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

What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

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

  • What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

    Seriously. Are some of the guys on this board simply smarter than Walsh and Bird?

    We discussed intensely the past three weeks the need to get a solid packup pg. We discussed the danger of Tinsley getting so many minutes. We discussed Quis also being injury prone and not being a pure pg, though maybe tolerable as a third backup.

    There were rebuttals: don't address a need that doesn't exist; Quis can do it; Owens and Diener are the answer. But most of the more knowledgeable posters agreed that the issue of a backup pg needed to be addressed quickly.

    Nothing was done. Five game losing streak.

    Will something be done now?

    Can PD apply for the GM position, by committee?
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    Seriously. Are some of the guys on this board simply smarter than Walsh and Bird?
    Either Walsh is still firmly in control or else the problem goes higher to ownership.

    There's no way the management consortium could be this lame and without vision and understanding. I realize having 13 managers/executives/GM's/President of basketball operations/VP of basketball operations/Assistant GM/Magic 8 Ball/Etc. could be problematic, but the settling, pond water slow pace to address issues, waiting, tweaking the edges while the core rots can't be signed off on by everyone.

    I can believe one man could do it but I can't believe any change in management could still operate essentially the same way. Therefore, I've been thinking for a while our problems go higher than the management level. I'm leaning toward believing we have ownership who took over the team to:
    A: Keep the team in Indy
    B: Let them join the club of billionaires who own sports teams

    Unfortunately, it's looking like "To win a championship" is nowhere on the list, or buried too far down to matter.

    Their loyalty to maintaining the status quo, or insistence on it, is going to be the ruination of the franchise if anything is.



    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

      Well I was one of them saying don't address a need that does not exist. I was really hoping that Travis would be a solid back up and even early on that he would find his game just like Kareem has done. But it looks like i'm wrong.

      I like Andre Owens but as a third stringer. He isn't a bad guy to have on your team but not as your number one backup. And starter since Jamaal is out.

      Marquis is a two guard. I like him. But not against trading him if we can get a backup point guard.

      We should try and get something done. There are plenty of guys avaliable who would be upgrades. Earl Watson, Luke Ridnour, Mike James, Luther Head but he may be no better than Marquis at the 1, Chucky Atkins (may not be avaliable), Marcus Banks, there are some solid names that could help us out.

      I really don't feel that we make a move though this season. I really believe that Bird will let Jim do what he can with this team first and give Travis a whole season to show why we gave him 5 million dollars. I really hope it works out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

        The problem is what can be done?

        I will say this, I was very disappointed that the Pacers didn't get into a 3 way deal with DEN/PHI last year to get Miller here, which I think they could have done.

        But other than that there hasn't been much available. And while everyone downplays the increased cost of Dun/Troy, that's a few million closer to the lux tax that I think TPTB are trying to avoid (and without winning why would you want to pay it).



        The GS trade was a big mistake just because of the talent distribution among positions. They didn't need Ike, they needed another guard. I know Pietrus isn't a great answer, but at least that would have been in the right direction.

        Everyone thinks I rant against the deal out of some love for Jack. While I liked him I saw tons of flaws in his game. That wasn't the problem. The problem was they didn't deal in a way that solved ON-COURT issues, they dealt from a PR standpoint. Big mistake.

        Undo that deal and you still have some flexability with lower contracts and a bit more talent behind them. Maybe you can move Al and Jack for a new PG right now (or last summer obviously).

        I think in the summer I talked about a SnT for Knight. I sure wish they'd made that move, or some effort to get him. ESPN has him at 1.6m, I haven't looked back at his deal to verify details. Still, this had to be in the realm of possible for Indy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

          I've said it for a while but the first people traded should've been:
          1A Tinsley
          1B JO

          This should've happened before Sjax even had a chance to reach the lows he ultimately reached in the eyes of Pacer fans.

          It really didn't matter in which order in my mind, but JO obviously is not the answer in Pacerland and his salary and what he brings to the team are not even close. But we held onto him and let his value drop and drop, even while it grew clearer that the team was as good with him as without him (if not better without him). ...And his injury history has multiplied.

          Tinsley's coach killing attitude is not a positive for any team. He could've at least TRIED under Rick Carlisle but he didn't. And Isiah ultimately didn't want him here either so obviously they didn't see eye to eye in the final wash.

          And neither player is good for chemistry in the situation they find themselves in here. JO, because he fails to live up to the mantle the team put him nor due to the salary he commands... And Tinsley because sinupoutinitis, missing practices, etc is not good for team unity either.

          Could a clean slate help them elsewhere? Dunno... In JO's case I think it could've 2 years ago. Now...??? If JO could've gotten in a situation where another star was already there and he respected that player enough to realize they weren't equals then maybe.

          Tinsley... I think Tinsley is what he is. I think Tinsley likes the lifestyle better than the game itself. He wants everything on his terms. And even if that isn't the case, his game has so many flaws that ULTIMATELY the flaws win out over the positives. He'll get you some wins... then he'll get you some losses with his oneupmanship. Then he'll get injured and he'll get you nothing.

          JO should've been on the block after the brawl year with a deal made for the best offer (I think decent offers could've been had then). Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that it was the first season where he really needed to step up and needed to learn to play in that role, the next season proved he wasn't capable. IMHO...

          But waiting too long to do anything until we just HAVE to, and then trying to make lemonade with the lemons we have, is a Pacer tradition.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

            Owens has played pretty well. But this team needs Tinsley for sure

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Owens has played pretty well. But this team needs Tinsley for sure
              "Anyone but Tinsley".....

