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

? for those willing tough it out to get Law

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

  • #46
    Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

    He's got the talent, he just has no clue how to be a true PG at an NBA level.

    If he goes to a bad team in need of immediate help, he's going to struggle. The kid needs to learn from an established veteran.

    Cassell was lucky enough to be drafted by a team that didn't need him, and after a few years he was able to step in and take over.

    Billups wasn't so lucky, and he had to bounce from team to team for 5 years before he got the training he needed.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      He's got the talent, he just has no clue how to be a true PG at an NBA level.

      If he goes to a bad team in need of immediate help, he's going to struggle. The kid needs to learn from an established veteran.

      Cassell was lucky enough to be drafted by a team that didn't need him, and after a few years he was able to step in and take over.

      Billups wasn't so lucky, and he had to bounce from team to team for 5 years before he got the training he needed.
      Out of curiosity, who was Billups' coach when he started putting the pieces together?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
        Out of curiosity, who was Billups' coach when he started putting the pieces together?
        Larry Brown, definitely.

        He was already an elite scorer when he came here, but He couldn't run a team until Larry sat him down and showed him how. He actually made a few comments that Larry was teaching him stuff most highschool PGs get taught, and Billups never knew those things 6+ years into the NBA.

        I've always thought that was LB's greatest accomplishment as the head coach of the Pistons. Chauncey wouldn't be what he is today without him.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Larry Brown, definitely.

          He was already an elite scorer when he came here, but He couldn't run a team until Larry sat him down and showed him how. He actually made a few comments that Larry was teaching him stuff most highschool PGs get taught, and Billups never knew those things 6+ years into the NBA.

          I've always thought that was LB's greatest accomplishment as the head coach of the Pistons. Chauncey wouldn't be what he is today without him.
          That was always my impression...there seems to be a misconception on this board sometimes that Chauncey Billups owes his career to Rick Carlisle.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

            If there is, I haven't seen it.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              If there is, I haven't seen it.
              That surprises me...I've seen it used as an argument for Rick's prowess as a coach. While I'm not anti-Rick by any means, I just found it odd yet I was never quite sure how Chauncey's game picked up to the level that it is now.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                Eh, Chauncey Billups was the quintessential difference between Larry Brown and Rick Carlisle. Rick maximizes the abilities his players already have. Larry improves upon them.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                  For all of you holding out all hope for Acie Law, I really don't think that he figures into mgmt's plan even if the Pacers make the bottom 10. No matter how much Acie Law has shown everyone hyping him up, there is one thing that he hasn't shown anyone....NBA experience!!!

                  I feel that mgmt. may be more interested in getting a veteran point or a guy with 2 or 3 years years NBA experience over a guy that is green as the grasses of spring when it comes to the NBA.

                  No matter how well Acie does in this tourney and this past year...He is still a rookie. Do you want Jamaal mentoring any rookie on the ins and outs of the NBA. I guess he could show him where the best bud can be had in the circle city, or what clubs to go to and the ones to avoid. I just don't see mgmt. wanting to deal with a rookie at this point in time.
                  ...Still "flying casual"
                  @roaminggnome74

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                    Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                    He's going to be a solid player and most likely a starting caliber pg but I don't expect him to be a 10 time allstar.
                    They said the same thing about gilbert arenas...

                    Also I think Conley could possibly come out this year into the draft reason I think this, is because it was reported not to long ago he is making his dad his agent. Why else would he jump the gun on making that kind of announcement? It's not like he can work out any type of business deals in college the NCAA don't like those goings-on too much.

                    The thing I do as far as looking at college games as to judging talent I take a look as to how high their ceiling is and how much of a load they have to carry. This is to say teams like Duke who annualy field mcdonald's all-americans from high school as well as teams like UCLA and North Carolina don't have to rely on one guy as much I like looking at the sub-par teams and finding out the reason these teams made it into the tournament. Like Law for example is the go-to-guy on Texas A&M without a doubt and he has a bunch of guys around him that he makes better and consistently ramped up his game in the final minutes to take his team to victory or at least try. I think given the time and the right system for Law to continue to develop and hone his point guard skills as they are still pretty raw has a pretty high ceiling as opposed to other guards in the draft like aflallo from UCLA and Williams from Zona I think they are what they are and will only be a decent player off the bench there's nothing to surprising about their game they are as advertised, what you see is what you get. Not too mention both players are soft as charmin but that's just my opinion from seeing the games they've played prior to the NCAA tournament and in the NCAA tournament.

