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

GET BEN SIMMONS PRITCHARD !!!!

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

  • Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

    Only 5 centers shot more threes at a better percentage than Myles, and btw, Brook Lopez is not one of them. Of those 5 guys, only Karl Anthony-Towns blocked at least one shot per game, and he was at 1.1, Myles was at 3.4. We get it, you don’t like him, but he is a very good shooter for his position, especially when you take into account that he is a two-way player.
    Ok but here's the thing: the problem is, that low % is a huge problem when a large % of ones shots are 3. At that percentage, you're losing net points on every shot i.e. the overall value of each made 3 is less than 2 pts. I wouldn't be complaining of it was BL on our team bc he brings other value to the table. And I'm not one who thinks that blocks have a major intrinsic value, they don't, you might affect 2 shots per game, 66% of which would've gone in, probably a third of these end up as free balls. I dunno if there's a formula to determine it but it's probably good for a 1.5 pt swing over game. We lose more than that due to his wasted shots. At hitting just over 1 made tre per 3 attempted, the only thing we should be happy about is that he doesn't shoot more!! Put it this way, if Turner was anywhere near your #1 option highest volume shooter, we'd be one of the worst shooting teams in the league. He drags our overall shooting down, maybe not critically bc he's low volume, but every Turner 3 drags our shooting efficiency down a bit more.

    And guess what?? If you're an effective big and shoots 60% from the block, every 3 taken at 33% is an even BIGGER loss! Literally, the more he shoots 3s the more he costs us. Doesn't matter what position he plays, it's still 1 ball, 1 shot that would've netted more points if wisely used. Every doink and clank when he misses 2/3 attempts is a loss for us.

    IOW, if Myles stopped shooting 3s next season, his usefulness and value would go up.

    Edit: ok there is...a block is thought to save about 0.7 pts. Not worth giving a guy 18mil to do everything else poorly. He's a crappy rebounder, a crappy scorer (though if he shot only 1 per game he'd do far better) not particularly good distributor, and the one thing he's good at is severely overrated and a glamour stat. I wouldn't trade probably 50% of the guys in this league for him straight up. Further, his excessive 3.4 blocks per game is certainly inflated by the fact that teams drive against our porous backcourt D like they're driving to the supermarket for a sale.

    Also the comparison is invalid bc Turner offensively is a PF, plays as a stretch 4, and should be viewed as such. There are very few exceptional centers today, and those who are traditional centers not stretch 4s are in the league because they have a post game that's strong enough to overcome their shooting woes. Turner is a PF on offense in every sense..

    And yes, Lopez does shoot better from 3 although it's very close. Actually, their 3pt, attempts per game, overall shooting, and ppg are startlingly similar. So I think you can argue that Lopez & Turner are offensively a wash... That settled, Turner's defensive calling card the block is relatively worthless, and certainly not worth the 6 mil difference in salary between them.

    That's why I don't like him. It's not a personal thing it's a "overpaid to be one dimensional" thing & even that one dimension is imo fools gold.

    Riddle me this: if Sabonis' who is only 1% below Myles' 3pt pct, took HALF OF HIS SHOTS FROM 3 next yr ppl would burn effigies of him in the STREETS. That's what Myles does.

    I've said this argument many times and for everyone's sake I'm done talking about it. Nothing Turner does, whether shooting 3s or blocking or rebounding, provides any tangible benefit and you can see it in his PER, and by the good old eye test. The man is empty carbs.

    I'm out, I'm done with Myles talk, if none of those points can get through ppls rose colored glasses of him then nothing I say will.
    Last edited by OneMoreYear; 07-04-2021, 04:32 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post
      Hey Inyaface, I dunno if it's just me but I can't quote these sources the way you post them, it causes my browser to load Twitter every time?.
      Hey, you click the three dots on the upper right of the tweet, then on embed, then copy the link, then u go on here and type tweet in squarebrackets in front of the link and /tweet in squarebrackets after the link. Thats it.

      Comment


      • Indiana Pacers: 10 reasons why trading for Ben Simmons is a step backwards

        https://8points9seconds.com/2021/07/...n-simmons-bad/

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

          I like how he describes Simmons as a "basketcase" but then doesnt rule out trading our best player for him.

          Could we be a little more dramatic?

          24 year old, 3 time all star = basketcase.
          There’s no doubt he’s talented and would be our best perimeter defender and transition player by a country mile. But I’m not sure he’s better than Sabonis. Yet he’s paid as a max player. This isn’t the once-in-a-generation opportunity to grab a great player.

          I think the packages being suggested on here are too much for him, especially when you consider his temperament. He’s got the yips.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            J “PR” Michael’s doing damage control nothing else.
            For real, his constant PR act is so obvious and obnoxious. I was flabbergasted listening to him on the radio about a month ago making the case for why KP has actually drafted well.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by imawhat View Post
              I can’t believe we’re this passionate about.....Ben Simmons. I don’t know if I would trade him straight up for Sabonis. He is a basket case.
              I like the idea, and I also don't like it. I wouldn't say I'm passionate about it, but he has a higher ceiling than anyone on this roster right now, at least I think he does. He is at least one of the 5-10 very best defenders in the whole NBA though, and has solid playmaking ability and athleticism. He's also young... Maybe a coach like Carlisle could be a good thing for him. Idk, and I don't want to pretend that I do know either way. Just some of the most interesting player personnel news in a long while.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post

                For real, his constant PR act is so obvious and obnoxious. I was flabbergasted listening to him on the radio about a month ago making the case for why KP has actually drafted well.
                I knew about his PR bs the day he came after me ( I didn't know who he was) when Pacers signed Tyreke Evans, I thought it was just a homer telling me how wrong I was but nope it was J "PR" Michael going off on me


                He is always pushing Pacers and Turner's agenda, my guess he is friends with Pritchard and Turner's agent or something, I guess now that I think about it he is maybe pushing Turner's agenda because of his buddy Pritchard?
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Also think about the rumor of Pacers going all in with Mike freaking Conley two years ago and still act like getting a 24 years old player that was second in DPOY is "meh"



                  We are talking about a team who's goal is usually to get or trade for washed players, there is no doubt in my mind that they are trying to find ways to get Kevin Love for a bag of cheetos.


