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

Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

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

  • #16
    Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I have feeling the comment about Harrison losing it so badly that he was in 'another world' might be the time he was knocked silly with a concussion in Memphis(?) and nobody at the time realized exactly what the problem was as he appeared to wander aimlessly at the timeout.

    I suppose unless you were a regular Pacer viewer and fan who followed that situation from its inception and thrn thru the local media to actually know what had happened, you might have a different idea about what you saw.

    And maybe that's not what he's talking about but I don't remember ever thinking Harrision was just 'in another world' with any of his 'issues' I've seen on the court or bench. That's not to say overall that the writer isn't correct in Harrison needing to control his temper/emotions better.
    .

    -Bball
    He's probably seen him stumbling around Broad Ripple after one of his legendary drinking binges. Alledgedly

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I don't have time right now to breakdown what was said in that article, but there was a lot of stuff I agree with - just a lot of insight

      Same here, I agreed with the majority of his assessments. The Marquis bit I didn't neccesarily agree with. I've never felt like he had alot of holes in his game. His problem is staying healthy.

      Obviously the tone of the article is slanted towards the Pacers not doing so well this year. But pretty much everyone who doesnt wear the blue and gold tinted glasses believes that too.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

        Look what JOB has done. He has made the Pacers work, turned the locker room from a playhouse to a basketball training pit, and has installed defense. The 76ers were a bunch of thugs who couldn't stand his harsh training schedules and his up tempo demanding style of ball play. It wasn't his fault(In a indirect way..but you get my point) he got booted .

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

          Just another bad article from someone who has not watched a Pacer game or practice since last year.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

            I don't think it was such a bad article at all. I thought it mentions some very valid points. I would prefer to have Dun Dun play as our 6th man, adding playmaking and passing ability to our second squad and indeed beying less at a disadvantage against the average opposing backups athletically compared to the startes he would face-off against. Then add to that that we could play him more at his natural SF position aswell.

            Eitherway, I view him as one of the important factors for us this year, together with JO, Quis and Tinsley remaining (relatively) healthy, Danny, Shawn and Ike progressing and Troy beying better or atleast tougher on defense and maybe most important ... the team accepting, enjoying and "getting" JOB's new system and his way of doing things.
            Last edited by Mourning; 10-25-2007, 06:33 AM.
            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


            • #21
              Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I thought the article was fair, but six months late. Write this at the end of last season, and it would be hard to disagree with. As it is, I thought he missed the boat quite a bit, but those weaknesses have already been pointed out.
              I agree - I have a hard time disagreeing with anyone who thought the team mailed in some games late last year - or that JO has taken to shooting a LOT more from outside - and with pretty poor results (his shooting % is abysmal for a post player).

              Can't dog someone too bad for doing a season preview based on last year - what else does he have to go by? However I do think he should have put more into an alternative scenario - a new coach who may reenergize the team and get them to re-commit themselves. That happens quite a bit and if it does the Pacers have a good shot at being a .500, or slightly above, team.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                Definitely agree he should have a segment about the possibility of a new coach and system yielding positive results. We who have payed attention to the preseason know there are indicators of improvement over the morass that was last season.

                However, you have to admit there are still plenty of reasons not to be convinced, too:
                1) It's only preseason.
                2) Outside one game our FG% is still awful.
                3) IMO our perimeter D is still God-awful (Gs being able to control penetration)
                4) JO and Murph are already on the bench nursing injuries
                5) Dun at SG is far from ideal
                6) Insert any other concern here

                We can see that the attitude and effort seems like night and day under JOB. That's a start. Until we see some games with meaning, though, I'm not going to make any final decision. I am encouraged by what I've seen, but it's to early to tell. Who's to say the new attitude won't crumble if we struggle out of the gate? Remaining cautiously optimistic but prepared for anything.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                  I love how everybody's blasting this guy as ignorant, when this is what the man does for a living, scout opposing teams. Yes, maybe he hasn't watched them this preseason, but come on. This shows that it's not just the media that's down on us, others in the league are too. Now, you sunshiners should take that as a plus, that they're underestimating us.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    I love how everybody's blasting this guy as ignorant, when this is what the man does for a living, scout opposing teams. Yes, maybe he hasn't watched them this preseason, but come on. This shows that it's not just the media that's down on us, others in the league are too. Now, you sunshiners should take that as a plus, that they're underestimating us.
                    I would expect him to get fired, because as a scout he spends too much time on intangibles like "desire" and "will".

                    I can imagine what it's like in the office: "Coach, you don't need a game plan against the pacers because they don't believe that they are going to win ... oh and if you could, please make out the check to "cash" ... I don't want to go into a higher tax bracket. Have a great weekend! Bye!"

                    A scouting report begins and ends in USEFUL information. This one has some useful information, but it is contaminated by useless information.
                    “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


                    • #25
                      Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                      Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                      Are we sure Naptown Seth didn't write that?
                      say what ya want about Naptown Seth, i'll admit a couple of times after pacers losses or other low times in the recent history of the pacers the last thing I wanted to read was some of his posts. Usually though he's pretty levelheaded on what's going on and is more of a realist that knows what he's talkin about more often then not. It's a nice change of pace from the all the sunshiners at times.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                        All the sunshiners?

                        We have a lot of sunshiners here? When the hell did that happen???????

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          I would expect him to get fired, because as a scout he spends too much time on intangibles like "desire" and "will".

                          I can imagine what it's like in the office: "Coach, you don't need a game plan against the pacers because they don't believe that they are going to win ... oh and if you could, please make out the check to "cash" ... I don't want to go into a higher tax bracket. Have a great weekend! Bye!"

                          A scouting report begins and ends in USEFUL information. This one has some useful information, but it is contaminated by useless information.
                          He wasn't asked to write a scouting report, he was asked to give his opinion on how the Pacers will do and why.
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                            Jermaine doesn't have a great reputation when it comes to being a determined leader who sets a good example for his young teammates.

                            The further and further we get into this the more and more this will start to come out.

                            As to the article itself overall I think it was a very fair assesement of the team.

                            The guy didn't say the team would suck, he just said that we aren't going anywhere with this group (ok he didn't say that but I believe it was implied) of players.

                            Now there is nothing wrong with being hopefull for the season you have to be realistic as well.

                            Yes, some of the early pre-season games were good and fun to watch but they were early pre-season games.

                            Yes, O'Brien is optomistic and say's all of the right things. Rick Carlisle never held a negative press conferance or stated a bad thing about a player in public either.

                            I think the truth is in this article, not absolute truth, but general truth nonetheless.


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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                              He wasn't asked to write a scouting report, he was asked to give his opinion on how the Pacers will do and why.
                              I guess I was misled by the title.
                              “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


                              • #30
                                Re: Ian Thomsen's Pacers Scouting Report (SI.com)

                                Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                                All the sunshiners?

                                We have a lot of sunshiners here? When the hell did that happen???????
                                x2

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X