              And it wasn't/isn't just you. In fact I'm not sure if you've said that THIS season or not.

              People can say what they want about Tinsley, but to those who said just getting rid of him (this year, last year, year before that, or that, etc.) would make things better: I give you this stretch. No it doesn't make things better.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                "Anyone but Tinsley".....

                And it wasn't/isn't just you. In fact I'm not sure if you've said that THIS season or not.

                People can say what they want about Tinsley, but to those who said just getting rid of him (this year, last year, year before that, or that, etc.) would make things better: I give you this stretch. No it doesn't make things better.
                This stretch proves nothing.

                To trade Tinsley means we get something back, or even trade another chip to get a solid, decent point guard.

                I don't want someone as good as Tinsley. I want a decent point guard, not as good as Tinsley, who is more reliable, more fundamental, more consistent.

                THAT would make our team better in the long run, IMHO.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  This stretch proves nothing.

                  To trade Tinsley means we get something back, or even trade another chip to get a solid, decent point guard.

                  I don't want someone as good as Tinsley. I want a decent point guard, not as good as Tinsley, who is more reliable, more fundamental, more consistent.

                  THAT would make our team better in the long run, IMHO.
                  I disagree. I think this stretch is a strong argument in Tinsley's favor. The decision making down the stretch has killed us, and Quis deflated my balloon as far as my thinking that he made Tins expendable. The value of a true point for this team has been demonstrated. I would like to see them start Diener, to see if that scrappiness we've heard about comes through. But he's such a defensive liability, who knows if that'd ever happen. You know what...it sure wouldn't seem so bad to have McCleod or Armstrong backing up Tinsley now, does it? We've played our best when Jamaal has played his best, and to me, that points to him as team MVP. I like Jermaine, but that's the area of focus if we're going to make a move. And that's not a knee-jerk reaction to this latest streak. It's just flat out logical.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    This stretch proves nothing.

                    To trade Tinsley means we get something back, or even trade another chip to get a solid, decent point guard.

                    I don't want someone as good as Tinsley. I want a decent point guard, not as good as Tinsley, who is more reliable, more fundamental, more consistent.

                    THAT would make our team better in the long run, IMHO.
                    That might be OK. But what I was jabbing at was there were posts made over the past few years saying we'd be better off just trading Tinsley for potato chips or simply cutting him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                      Andre Miller is the guy I've been pimping for a while now.

                      How about JO to the Sixers for Miller, Dalembert, and their 2008 #1? I'm not a big fan of Dalembert or his contract, but he would be a competent big man, we'd get a new starting PG/very good back-up PG in Andre, and a pretty high #1 in next year's draft. Then, if necessary, we try to combine first-rounders to move up and nab Eric Gordon or Derrick Rose, and re-sign Harrison.

                      Dalembert/Harrison/Murphy
                      Diogu/Foster
                      Granger/Williams
                      Gordon/Dunleavy/Daniels/Graham
                      Tinsley/Miller/Diener

                      Don't know if Philly would bite, though.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        "Anyone but Tinsley".....

                        And it wasn't/isn't just you. In fact I'm not sure if you've said that THIS season or not.

                        People can say what they want about Tinsley, but to those who said just getting rid of him (this year, last year, year before that, or that, etc.) would make things better: I give you this stretch. No it doesn't make things better.
                        ABT was my motto for years. But not this year. The entire team (the offense anyways) is built around Tinsley and without him, the team is nowhere near the same

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                          I wish I could ask TPTB, "Why sign Travis Diener when you could have had Janero Pargo for the same money?"
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                            Buck is right, this version is centered on Tinsley/PG play. This is one issue I had with JOB's offense (love his defensive attitude), it's based on playmakers and this team doesn't have them. That's why Rick gave up on running and worked with slower, developing plays instead.

                            It's been a big risk to count on Tins and 3pt shooting from this squad. Certainly it works some nights, but it just seems like they are relying on a weakness rather than a strength.


                            Shade - um, Dalembert hates JOB from his time in Philly. Maybe not such a good deal to bring him in. I think they clearly missed their chance with Dre.


                            As for the general ABT attitude, I never had it. I hated that view with Jackson, Ron, Tins, JO...it's not realistic. Tinsley and Jackson are both fairly paid for their output, but they aren't the highest paid guys on this or any team, so why would they be the focus of an offense?

                            Jack was out of necessity at times, Tins is due to style. Nash or Baron Davis as the focus with a 7m PF instead would probably be working much better for JOB. This team doesn't have an AI or Pierce, off the dribble scorer and there is no way we could expect Tins to be that.

                            I also think too many people are assuming the slump is just due to Tins. But the reality is that he played during the 6 game losing streak. This roster has more issues than just Tins being out.


                            My issue with Diener right now is that when he has played he just dribbles down and chucks his small-guy 3 (ie, lot of body effort into getting it up, not naturally smooth).

                            Some of this is the game being out of hand, but frankly there are times that even making a few 3s wouldn't help and he still does it. I'd like to see if he can actually run a proper offensive set instead.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I also think too many people are assuming the slump is just due to Tins. But the reality is that he played during the 6 game losing streak. This roster has more issues than just Tins being out.
                              But, unlike this streak, would it be fair to say that 1st losing streak could be attributed to trying to "figure out" the offense meshing with JO? I think this 2nd losing streak has a lot more to do with the absence of JT than the 1st one. What do you think?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X