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

  • #91
    Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

    Who wouldn't want to see one of the players on the team you like succeed? He just has had his chance(s) and blew them.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

      Originally posted by davstarp10 View Post
      I would still love him to prove everyone wrong, I have just resigned myself to the fact its not going to happen.
      Its not going to happen here.

      He's needed a fresh start away from the Pacers since 9/3/2003.

      I wouldn't be shocked if he turns his life/ approach around somewhere else.

      And I wouldn't be shocked if he disappears entirely. After five years, it may be too late to save him.
      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


      • #93
        Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Doesn't change the fact you still added missed games to TJ. He's missed 60 games less than Tinsley in the past 4 years. That's well over a total season for Jamaal.

        I'm pretty sure the math is right on that. Jamaal's missed 6 more games in 4 season's, 129 to 135. I think you're overlooking the entire season he sat out with back injuries. We could go back to TJ's whole career and he's played in nine more games than Tinsley in 5 seasons. That includes Ford's rookie year and the one where Rick benched JT for 1/3 of the season.


        P.S.
        This is why I voted you the poster I'd like to see post more often. I like arguing with you for some reason.


        Count, it doesn't matter as much why the games were missed, if they're missing 'em right. They both have missed alot of time over 5 seasons. TJ has missed just as much as JT. If you're not there, you're not there.
        I'm in these bands
        The Humans
        Dr. Goldfoot
        The Bar Brawlers
        ME

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

          And on the insurance thing that everyone seems so confident in...It's only valid if the guy suffers a career-ending injury where he says "Okay...I'm done." And it's not like we get immediate cap relief. It can take a while.

          It takes solid year from the day that he admits he will never play again for them to evaluate all the medical info and fill out the forms and run all the paperwork through league offices, insurers investigations and all that red tape. So unless he literally breaks his neck and gets paralyzed or otherwise hurts himself so that he immediately knows -- and then admits -- that his NBA career is over in the first 12 months or so of this current contract, the insurance only helps Herb recoup his losses. It doesn't retroactively go back and allow us to sign a new player during the 12-month paper trail that will occur after he's carried off on a stretcher.

          Essentially, from a competitive, salary cap point of view, the insurance isn't much of a safeguard at all.

          EDIT: Was looking for the exact definition. Here it is from Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ

          http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#58

          There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

          Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.

          If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.
          Last edited by JayRedd; 07-01-2008, 07:10 PM.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            Its not going to happen here.

            He's needed a fresh start away from the Pacers since 9/3/2003.

            I wouldn't be shocked if he turns his life/ approach around somewhere else.

            And I wouldn't be shocked if he disappears entirely. After five years, it may be too late to save him.


            There is still good in him, I know it!

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post


              There is still good in him, I know it!


              haha, brilliant... Vader had a few sinus problems too....

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                "He is a defensive standout with solid shooting ability, but asking him to be more than that is asking for trouble. "

                What is more than a defensive standout? Supersonic? Astronomic?

                A defensive standout with solid shooting skills would be great!!!

                Taking Hibbert at 17 was also a mistake as he's limited athletically, and will be nothing more than a solid center.

                Yeah, solid centers are a dime a dozen and of no help whatsoever. Wish we could have gotten a super solid center, maybe super dense would have been superlative. Hope this guys predications come true............

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                  Originally posted by davstarp10 View Post
                  haha, brilliant... Vader had a few sinus problems too....
                  I think that was a resperatory issue, but close enough.

                  Thanks!!!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Foxsports.com Pacers Draft Report Card: D

                    Originally posted by 2minutes twowa View Post
                    True, but can you imagine the frustration Johnson went through. As much as we hate JT, imagine out playing him everyday and still having to back him up.
                    Put down the pipe, man.

                    In no way, shape, or form was Anthony Johnson ever better than Jamaal.

                    Dude didn't even learn how to advance the ball against pressure until his last year in Indy.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      In all honesty, he hasn't been the same since his mother passed away. I think he's lost.
                      That's close to word-for-word what I almost posted in another thread.

                      Great minds think alike.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm 99% certain that we fans on the internet only know about 1% of the stuff that was going on in general and even less than that for Tinsley, who disdains talking to the hacks at the local newspaper (unlike some of our other idiots who could give a nice, happy "I'm so misunderstood" story to the paper and their gullible fans would buy into it.)

                        All the speculation on here is merely speculation. I'm fairly certain that Tinsley was both far better and far worse than we give him credit for, at the same time.

                        It wasn't all that long ago that Tinsley was the guy that the rest of the Pacers would rally around - when he was "on" the rest of the team would really elevate their games and also cover for his defensive weaknesses.

                        For better or worse, Tinsley has been the real leader that JO wasn't, and when Tinsley would disappear the team was left wandering around aimlessly. His leadership wasn't very focused or effective, but it was filling the leadership void on that dysfunctional roster.

                        It makes me sad. This is a guy that a decade ago was a high school dropout working on a garbage truck. Basketball was his way out. Its a shame he is wasting that talent.

                        In all honesty, he hasn't been the same since his mother passed away. I think he's lost. And I think he's more scared of success than failure.

                        Its not hard to see why he's public enemy #1.
                        I like this post and agree with the sentiments expressed.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          And on the insurance thing that everyone seems so confident in...It's only valid if the guy suffers a career-ending injury where he says "Okay...I'm done." And it's not like we get immediate cap relief. It can take a while.

