4, why would Monta not think he can refuse to come off the bench? maybe refuse is the wrong word, but we know from articles that the plaers questioned Vogel's choices.
                          That doesn't make sense. PG was refusing what Bird wanted him to do, and with Vogel's complete support. How does that link to Monta refusing what Vogel wanted him to do? There's no "higher level" player setting that example.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            That doesn't make sense. PG was refusing what Bird wanted him to do, and with Vogel's complete support. How does that link to Monta refusing what Vogel wanted him to do? There's no "higher level" player setting that example.
                            Wait, what?

                            Bird and Vogel both said they wanted PG to play the 4, PG said he didn't want to and that was that.

                            Rumor is, Vogel wanted Ellis to play off the bench. Monta didn't want to and that was that.

                            What doesn't make sense?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                              Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                              Boston is over rated going into the season, but Boston is always over rated (especially by ESPN).
                              If we still had Vogel coaching this bunch, I would feel very confident about us being better than Boston this season. I'm just really nervous about Nate McMillan and a drop off for this team defensively. If Dan Burke is the real wizard of our defense, then I hope he's brewed some new elixirs up for this group. Outside of Paul George, we don't have a bonafide plus defender in our entire starting five. Myles is the wildcard, and someday I trust he will get there, but he's gonna have to show me he's rid himself of those rookie mistakes.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Forecast: 2016-17 East standings

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Wait, what?

                                Bird and Vogel both said they wanted PG to play the 4, PG said he didn't want to and that was that.

                                Rumor is, Vogel wanted Ellis to play off the bench. Monta didn't want to and that was that.

                                What doesn't make sense?
                                PG started at 4 after talking to Bird & Vogel. As soon as it seemed like it didn't work, Vogel moved him back to 3 instead of insisting he stay there.

                                This is very different from Monta not being willing to even try coming off the bench. If nothing else, the precedent would have been that if it didn't work he should have been able to depend on Frank moving him back into the starting lineup, not the precedent being be stubborn and the coach won't make you do it.
                                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