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

  • #46
    Re: The "stand pat" thread

    Just bumping this since it's still a relevent discussion at this point. Obviously changes like McLeod, Army, or Baston and bringing in someone of the caliber of Rush is still within the concept of "standing pat" as I'm presenting it.

    2 months to go, we'll see if it stays this way. I'm still of the opinion it will and have prepared myself to face it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The "stand pat" thread

      I'm don't want it, but what can you do?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The "stand pat" thread

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        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.
        Murphy was never a banger, not even in his early years in the league. Not even remotely close.

        He'd get a few rebounds off hustle and a good nose for the ball, but he was never a "banger", as in a guy who'd really fight for position or rebounds. He can draw fouls, but most of these come off of tanking someone of the dribble and driving to the hole, not off tough rebounds or physical play inside.

        On a night when he feels like doing so, he'll actually play decent man to man post defense and his height can actually be some sort of deterrent. He's been able to frustrate Zach Randolph on several occasions.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The "stand pat" thread

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          Murphy was never a banger
          Just for kicks I looked up his draft profile. You all may enjoy it!

          http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/troymurphy.htm

          Troy Murphy
          Birthdate: 5/2/80
          NBA Position: Power Forward
          College: Notre Dame
          Class: Junior
          Ht: 6-11
          Wt: 245
          Hometown: Morristown, NJ
          High School: Delbarton



          Athleticism: 8 Size: 9
          Defense: 8 Strength: 8
          Quickness: 6 Leadership: 10
          Jump Shot: 9 NBA Ready: 9
          Rebounding: 8 Potential: 8
          Post Skills: 9 Intangibles: 9

          Overall: 101

          CNNSI Summer Vacation

          NBA Comparison: Dan Issel

          Strengths: A warrior. Very strong mentally. Has good upper body strength. Leads by example, and is strongly motivated.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The "stand pat" thread

            That's ridiculous. However, you didn't list his weaknesses:

            Weaknesses: Not a great run jump athlete. Isn't going to dazzle the crowd with windmill dunks but plays within himself. Not extremely quick or fast. Needs to get into better shape, to gain better quickness, conditioning.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The "stand pat" thread

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Say we stand pat and win 45 games.

              How does that help our goal of winning it all? The only ways I can think of are abstract.
              I would be astounded by 45 wins from this bunch stand pat. I mean every player would have to overachieve and do so in unison. I'd guestimate top success as .500.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The "stand pat" thread

                Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                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.
                I'm down with this. Put your most talented guys on the floor. The more I think about this the more I think we are essentially rebuilding.

                If not this then a compromise with somebody else at the 4 for the first 20 games or so with the intent to move Shawne in there at that point unless the other guy/the team in general really takes off.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The "stand pat" thread

                  One thing about developing talent too is that Dun and Murph aren't exactly aging vets here. They are both moderately young themselves. Really the team has quite a bit of youth on it already getting playing time no matter how it goes. I mean under Rick Granger played the most minutes of any Pacer last year in just his sophmore season. Ike got more minutes in Indy than he was in GS, Shawne saw solid rotation time the final 2 months. Obviously Dun and Troy played a ton.

                  And after the deal Quis was put into major rotation but then of course was injured.

                  As it stands if they just play the "best" guys in the normal rotation they will be developing plenty of youth actually. There's no way around it unless Jeff suddenly gets 40 mpg and Army returns and does the same.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The "stand pat" thread

                    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                    I'm don't want it, but what can you do?
                    This should be the freaking ad campaign this year.
                    It fits the situation perfectly.

                    "Pacers. What can you do?"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The "stand pat" thread

                      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                      I would be astounded by 45 wins from this bunch stand pat. I mean every player would have to overachieve and do so in unison. I'd guestimate top success as .500.
                      I don't think that they'd have to overachieve. They'd have to stay healthy, for sure but overachieve is a bit of an exaggeration, IMO.

                      If Daniels and JO could get and stay healthy, I think they could easily win 45 - 48 games in the weak east. And that's without adding any FA shooters (which it appears the Pacers are going to add at least one SG type player).

