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

McCleod better then Tinsley.

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

  • #61
    Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

    Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
    Once can fill in those blanks with whomever the popular scapegoat of the day would be.
    Am I the only one seeing a HUGE error in this line of thinking?

    The very first sentence of his post excludes every Pacer, post GS trade, other than Tinsley and JO.

    Prior to the season, if you were asked who you expected to play major leadership roles, it would be JO, Tinsley, Al, and Sjax in that order IMHO. Those were the players with the experience/personality traits who earned those expectations.

    Sjax being a leader turned into a freaking joke for the umpteenth time.

    Al being a leader was nixed eight games into the season when the new offense split from what JO wanted.

    Both were sent on their merry way to leave JO and Tinsley as the leaders of this Pacer squad.

    Anyone expecting Granger to lead us anywhere this season needs their head examined, especially if you think the blank can be filled with anyone else on the roster.

    No one besides JO and Tinsley are in a position to lead this team anywhere. If the organization and the fans are looking to a 2nd year player who plays 3rd fiddle to lead the team, then the Ps are worse off than I originally thought.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

      Originally posted by pacertom View Post
      If this were football and you were allowed to have an offensive team and a defensive team, you would have a point.

      On offense, Tinsley can sometimes be pretty good.

      On defense he is beyond horrible. Simple atrocious. Worse than Mark Jackson's after age 40. He creates offense for the other team, by having his man blow by him leading directly to baskets, to easy passes for baskets, and to fouls on the help defenders.

      I would like to know how many additional points and how many additional assists opposing PGs have against JT than they have on a per game basis against the rest of the league.

      I'm betting the gap is significant.
      Here are the comparison of Jamaal's stats vs. the opponent's starting PG for the season...



      PlayerMinRebAstPFStTOBSPts
      Tinsley31 3.3 6.9 2.7 1.6 2.8 0.3 13.0
      Opponent31 3.6 5.4 2.5 1.2 2.5 0.2 13.6



      I'm having trouble getting the comparison of individual players season averages compared to averages vs. the Pacers to post. I'll try it again later..........
      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

        Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
        It's been TWO GAMES against TWO OF THE WORST TEAMS IN THE NBA.

        Talk about jumping the shark.


        I hate to say this, but it bothered me the entire thread:

        That's not what 'jump the shark' means. Maybe 'jump the gun'? (Sorry man. It was like an itch that won't go away ).

        Anyway, McCloud isn't that great. But he knows it. Tinsley doesn't.

        If we are going to use stats to defend Tinsley, then we are going to use stats to defend Starbury. "But all you have to do is actually watch a Knicks game to see how bad Marbury is!"

        Exactly.
        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
        RSS Feed
        Subscribe via iTunes

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

          Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
          I'm having trouble getting the comparison of individual players season averages compared to averages vs. the Pacers to post. I'll try it again later..........
          You could probably make a realistic photoshop of Mike Dunleavy Jr. riding a camel in outerspace but can't figure out how to post some stats? My world is shaken.
          Narf!

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

            lol I think Tins will just overpower him with his post moves.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
            press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              I am sorry I thought this was the thread for who is more inconsistent.
              Tinsley or McLeod.

              Tinsley's talent is his cover up for a lack of effort and McLeods strong effort is his cover up for a lack of talent.

              Personally I like to watch someone ordinary with heart than a talented player with a slacker attitude. How about you?
              I agree! McCleod has something to play for, a job next year. Tinsleys to busy blowing his stack of green at the titty bars.
              "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
              Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                Originally posted by Dez Junuts View Post
                a lineup of Mcleod + Dunleavy
                Ack. There's a phrase you never like to hear, unless it's discussing your second unit.

                I like Dunleavy just fine, but I'd feel a billion times better if we had a real shooting guard. Dunleavy could back up both wing positions and be fine in my book.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                  Originally posted by carpediem024 View Post
                  lol I think Tins will just overpower him with his post moves.
                  ... followed by a miss at the rim .





                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Ack. There's a phrase you never like to hear, unless it's discussing your second unit.

                    I like Dunleavy just fine, but I'd feel a billion times better if we had a real shooting guard. Dunleavy could back up both wing positions and be fine in my book.
                    I don't mind Dunleavy as the starting 2. If we had a powerhouse 1 or 3, this wouldn't be much of a discussion.

                    Dun's been playing past my expectations, (which weren't all that high to begin with). He's fine as a starter as long as there are two players far better than him as the first and second options.

                    He's not a star and we should never ask him to play like one. We need two "star caliber" players and right now we have one.

                    On the McCleod v. Tinsley "debate": After the last two games, I'm convinced that McCleod is better than Sarunas which is who we traded for him. That's the important thing to note.

                    McCleod will have to work his butt off for at least 2 seasons and prove that he can play starter's minutes for at least 72 games before I join a call to make him our starting 1.
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Am I the only one seeing a HUGE error in this line of thinking?

                      The very first sentence of his post excludes every Pacer, post GS trade, other than Tinsley and JO.

                      Prior to the season, if you were asked who you expected to play major leadership roles, it would be JO, Tinsley, Al, and Sjax in that order IMHO. Those were the players with the experience/personality traits who earned those expectations.

                      Sjax being a leader turned into a freaking joke for the umpteenth time.

                      Al being a leader was nixed eight games into the season when the new offense split from what JO wanted.

                      Both were sent on their merry way to leave JO and Tinsley as the leaders of this Pacer squad.

                      Anyone expecting Granger to lead us anywhere this season needs their head examined, especially if you think the blank can be filled with anyone else on the roster.

