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

Calloway

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

  • Calloway

    I know it's only summer league. I know Diener has a contract. I know it's only 2 games, but I really like what Calloway could bring to the table as our 3rd PG spot. Particularly on the defensive end. His shot seems to have gotten better since college as well. Anybody have thoughts on Calloway? Granted a 3rd string PG is nothing to jump up and down about, but it's slow and what else is there to talk about?

  • #2
    Re: Calloway

    I don't expect anyone on the summer league to make this team.

    Maybe Calloway is good enough for the NBA I don't know. I don't expect him to be on the Pacers next season though. We have 5 million reasons to keep Travis Diener and just brought in two other point guards. We don't need another one.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Calloway

      I really like Calloway as well, but we are just too stocked at the PG spot. I hope he catches on with another team. He is a good kid that deserves a chance.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Calloway

        I think people are quick to dismiss what Diener did for the team last year. I think he presents JOB an option of the bench that is very different from Jack and who can hit the open 3PTer when left open. He also brings energy and comes to play every day and has a year of experience with JOB's offense.

        Calloway may make it somewhere, but I don't expect the Pacers to cut a guaranteed contract for a different 3rd string PG.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Calloway

          Originally posted by iPACER View Post
          I think he presents JOB an option of the bench that is very different from Jack and who can hit the open 3PTer when left open.
          Jack is a SIGNIFICANTLY better shooter than Diener.

          I don't understand why people keep thinking Diener's a shooter. He's not.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Calloway

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            I don't understand why people keep thinking Diener's a shooter. He's not.
            How did he get into the NBA then?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Calloway

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
              How did he get into the NBA then?
              Compromising pictures of high ranking NBA personnel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Calloway

                [QUOTE=iPACER;754583]I think people are quick to dismiss what Diener did for the team last year. I think he presents JOB an option of the bench that is very different from Jack and who can hit the open 3PTer when left open. He also brings energy and comes to play every day and has a year of experience with JOB's offense.

                Amen

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Calloway

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  How did he get into the NBA then?
                  He reminded Larry Bird of Mark Price.

                  You remember Larry Bird... his previous PG signing was Sarunas.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Calloway

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Jack is a SIGNIFICANTLY better shooter than Diener.

                    I don't understand why people keep thinking Diener's a shooter. He's not.
                    Yes, and a significantly better player. I think people are going to be really surprised....shocked in fact. This guy is very capable of scoring in double figures for us and can defend. Diener can do Niener...er, Neither. ...and Jack is only 24 years old.

                    With that said, Diener is a decent backup PG. That's just how far we've come with these trades. We have been so PG poor for so long it's not even funny. IMO, Ford is clearly better than Tinsley...and I think considering defense, Jack is just as good overall unless Tinsley is having a great game...which is about 10% of the time he even plays.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Calloway

                      I think the biggest asset Diener brings to the team is his leadership and great locker-room presence... he was very much a glue / high chemistry guy for his teammates... and when he is on the floor he has a great assists to turnover ratio... so what else more can you ask from your 3rd string pg?
                      "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Calloway

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Jack is a SIGNIFICANTLY better shooter than Diener.

                        I don't understand why people keep thinking Diener's a shooter. He's not.
                        Diener put up more 3PTers than Jack in half the amount of playing time last year. So he's a shooter. Didn't hit as many as we'd like, but he came out his rookie season shooting over 40% on 3PTers. Plus, he shot very well behind the arc in college.

                        I'm not going to argue with you if you're stating that Jack is a better shooter on average from every place on the court, though. Those stats would back your statement nicely.

                        And I'm sure not going to argue on the athleticism or defense... but if I needed a 3 PTer at the end of the game, I'd go with Travis over Jarrett.
                        Last edited by MyFavMartin; 07-09-2008, 12:30 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Calloway

                          Like the original poster started out with.. It was only the D-League but Calloway had a solid close to the season with the Mad Ants shooting over 40% from 3PT land and averaging 22 pts a game over the last 27. It would be nice to see him limit his turnovers in the last couple of summer league games if he continues to get as much run as he has in the first two. It seems like he would fit the Pacers system, and if we didn't have Diener I could see him sticking on as the 3rd PG possibly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Calloway

                            i went to the Bucks game towards the end of the season.. the Pacers were down by 10 i believe and Diener pretty much single-handedly brought us back and won the game by hitting all those threes. so yes, he is a shooter. and he consistantly provides a good assist-TO ratio. he's sure not a starter but i am very happy to have someone of his caliber as our #3. i don't see any reason to change that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Calloway

                              Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
                              i went to the Bucks game towards the end of the season.. the Pacers were down by 10 i believe and Diener pretty much single-handedly brought us back and won the game by hitting all those threes. so yes, he is a shooter. and he consistantly provides a good assist-TO ratio. he's sure not a starter but i am very happy to have someone of his caliber as our #3. i don't see any reason to change that.

                              AMEN


                              people STILL dont get the fact that this last season was pretty much Diener's rookie season by all accounts....

                              Crap... what do you people expect?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
                              Cause his technically rookie season with Orlando , he maybe played in a number of games you could probably count on your hands....

                              What more could you ask out of a guy playing his real first season.... when he was thrown to the wolves so to speak and forced into it by situtaion for us last year...???
                              In which I think he done a pretty decent job considering the above... and the team we had to work with out on the floor ...

                              If Diener was given the PT that Jack has gotten over the last few years... It would be him and TJ Ford runnin the point and we wouldnt have Jack on our team....


                              IT kinda makes me upset in all honesty about us getting Jack , cause I wanted Trav to be our primary backup pg and develop LIKE HE SHOULD...

                              I hope like hell he doesn't ride the pine this year or I am going to be upset...

                              As much as it bothers me to say this... I hope that if he gets blackballed and dont get any minutes with us .. that we at very LEAST do him the courtesy of trading him to a team that will play him...
                              Because if that happens I will instantly be a fan of whatever team he goes to... cause I think if a team lets him develop and play at minimum 20 minutes a game.. he WILL become the Mark Price of this generation of NBA players...
                              The Hell with what some ofyou naysayers think...
                              Last edited by Kemo; 07-09-2008, 06:04 AM.
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X