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The "stand pat" thread

                        Gotta agree. If this team "stands pat", there will at least be the "Thank God Rick is gone" honeymoon with JOB.

                        If JO and Quis stay healthy, this team was looking to be above 0.500 last season with Rick coaching them.

                        Management never gave Rick a team he could coach, and they never gave JO the complimentary pieces he needed. It was always a mishmash. This is finally a "coachable" team, and they upgraded the HC position.

                        Clearly JOB can't rely heavily on the three-point shot with this lineup, but I assume he's smart enough to see the obvious and I assume he's smart enough to not be a "one-trick pony" (although he did learn from Pitino so maybe that's a bad assumption) and he'll adapt to his roster.

                        This isn't a 50+ win team right now. But with health, it could be an upper-forties team capable of winning or losing a seven game series against anyone. Without health, its a mid-thirties team that will drive us all to drink. Heavily. And make certain fans willing to sell their soul to the devil in the pursuit of the almighty "talent".

                        The East is still pretty lousy overall. How else do you explain Toronto making the playoffs last year?
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The "stand pat" thread

                          Jay, I tend to agree with you on this. Usually the first year under a new coach (especially the second half of the first year) goes very well and the talent is maxed out. Sure if JO has his healthiest season since 2003, if Tinsley can play well under a new coach and stay healthy, and if Daniels can stay healthy - I could see this Pacers team winning 47 games or so. i think that is possible. How many of us were predicting the pacers would win 56 games in 1998 after winning only 38 the year before.

                          There are a lot of ifs and buts involved here though and chances are that injuries to key players will occur. So if I had to predict right now and if I assumes the core is staying here I think the pacers will win 40-42 games. The new coaching staff and all that entails I think is worth about 10 wins.

                          Having said this, I think now is the time to trade JO, to trade Tinsley, and get rid of Harrison. I think the fans are ready for the core to change

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The "stand pat" thread

                            Originally posted by Jay View Post
                            Management never gave Rick a team he could coach, and they never gave JO the complimentary pieces he needed. It was always a mishmash. This is finally a "coachable" team, and they upgraded the HC position.
                            Jay, what pieces could the Pacers get? For some on here and I must admit I'm one of them thought Artest and Reggie were more important to the team and JO was the complimentary piece.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The "stand pat" thread

                              I remember a stretch just after the trade when we won 6 out of 7 games or so, I dont exactly remember who we played against but nevertheless 6 out of 7 is great no matter who do you play.

                              That stretch really left me feeling thatthis new team(after the trade) was better that the old team(before the trade) and more consistent ( I think I remember the team before the trade only having one 3 game winning streak all year and thats just bad.

                              However while I was sure that this team was better after the trade I also thought that they were more vulnerable Why? Because although they executed the offense in a pretty efficient manner as a TEAM thay lacked the individuals who could make something happen by themselves... This is not to say that Al and Jack were great at it or anything like that but they were better to some extent. In my opinion they only player on the team after the trade that could create something out of nothing was Quis and he worked in the new system(after the trade) almost to perfection. But then he got injured and the whole system broke down because in my opinion Marquis Daniels was and still is the most important player on the team, thats not he's the best just the most important element to make the system work.

                              My suggestion, and I know this is quite unorthodox is to find a player thats similar to Marquis, he doest have to be as good because I project this mystery player as a third stringer and doest even have to be a shooting guard and the only thing he has to do is to be ready to step in the Marquis role if/ when Marquis gets injured and of course he has to have an offensive game that is a lot like Marquises (sp?) To help us in those broken play situations when Marquis isnt around.

                              I think this would be the single most efficient addition tptb could make and I truly believe that this move would push us over the hump yo being a goo, consistent team.

                              Any suggestions as to who this player could be would be welcome.

                              Thanks...
                              Last edited by vali_31; 07-03-2007, 04:09 PM. Reason: mis-spell

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The "stand pat" thread

                                Does anyone think we could compete in the east next year if we could possible acquire Matt Barnes and Jamaal Maglorie. Matt seems to be coming into his own and would be a nice 2 guard and Mags is the big JO has been begging for. Possible S&T Foster for Mags??? Thoughts?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X