                          It takes solid year from the day that he admits he will never play again for them to evaluate all the medical info and fill out the forms and run all the paperwork through league offices, insurers investigations and all that red tape. So unless he literally breaks his neck and gets paralyzed or otherwise hurts himself so that he immediately knows -- and then admits -- that his NBA career is over in the first 12 months or so of this current contract, the insurance only helps Herb recoup his losses. It doesn't retroactively go back and allow us to sign a new player during the 12-month paper trail that will occur after he's carried off on a stretcher.

                          Essentially, from a competitive, salary cap point of view, the insurance isn't much of a safeguard at all.

                          EDIT: Was looking for the exact definition. Here it is from Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ

                          http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#58
                          Darius Miles is an good example of this rule. I don't think he played at all this year, but Portland still doesn't get relief until after next year, if I'm not mistaken.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                            Count, it doesn't matter as much why the games were missed, if they're missing 'em right. They both have missed alot of time over 5 seasons. TJ has missed just as much as JT. If you're not there, you're not there.
                            Well, I believe why the games are missed are at the crux of the issue, because it speaks to reliability (as opposed to risk).

                            In the time period I posted, TJ Ford had 10 separate reports of injury, all resulting in at least one missed game. Jamaal had 23 separate reports, with 22 resulting in at least one missed game. If you wish to throw out the 2004-2005 season, where Ford missed in its entirety, removing the possibility of those minor injuries that occur to every player, then the reports drop to 9 for Ford and 16 for Jamaal, all resulting in at least one missed game.

                            However, if you do that, then the games missed over the last three years would only be 47 for TJ vs. 94 for Jamaal. The perspectives change a little as well. The injury that scares everyone for TJ caused him to miss 24 games, while Jamaal's knee caused him to miss the last 33 games of the season. So, during this time frame, not only was Jamaal significantly more injury prone, but, contrary to popular belief, suffered the most severe injury during that time, at least according to games missed.

                            My point is that while TJ may be more likely to suffer a serious injury, Jamaal is significantly more likely to suffer injuries in general. I am certainly not contending that TJ is risk free. I am simply saying that I find the lower percentage risk of a more severe injury more pallatable than the constant uncertainty associated with JT. (Which, to point out something, isn't really the right comparision for TJ, but it works the same. The injury risk comparison that was actually used in the decision trade for acquiring TJ was actually vs. JO. The same's true for the contract comparison. The only consideration Tinsley received that impacted our go/no-go decision on the Toronto deal was the acknowledgement that he was never going to be our PG again, and we needed to replace him. In this decision tree, TJ's injury risk is more acceptable to me under the same reasoning as above, and the contract risk is more acceptable than JO's because of it's relative size and structure.)

                            Another question popped in my head when I was researching this issue. I went back and watched the youtube of the injury this past December:



                            That's a pretty nasty hit, and the question dawned on me: Did TJ get injured here because he was TJ with spinal stenosis, or could the injury have occurred to another, otherwise healthy player with similar results. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I just hadn't thought of it.

                            I looked around on the internet and couldn't find anything, so I went to the Toronto board on RealGM and asked the question. The general consensus that I was getting early was that it was probably too much of a coincidence for his condition not to be a contributing factor, but that the hit was nasty enough for it not necessarily to be the sole cause. There's probably not a clear, reliable answer in the thread, but it was interesting to get a different perspective. It seems to me that the injury/risk was not a huge concern to the folks in Toronto.

                            Anyway, if you want to see a different perspective on TJ and his injury, here's the link:


                            http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtop...2094#p16852094

                            And, ending on a positive not for all of us, I'd like to show the injury history I wish all of our players had:

                            Originally posted by Danny Granger's Injury History
                            MOVEMENTS & INJURIES
                            29-Feb-08 Suspended for one game for striking Chicago's Andres Nocioni in the face during a Feb. 27 game.
                            12-Oct-07 Indiana Pacers exercised their club option for the 2008-09 season.
                            07-Jul-05 Signed by the Indiana Pacers to a multi-year contract

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              I'm pretty sure the math is right on that. Jamaal's missed 6 more games in 4 season's, 129 to 135. I think you're overlooking the entire season he sat out with back injuries. We could go back to TJ's whole career and he's played in nine more games than Tinsley in 5 seasons. That includes Ford's rookie year and the one where Rick benched JT for 1/3 of the season.


                              P.S.
                              This is why I voted you the poster I'd like to see post more often. I like arguing with you for some reason.


                              Count, it doesn't matter as much why the games were missed, if they're missing 'em right. They both have missed alot of time over 5 seasons. TJ has missed just as much as JT. If you're not there, you're not there.
                              Yes, I didn't look at years, only the past listed seasons games played/started.

                              But come on, he sat out an entire year and still hasn't missed more games than Tinsley has. While it doesn't speak anything for TJ's durability, atleast he has a bonafide reason for it. And again, one that is actually covered by insurance.

                              Tinsley misses games, and doesn't even sit on the bench for who knows what reason.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


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

                                I'd also like to point out that Ford was medically cleared to return much sooner this past season, yet remained out A) just to be safe, and B) for psychological reasons.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X