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

Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

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

  • #46
    Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
    rebuilding is not a one year process like bird seems to think. judging by his recent trades, he feels he's able to rebuild on the fly while remaining somewhat competitive. that just will not work. where will the top talent come from then? the only way this works is if we capitalize on any and all players who fall into our laps (ex. jerryd bayless). i have 0 faith in bird.
    You're missing the point (there seems to be a lot of that from your past posts). Rebuild is not a one year process, we agree on that, but this isn't "it" for the process. What has been done to this point is not the completion of the rebuild, it is just the beginning. The P's weren't going to get any better carrying JO's hefty salary. He had to go in order for the process to start. And Bayless didn't "fall into our laps", the deal with Portland was done before the draft, so essentially Bayless was never "ours" at any point. The P's had no intention of ever drafting him, hell they didn't even work him out. IMO, they did very well for Bayless. They got a great b/u PG who can start in this league should Ford get injured.

    When you look at the big picture, which you aren't currently, I think you'll be impressed with the potential this bring the P's down the road. It's one thing to have zero faith in Bird at this point, but it's another to ignore the reality of what has taken place and what could take place in the future. The future definitely looks brighter today than it did just one week ago. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but it's there.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Indiana Pacers

      First round: Brandon Rush, G-F, 6-6, 210, Kansas (trade)
      First round: Roy Hibbert, C, 7-2, 280, Georgetown


      Larry Legend did not start off his GM tenure in Indiana very well. Unloading Jermaine O'Neal and his 2-year $40-million deal was necessary, but he didn't get enough in return as T.J. Ford, like O'Neal, is injury prone and could be more trouble than he's worth. He also has yet to prove that he can be an elite-level point guard. Their draft philosophy makes sense for a team that's close to contending, adding Rush and Hibbert a couple of NBA ready players with not a lot of upside. Unfortunately the Pacers are in rebuilding mode and don't have the talent in place to make "solid" picks. Rush's career took a big turn for the worse when he was informed that he was being traded to Indiana instead of playing for Portland. The expectations and role that the Pacers have in mind for him will make it difficult for him to succeed. He is a defensive standout with solid shooting ability, but asking him to be more than that is asking for trouble. Taking Hibbert at 17 was also a mistake as he's limited athletically, and will be nothing more than a solid center. While these picks might look solid in a year, they likely won't appear so solid in 4-5 years when other players they could have taken (like Bayless and McGee) potentially become standouts. Grade: D.

      http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8...ft-report-card

      I really don't care too much for this assessment.
      Oh no! Hibbert's gonna be a solid center!! Oh wait, that's a good thing
      Turn out the lights, this party's over!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

        Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
        "Taking Hibbert at 17 was also a mistake as he's limited athletically, and will be nothing more than a solid center."

        I'm trying to figure out what makes this a bad thing.
        Havent centers been taken number 1 overall with the expectations they would just make a solid center?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

          i think there are 2 parts to analize in this article

          1. the JO trade- there is no question this trade is good for us and there are no question marks whatsoever. even if JO stays injury free next year- this deal had to be done. we got 3 things all rebuilding teams are looking for and we couldn't ask for more than we got

          2. the 11th pick trade- I really dont know if this was the right move or not. nor could i know until a few years go by and we'll see how the players develop. I realize we got solid players but what we still need is a leader and a go to guy. this roster is full of great complimentary players at every position but not one great talent we can build around.
          last years team came 9th in the eastern conference and improved this summer since we didn't lose a single contributing part to the team in either trade (JO, Ike) and we got some good pieces back. this means we'll most likely be better next year and have a lower pick in the draft. plus, i dont see how were going to get any high caliber free agents anytime soon. this only leaves a trade as an option to get a great talent to Indy- that also probably means gutting the team of the valuable pieces we have.

          our future looks much brighter than it did a week ago but if it were up to me- i would still put my money on Bayless becoming a very good player in this league- even if he didn't fit to our system- because teams are always looking for talent, and Bayless has plenty of it. I think we could have enjoyed watching him playing for the Ps and also could have gotten a lot more for him had we waited a couple of years.

          we'll have to wait to find out for sure

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

            The guy for FoxSports also called Landry being a very good pick at 31. So, his opinion is still viable. There weren't a whole lot of people pitching a tent in their pants after the Ray Allen deal.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

              It isn't an issue of whether or not JO was traded. I agree he needed to be traded and in that sense it was a successful trade. What I question is getting TJ. While I can't guess what trades we could have or couldn't have made, I would have preferred a deal were we got less, such as the rumored Cleveland deal, but would have been better off financially.

