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

The "stand pat" thread

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

  • #16
    Re: The "stand pat" thread

    If we did stand pat and didn't aquire a draft pick. I would like to see us go with this lineu:

    PG- Tinsley
    Sg-Daniels
    Sf-S.Williams
    pf-D.Granger
    C-JO
    I would stay with a 8 man rotation with Dunlevy playing the 6th man role backing up sg/and point forward position, Foster and Diagu taking up the majority of front court minutes.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The "stand pat" thread

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Jay, you are concewrned with O'Brien falling in love with Murph's 3-pt shot? OK, Let me ask, what else is there to fall in love with - what else does Murph have in his game. And he isn't that good of a three point shooter to begin with
      Was Antoine?

      (34.4% and 32.2% in 2.7 and 2.4 attempts per game from the arc in JOb's two years coaching him.)
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The "stand pat" thread

        I'm excited to watch Jamaal Tinsley's resurgence at the point!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The "stand pat" thread

          Assuming that nothing changes, I go with a 9-man rotation

          PG - Tinsley (32mpg) / Marquis (16mpg)
          SG - Marquis (16mpg) / Dunleavy (32mpg)
          SF - Granger (30-32mpg) / Shawne (16-18mpg)
          PF - JONeal (26-28mpg) / Ike (20-22mpg)
          C - Foster (22mpg) / Murphy (22mpg) / JONeal (4mpg)

          Starters - Tinlsey / Marquis / Granger / JONeal / Foster
          Bench - Dunleavy ( 1st player off the bench ) with Shawne, Ike, and Murphy rotating in based off of matchups.

          Either way....since the primary starting lineup is chalked full injury prone players...the key is to minimize the # of minutes that each starter plays while giving the rest of the bench the chance to get minutes and develop.
          Last edited by CableKC; 06-19-2007, 05:29 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The "stand pat" thread

            Not a good 3 point shooter? I thought Murphy shot 40% in Indiana?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The "stand pat" thread

              If we stand pat then Williams is going to have to step up his development. If Dun can play SG and can't shoot consistently then I don't see why Williams can't play the 2 with Granger at the 3 and sometimes the 4.

              Murphy is sadly a SF and all attempts to get him into the paint will fail leaving only one guy to really rebound.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The "stand pat" thread

                This is an interesting thread, but when you go through the rooster and examine each position, it's clear that 'standing still' doesn't work. With the current squad we have two players who would start for Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, SA, and so forth. That's not a very good start. JO and DG are the two. JT would start for any of the lottery teams and maybe a couple more of the teams that made the playoffs. Beyond that, we don't have first-string players. What's more of a concern is the fact that our bench players are by and large, 3rd stringers on a really good team (50 wins is my definition of a good team). A players like MD is damaged goods and isn't getting the medical attention needed during the off-season (surgery). He won't play in 40 games next season. Foster is a solid player, but really, on a top-notch team, he wouldn't start. Dunleavy is excellent on the O-end but can't play a lick of D. The key question next season is how in the world JOB can turn the current group into a solid defensive team. I'm hoping for the best as we all are. Still, I haven't committed to renewing my season tickets until I see evidence of an upgrade in the quality of our players because this crew is no better than a 9th seed in the East, and that's not very good.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The "stand pat" thread

                  Originally posted by Mal View Post
                  Not a good 3 point shooter? I thought Murphy shot 40% in Indiana?
                  He did shoot 40% from the 3pt line...but when his overall average in GSW ( where he took 2.3 and 2.4 3ptFGA compared to the 2.1 3ptFGA in Indy ) was 32% and 37% ( respectively ).

                  He's not that bad of a 3pt shooter...much less for a Big Man....but I am concerned if he becomes more like VladRad...as opposed to the double-double guy that he was before when he was a Warrior.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The "stand pat" thread

                    Originally posted by madison View Post
                    This is an interesting thread, but when you go through the rooster and examine each position, it's clear that 'standing still' doesn't work. With the current squad we have two players who would start for Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, SA, and so forth. That's not a very good start. JO and DG are the two. JT would start for any of the lottery teams and maybe a couple more of the teams that made the playoffs. Beyond that, we don't have first-string players.
                    Tayshaun, Luol, Marion, Howard and Bruce Bowen say Granger doesn't start for Detriot, Chicago, Phoenix, Dallas or San Antonio.

                    Miami...yes.

                    And of the 14 non-Playoff teams, Tinsley doesn't start for New York, Philly, Charlotte, Nawlins or the Kings for sure. Portland (Jack), Clippers (Cassell), Seattle (Ridnour), Boston (Delonte), Milwaukee (Mo Will) are possible question marks, although I probably give him the edge in all of those cases.

