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

12 years ago today we saw the beginning of what ended up being a 4 year climb to being a good and relevant team, that's all it lasted

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
    Danny's a great dude. It's not his fault he had tunnel vision, he just lacked the talent to be a connector. He needed to go for Paul (and to a lesser extent Lance) to develop his game. If there's good argument against that take I'd like to hear it because I haven't yet after all these years. (facepalms dont count Eleazer!!)
    Your argument here is that because "scenario A" happened therefore "scenario A" is the only way it could have happened. There are many good arguments, the problem is you won't listen to them because you are not coming from a position of logic. You are coming from a position of illogical belief.

    And let's not forget. Paul himself claimed the move to SF was important to his development. We had the simple minded "a wing's a wing" argument to rebut that and I think it was Bills who said it was just player speak. I'm still not sure what that meant. So yeah minds won't be changed. Danny was a polarizing player. I liked him up until his all star season but then it was all downhill from there.
    This does not match with my memory.

    Comment


    • #77
      I was around back then. Danny was polarizing, I was the given quite a bit of flak for defending him alot. Personally I believe healthy Danny could have been the difference though, and we suffered alot losing his leadership after the Evan Turner trade. There were people thay wanted Paul at SF because they didn't think he had the ball handling to be a guard
      Last edited by daschysta; 04-02-2022, 11:56 PM.
      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Dece View Post

        I think when you tie your fortunes to injury prone players you can't act surprised when they get injured. The only injury that was at all surprising in the last 10 years was Paul's leg. That was a true freak accident. Otherwise, there's a reason the Bucks parted ways with Brogdon. There's a reason the Suns parted ways with Warren. These players were available cheaply because it was known they often miss games. There's a reason they were able to draft Turner, dude ran like a duck and people didn't believe in him being healthy and productive with such bad mechanics. Turns out he isn't healthy. Going back further, there's a reason the Pacers were even able to draft DG. It was always known that DG had a degenerative condition and he wasn't going to be playing into his 30's.

        I don't particularly think one freak accident in the past decade is particularly unlucky. Maybe you want to argue about Vic, but I don't think Vic was all that good to begin with, and players of his playstyle quite often are prone to what happened to him.

        I think injuries can be a legit excuse for a year. Maybe two or three years if the player doesn't recover and you have to make a whole new plan. I don't think injuries are a legit excuse for a decade. Not for the franchise who traded for Murphleavy, let JOB coach for years, draft Psycho-T, draft Leaf, draft Goga, draft Duarte, trade a draft pick for Hill, trade a draft pick for Thad Young, etc. For every injury you could try to cite I could cite a bad move.

        Then you have to go deeper into the excuse. The Grizzlies have been without Ja Morant for 20 games this season. They went 18-2. The Clippers have been without Kawhi and PG all year. They are on the playoff bubble. The Nuggets have been without Jamal Murray all season, they are playoff bound. Golden State was without Klay most the season, they are playoff bound. All of these players are better than any player on the Pacer roster, at yet their teams were able to be successful. If you look at the list of people who have missed game and contrast it with their salary, the Pacers aren't even close to having the worst fortune this year. Yet they are one of the worst teams.

        Great link for viewing who missed the most games and their salary: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/injured-reserve/

        If excuses work for you, then you got the right GM for the job. I'm not convinced.
        So your plan for the Pacers is to be like the winning franchises of today that sucked for years and had repetitive top 10 draft picks?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

          Sorry but this isn't true. Danny took the exact same amount of shots per minute in Paul's 2nd year as he did in Paul's 1st. If anything his game became even more selfish as his already miniscule assist percentage dropped significantly Paul's 2nd year (the year you and others questioned if Paul should be traded.) During that time I was catching hell on here for saying Danny needed to step aside for the young guys to develop and that's exactly what happened the next year.

          Of course Danny fans will never admit there was a correllation and that's fine. There's no way to prove one way or the other but the fact remains Danny's game offensively was very selfish. When you have a wing player taking the most shots on the team while averaging less than 2 assists per game, that's a problem. It's common sense to assume it'd be hard for other young wings to develop playing alongside a player like that.