                  Give me the 24 years old multiple all star player, DPOY candidate over any of the washed players Pacers are thinking about getting.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Also think about the rumor of Pacers going all in with Mike freaking Conley two years ago and still act like getting a 24 years old player that was second in DPOY is "meh"



                    We are talking about a team who's goal is usually to get or trade for washed players, there is no doubt in my mind that they are trying to find ways to get Kevin Love for a bag of cheetos.


                    Give me the 24 years old multiple all star player, DPOY candidate over any of the washed players Pacers are thinking about getting.
                    ur player preferences are so weird man...it's like u don't care about defense at all normally, but if there is a player that is good at defense while being completely incompetent on offense (tucker, simmons) u are all over it...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dal9 View Post

                      ur player preferences are so weird man...it's like u don't care about defense at all normally, but if there is a player that is good at defense while being completely incompetent on offense (tucker, simmons) u are all over it...
                      Yes I like good players I'm guilty of that.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Softner fans: "I can't wait for my guy to get the DPOY and make an all star so I don't have to wear underwear for the next year or so, defense is also important people in PD don't understand how valuable defense is, blocks are life offense is very overrated, defense is king"


                        (Pacers rumored to get a DPOY candidate, all team all defense player, a 3 times all star who is only 24 years of age")


                        Softner fans: "Ben Simmons can't score also ignore all the bs I said about defense"
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Also think about the rumor of Pacers going all in with Mike freaking Conley two years ago and still act like getting a 24 years old player that was second in DPOY is "meh"



                          We are talking about a team who's goal is usually to get or trade for washed players, there is no doubt in my mind that they are trying to find ways to get Kevin Love for a bag of cheetos.


                          Give me the 24 years old multiple all star player, DPOY candidate over any of the washed players Pacers are thinking about getting.
                          I asked this question earlier to all. What is your red line when it comes to making a run at Simmons?

                          What if it costs us Brogdon + Sabonis + #13 while not getting back any draft picks?

                          This doesn’t mean that the Pacers won’t swap out Myles for Sabonis, swap out Aaron for #13 or make every effort to keep Warren or LeVert. I ask this because I know that the longer this plays out, the higher the cost will be. The longer this plays out, the greater chance that the cost will include Sabonis….the Pacers most valuable trading asset and your clear favorite.

                          In other words, is everything on the table to make a run at Simmons?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Also think about the rumor of Pacers going all in with Mike freaking Conley two years ago and still act like getting a 24 years old player that was second in DPOY is "meh"



                            We are talking about a team who's goal is usually to get or trade for washed players, there is no doubt in my mind that they are trying to find ways to get Kevin Love for a bag of cheetos.


                            Give me the 24 years old multiple all star player, DPOY candidate over any of the washed players Pacers are thinking about getting.
                            I asked this question earlier to all. What is your red line when it comes to making a run at Simmons?

                            What if it costs us Brogdon + Sabonis + #13 while not getting back any draft picks?

                            This doesn’t mean that the Pacers won’t try to swap out Myles for Sabonis, swap out Aaron for #13 or make every effort to keep Warren or LeVert. I ask this because I know that the longer this plays out, the higher the cost will be. The longer this plays out, the greater chance that the cost will include Sabonis….the Pacers most valuable trading asset and your clear favorite.

                            In other words, is everything on the table to make a run at Simmons?
                            Last edited by CableKC; 07-05-2021, 02:05 PM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              I asked this question earlier to all. What is your red line when it comes to making a run at Simmons?

                              What if it costs us Brogdon + Sabonis + #13 while not getting back any draft picks?

                              This doesn’t mean that the Pacers won’t swap out Myles for Sabonis, swap out Aaron for #13 or make every effort to keep Warren or LeVert. I ask this because I know that the longer this plays out, the higher the cost will be. The longer this plays out, the greater chance that the cost will include Sabonis….the Pacers most valuable trading asset and your clear favorite.

                              In other words, is everything on the table to make a run at Simmons?
                              Everything but Sabonis, he also doesn't match what Sixers need so there is no point in talking about it.



                              I mean you have to evaluate every player available, Brogdon/LeVert/Warren are injury prone so I'm OK with moving them before they get injured again and their value is cero.


                              Turner/Goga/Holidays are meh to me and can be replaced easily.


                              Pacers should offer Brogdon/Warren/picks and be happy if they get Ben.


                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                before they get injured again and their value is cero.

                                cero
                                noun, plural (especially collectively) cero, (especially referring to two or more kinds or species) ceros.
                                a large Atlantic and Gulf Coast mackerel game fish, Scomberomorus regalis.
                                any of various related fishes.

                                https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cero
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X