                    Another player I'd like to try and make a trade for in this draft is to get Hibbert from georgetown he's 7'2'' 278 it could just be that I'm blinding myself to his shortcomings due to his size and then just end up with another David Harrison.(although dave finally seems to be improving somewhat) Seems like the only knock they have on this guys is his speed and his stiff running, but how much of that would really matter in our slow-it-down half court sets that we run? Like in the big game he had against UCONN this year 18pts 12rebs 3blks 3stls 3ast. I think we would have a nice lineup considering we'd be able to get law as well. Giving our 2007-2008 lineup a look of this.

                    PG - Tinsley/Law/Greene/Mcleod
                    SG - Daniels/Dunleavy/Marshall
                    SF - Granger/Williams
                    PF - JO/Ike/Murhpy(worthless, Dunleavy actually has redeeming qualities)
                    C - Foster/Hibbert/Harrison

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                      there is one thing that he hasn't shown anyone....NBA experience!!!
                      Well darn I guess any hope of any team getting Oden and turning their franchise around are ill-founded he doesn't have any NBA experience

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                        Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                        Well darn I guess any hope of any team getting Oden and turning their franchise around are ill-founded he doesn't have any NBA experience
                        It goes without saying that no one comes in knowing the ropes of the NBA, but I think Gnome's point is simply that this team needs a PG who isn't learning how to make it in the league; we need someone who can run a team today.

                        That just makes me hope that we ditch Tinsley, get Acie, AND sign a veteran to start at point. Hell, when does Cassell become a free agent again? I'd love to have him for 1-2 years and then let Acie or whomever take over.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                          Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                          Well darn I guess any hope of any team getting Oden and turning their franchise around are ill-founded he doesn't have any NBA experience
                          Obviously, you missed my point. Then again, I'm not suprised.
                          ...Still "flying casual"
                          @roaminggnome74

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                            I'd think Tins/Shawne for Cassell( Who can't stand LA anymore because they gave him the shaft and started Livingston over him) and their first rounder would possibly work. They need a youngish PG now that Livingston may/may not be back in what, 2 seasons? Tins fits there, Shawne is what, 20 now, 21? That'd be equal to a first rounder this year. We all pretty much think tins is worth someone else's trash. Well, Sam has be a waste in LA this year, and is likely part of the problem in the locker room. All becasue they gave the reigns to a guy who shouldn't have been starting anyway. I'd say the Sam/Acie combo at point would work perfectly. People are caompaing him to an early sam anyway, so who better to mentor him?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                              Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                              They said the same thing about gilbert arenas...


                              How is this the same thing.Most scouts weren't sure if Arenas was good enough to play in this league.Know one is saying that about Law.I just don't think he has the upside that alot of you see in him.Which is why I wouldn't tank a season for him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: ? for those willing tough it out to get Law

                                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                                It goes without saying that no one comes in knowing the ropes of the NBA, but I think Gnome's point is simply that this team needs a PG who isn't learning how to make it in the league; we need someone who can run a team today.

                                That just makes me hope that we ditch Tinsley, get Acie, AND sign a veteran to start at point. Hell, when does Cassell become a free agent again? I'd love to have him for 1-2 years and then let Acie or whomever take over.
                                That was my point, Exactly. As I mentioned before...If Acie is not high on Donnie/Larry's draft board as another player. I just feel they will not choose him just out of need.

                                If you need any proof of this, just recall last year when we drafted 2 forwards (before the trade for J. White) when we were all dying for a point guard.
                                ...Still "flying casual"
                                @roaminggnome74

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X