                      No one besides JO and Tinsley are in a position to lead this team anywhere. If the organization and the fans are looking to a 2nd year player who plays 3rd fiddle to lead the team, then the Ps are worse off than I originally thought.
                      All I'm saying is that this team has had bigger problems than any one player all along. Where did I say anything about Granger becoming a leader? He obviously isn't a leadership type of guy so I'm not sure if you are trying to put words in my mouth there or not. Whatever.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Tinsley is a great PG as long as he doesn't shoot too much, that's his big issue.
                        I don't think that great is the word you really want to use here.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                          ... followed by a miss at the rim .





                          Now that is warranted. Talk about frustrating. Where's Vern when you need him. You're at the rim Tins, you did the hard part, now just put the ball in it's home. What's the matter with you ball, don't you wanna go home?!?

                          If he simply fixed that issue fans would love him because he'd be 47% from the field with 7-8 assists and scoring around 6-12/13 for 14-15 points. That's all it would take.

                          And yes Speakout, I did mean "great"...you'll notice the "as long as" in that same sentence. I didn't say elite, I'm not talking Nash. But when people want Parker or Bibby, Tinsley is that level if he just makes shots or doesn't take a bunch he can't make. Perhaps better even.

                          He's typically been taking a lot of shots and not making them so he's not that at that level currently.

                          BTW, this is true for another player - DunDun. He drops his open jumpers and the stuff off of curls and he's a strong offensive player and a decent rebounder. He makes the team a lot better when his shot is on, and it doesn't have to be on fire, just a solid 50% inside the arc. You tell me Dun went 9-18 and I'll guess the Pacers won the game most of the time.

                          You could probably make a realistic photoshop of Mike Dunleavy Jr. riding a camel in outerspace but can't figure out how to post some stats? My world is shaken.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                            I don't mind Dunleavy as the starting 2. If we had a powerhouse 1 or 3, this wouldn't be much of a discussion.

                            Dun's been playing past my expectations, (which weren't all that high to begin with). He's fine as a starter as long as there are two players far better than him as the first and second options.

                            He's not a star and we should never ask him to play like one. We need two "star caliber" players and right now we have one.
                            Right on the money. In the NBA, you need 2 stars and we've only got half that many. Hypothetically, I agree with you that Dunleavy could work at 2 if you've got a powerhouse PG or SF. But we've got Danny at 3, and there's no powerhouse 1 out there that's even remotely available. It's easier to get a star-quality 2.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                              And yes Speakout, I did mean "great"...you'll notice the "if" in that same sentence. I didn't say elite, I'm not talking Nash. But when people want Parker or Bibby, Tinsley is that level if he just makes shots, perhaps better even.

                              He's not making shots so he's not that at that level currently.
                              Sorry but his offense is not keeping him from greatness. His defense is lackadasical as his offense often is. Yes he swipes the ball often when his man is blowing by him and getting the ball to JO does not make him a great assist guy. Most of the time his effort leaves much to be desired but sometimes he has a really good game which seems to rewind the "how great Tinsley" could be tape. People want him gone not because he is a convenient scapegoate. They just don't like the way he plays. It's not a stat sheet they look to but what they see with their own eyes. Perhaps in a different city with a different coach he would be a better player.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: McCleod better then Tinsley.

                                vs. Pacers Average
                                Pts. Assists Pts. Assists
                                A.Iverson 20.0 3.0 26.7 7.3
                                A.Johnson - 4.0 7.8 4.3
                                A.Miller 5.0 10.0 13.1 7.9
                                B.Knight 14.0 7.0 9.2 6.4
                                C.Atkins 9.0 6.0 13.0 4.3
                                C.Billups 18.3 5.0 17.2 7.2
                                C.Duhon 10.0 2.0 7.2 4.0
                                C.Paul 16.0 6.0 17.3 8.7
                                D.Ewing 8.0 2.0 3.1 1.6
                                D.Harris 14.5 3.5 10.0 3.7
                                D.Stoudamire 9.0 7.0 7.5 4.8
                                D.West 4.0 2.0 11.9 4.4
                                D.Williams 17.0 5.5 16.7 9.5
                                E.Snow 6.5 4.5 4.2 4.0
                                G.Arenas 40.0 4.0 28.4 6.0
                                J.Calderon 14.0 10.0 8.6 5.1
                                J.Jack 13.5 5.0 12.0 5.3
                                J.Kidd 16.0 7.3 13.4 9.2
                                J.Nelson 15.0 3.5 13.1 4.1
                                J.Williams 10.3 7.0 11.0 5.3
                                K.Hinrich 18.5 4.5 16.7 6.2
                                K.Ollie 6.0 7.0 3.9 2.5
                                L.Hughes 15.0 4.5 14.8 3.6
                                L.Ridnour 11.5 5.0 11.0 5.2
                                M.Bibby 25.0 4.0 17.1 4.8
                                M.Ellis 24.0 3.5 16.8 4.2
                                M.James 2.0 1.0 9.9 3.7
                                M.Williams 21.7 10.0 17.2 6.3
                                R.Alston 8.5 4.0 13.2 5.4
                                R.Butler 10.0 5.0 10.1 0.8
                                R.Felton 10.0 19.0 14.1 7.1
                                S.Blake 11.0 8.0 8.1 6.4
                                S.Cassell 14.0 5.0 12.6 4.9
                                S.Claxton 7.0 6.0 5.3 4.4
                                S.Marbury 10.7 2.7 16.4 5.4
                                S.Nash 23.0 7.0 18.9 11.5
                                S.Parker 14.0 2.5 11.3 2.8
                                S.Telfair 11.0 6.5 6.4 2.8
                                T.Ford 7.5 7.0 14.1 7.9
                                T.Hudson - 4.0 5.9 2.1
                                T.Parker 16.0 5.5 18.7 5.6


                                Dangit!

                                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X