          Danny's a great dude. It's not his fault he had tunnel vision, he just lacked the talent to be a connector. He needed to go for Paul (and to a lesser extent Lance) to develop his game. If there's good argument against that take I'd like to hear it because I haven't yet after all these years. (facepalms dont count Eleazer!!)

          And let's not forget. Paul himself claimed the move to SF was important to his development. We had the simple minded "a wing's a wing" argument to rebut that and I think it was Bills who said it was just player speak. I'm still not sure what that meant. So yeah minds won't be changed. Danny was a polarizing player. I liked him up until his all star season but then it was all downhill from there.
          so Danny was selfish because he was the only one who could score and his teammates sucked?

          If he was selfish, why did the team implode after he was traded?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

            Your argument here is that because "scenario A" happened therefore "scenario A" is the only way it could have happened. There are many good arguments, the problem is you won't listen to them because you are not coming from a position of logic. You are coming from a position of illogical belief.



            This does not match with my memory.
            Ok that's basically just another facepalm . I never said Danny stepping aside was the ONLY way the young guys would have developed. It is my opinion that Danny's on court presense was holding them back though. The issue was crytal clear to me back then. It seems like everybody here just accepts as fact that a declining Danny would've had no bearing on Paul and Lance's development. That's naive.

            Look, obviously Paul would've been an all star with or without Danny eventually but how long would that have taken? Can anyone really say with confidence that had Danny remained healthy, Paul would've still turned into an all star his 3rd season? There were plenty of people here down on him after year 2 and with good reason. His shot rate was identical his first 2 seasons. He was deferring to guys and his development was stagnant. Even if we knew Danny would never play any meaningful minutes for us again, not many (most likely none) would've predicted Paul would turn into an all star the following season. I was one of his biggest defenders back then and I couldn't have even seen that coming.

            Same can be said for Lance. Does he develop into a key starter on back to back ECF teams with Danny around? I highly doubt it. He'd barely played his first 2 seasons before Danny's injury gave him an opportunity in year 3. Remember Lance was brilliant in the closeout game against the Knicks to get us to the ECF that year.

            If you think these guys would've developed that quickly without being thrust into these important roles, I don't know what to tell you. That seems very unrealistic. At the very least, their development would've been slowed had Danny remained the focal point of the offense for 30+ minutes.

            Maybe they could've won big eventually with a declining Danny, who knows, but the young guys that actually did help lead us to back to back ECFs probably wouldn't have developed as quickly as they did with Danny around. That seems like a logical assumption to me.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post

              so Danny was selfish because he was the only one who could score and his teammates sucked?

              If he was selfish, why did the team implode after he was traded?
              Danny game was inherently selfish and I've stated the reasons why I think that. It had nothing to do with his teammates.

              And the team implosion was already well under way before Danny was dealt. That's just a fact.

              Comment


              • #82
                People love to pretend Danny was some awesome, exciting pacers legend.

                Truthfully, he was a boring jumpshooter who scored lots of points on bad teams and barely made one all star game.

                Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

                Lifelong pacers fan

                Comment


                • #83
                  People love to pretend Danny was some awesome, exciting pacers legend.

                  Truthfully, he was a boring jumpshooter who scored lots of points on bad teams and barely made one all star game.


                  Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

                  Lifelong pacers fan

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

                    Danny game was inherently selfish and I've stated the reasons why I think that. It had nothing to do with his teammates.

                    And the team implosion was already well under way before Danny was dealt. That's just a fact.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post

                      Tell me about it..I feel like im in an alternate reality when you guys get to talking about Danny. The myth keeps growing. Can't wait to hear how good and important he was 10 years from now.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        This thread feels a little repetitive, but I think we're finally starting to move in a more modern direction. We're finally trying the undrafted or deep 2nd guys out and using modern contract structures to our advantage. We have a 6'5 deep ball marksman and borderline elite passer as our point guard of the future. I was worried for the last two years, but now I'm not all that concerned. It almost feels like we're learning from the Masai types around the league, at last.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X