              As far as passing on Bayless, I'd lean towards taking him in hopes of him becoming a great player. I'm happy with both Rush and Jack. It gives us backcourt depth and defenders. But the picks were conservative and I understand why they were.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                I think TJ Ford is the best point guard we could have gotten for JO (we also got Hibbert and Rasho in the deal)

                Are there any point guards better than TJ that were available

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I think TJ Ford is the best point guard we could have gotten for JO (we also got Hibbert and Rasho in the deal)

                  Are there any point guards better than TJ that were available
                  Other than arguably Hinrich, but I'm not sure if I'm not just giving Hinrich credit for not having a congenital spine condition.

                  I'm very happy with Ford.

                  I'm mildly intrigued with Hibbert.

                  As many on here, I probably would've kept Bayless, but I'm still excited about Rush and Jack.

                  I'm absolutely ecstatic about the improvement in our financial condition, particularly since it was done while getting some very usable pieces back and without completely gutting the franchise.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I think TJ Ford is the best point guard we could have gotten for JO (we also got Hibbert and Rasho in the deal)

                    Are there any point guards better than TJ that were available
                    Tinsley.

                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                      Baron Davis?

                      I agree that our pg rotation is much, much improved. I just think that TJ has some baggage in terms of size, contract, injury and attitude.
                      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                        Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                        Baron Davis?

                        I agree that our pg rotation is much, much improved. I just think that TJ has some baggage in terms of size, contract, injury and attitude.
                        I seriously doubt that we could've gotten Baron Davis for JO. I believe Buck was saying that Ford was the best we could get with JO, and I think he's probably pretty close to right.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                          What kinds of attitude problems does Ford have?

                          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                            I agree. He is what we got so it is silly to argue we could have gotten more or less as none of us know what was offered. I would have rather taken less talent and salary if the talent was TJ. But he's a Pacer now I look forward to having a decent pg situation.

                            He doesn't like sharing the point guard spot. He was moved twice in favor of his back up. Really minor compared to our standard of attitude problems but still a red flag in my book.
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              The guy for FoxSports also called Landry being a very good pick at 31. So, his opinion is still viable. There weren't a whole lot of people pitching a tent in their pants after the Ray Allen deal.


                              Im not sure KG would have gone to Boston if it wasnt for Ray being there, and Im pretty sure Ainge knew he would still have the pieces to get someone (Gasol or KG). My point being, the Allen trade was done with the next trade in mind. My best friend is a Celtics fan and I remember us discussing at the time how good the Allen trade was for this very reason.

                              IF we can get rid of the bad parts (only Tinsley and maybe Shawne/Quis left?) we have on the roster and show this is going to be a fun TEAM to play on then I can see us maybe attracting a good FA in the next 2 years.... We just have to be careful we arent creating cap room just to overpay someone. Blowing 16m on someone like Baron Davis would be a bad idea trust me.


                              I wasnt sure at first about the JO trade but I liked the draft night trade and what we got in return (a proven backup PG and a prospect 2/3 for a prospect PG/SG and an inside player we will NEVER use). Then again I have only seen one game of Bayless as I only get to watch the tourney over here :P. Rush looked good and Hibbert looked decent last year (not so much this year).

                              Lets hope Larry's plan turns out as good as Ainge's

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                                I like Ford better than Hinrich. Ford is a legit point guard who can make a team go. Hinrich is not and cannot. Ford is more productive all-around, a couple years younger, and a couple of million dollars cheaper.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X