                    Of those in the Playoffs, Jamaal could also start for the Lakers (Smush, Farmar) and Cavs (nobody), and probably Miami (JWill, Payton), Denver (Blake) and Houston (Rafer).
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The "stand pat" thread

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Shoot, I totally left Ike out of my first post. DOH! I knew that bench was way too thin, even expecting Army and Baston to at least be gone, maybe Rawle too.

                      Not sure what you do with Ike in JOB's system. He's too small to be a great post defender, especially at the 5. His main asset is his post position and scoring moves. Does JOB slow down to allow him to work inside if it takes away from chances for his hard working perimeter defenders?

                      See that's the wild card to me, how will JOB handle having not one, but two strong back-to-basket post threats for the first time ever.


                      It could be that JOB and company will get through to David, but he lost my faith in change last season. He's a very angry young man still.
                      I think one of Foster/Ike/Harrison, will be traded for a late first roound pick
                      along with a second if necessary to get a first this year and target a shooter
                      like Almond or Nichols or a point guard like Kaponnen
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The "stand pat" thread

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        Not a good 3 point shooter? I thought Murphy shot 40% in Indiana?
                        He shot 40.9% as a Pacer

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The "stand pat" thread

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          He shot 40.9% as a Pacer

                          RC wasn't exactly enamored with Murphy's 3 point shooting and that's why he lost his starting Center job. And that's why Foster had to replace both Harrington and Murphy because someone had to rebound. Foster has made a career off of big guys who want to be 3 point shooters and not rebounders.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The "stand pat" thread

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Assuming that nothing changes, I go with a 9-man rotation

                            PG - Tinsley (32mpg) / Marquis (16mpg)
                            SG - Marquis (16mpg) / Dunleavy (32mpg)
                            SF - Granger (30-32mpg) / Shawne (16-18mpg)
                            PF - JONeal (26-28mpg) / Ike (20-22mpg)
                            C - Foster (22mpg) / Murphy (22mpg) / JONeal (4mpg)

                            Starters - Tinlsey / Marquis / Granger / JONeal / Foster
                            Bench - Dunleavy ( 1st player off the bench ) with Shawne, Ike, and Murphy rotating in based off of matchups.
                            This is pretty close to what I'd like to see (if we make no moves).

                            I'd be alright with McLeod getting time if Marquis goes full time SG with Dun shifting over to SF minutes.

                            I also liked what I saw of Baston defending the opponent's center last year.

                            In dreamland, maybe Marshall develops into the SG this team needs. (not holding my breath)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The "stand pat" thread

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              RC wasn't exactly enamored with Murphy's 3 point shooting and that's why he lost his starting Center job. And that's why Foster had to replace both Harrington and Murphy because someone had to rebound. Foster has made a career off of big guys who want to be 3 point shooters and not rebounders.
                              yes. i think foster is a decent enough player but when we signed dale in the brawl year, jeff went to the bench and stayed there. the team needed toughness and rebounding next to jermaine in the frontcourt, which dale davis provided in spades. jeff is just the closest approximation that we have left on the roster.

                              wasn't murphy supposedly a "banger" in his earlier years? if he can contribute some kind of defensive presence in the interior to go along with his outside shooting on offense, it would make his fat contract a lot easier to swallow.

                              on the main thread topic, i do think #7 or #8 seed sounds about right if we stand pat. j.o., tins, danny, dun, quis, murphy and foster will be the main rotation and actually it doesn't look too bad on paper, except that there's only one real sg (quis) and he'll probably double as backup pg too. unfortunately the 2 guys who should be getting development minutes (ike and shawne) are not guards. to fill this gap, ideally we'd sign a min guy who could fill the rotation guard role. i'm thinking of someone like dajuan wagner if he's finally healthy. greene, mcleod, and rawle are all possible here too i guess but from what they've shown so far, they're more likely to be 3rd stringers if they remain with the team.

                              i've been a tinsley critic in the past but i'm sort of excited to see what he can do under a different coach. murph also i think will look good at times which is a good thing because i don't really expect we'll be able to dump his contract anytime soon.

                              one last thing - as far as individual defense goes, we don't have too many above average defenders, so i really hope dick harter can deliver on the team defense concept.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The "stand pat" thread

                                I think Dallas could fit Granger into the starting lineup with Howard becoming the starter at SG. I suspect the Mavs add a SG/SF starter via FA or by moving Terry. Mason as a FA seems to be the most logical addition for them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X