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

PF Situation

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

  • #61
    Re: PF Situation

    As for this "tank until you win" mentality, I just don't buy it. Odds are we'll just be the Atlanta Hawks, nothing more, if we actively go that route. I say you play to win, be opportunistic, and hope you get some luck mixed in. Intentionally sucking just sounds like a really bad idea to me. I think the best case scenario for a franchise like ours is to be the Denver Nuggets. I really don't want that.

    We're better off with the Pacers being intelligent, opportunistic, and hopefully a little lucky (which is always part of it). Keep a winning mentality going.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: PF Situation

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Am I the only one getting tired of people saying we have a "gaping hole" at the power forward position? Good grief.

      Do we have a star there? Hell no. Do we have a low post threat there? No.

      But Jeff Foster and Troy Murphy are a very solid pair of power forwards to have. They aren't meant to be star players, and they never were. The closest guys we have to stars right now are Ford and Granger, a PG and a SF.

      I just get tired of calling it a major weakness just because our best player doesn't play there anymore.

      Our two "centers" are back where they belong at the power forward spot. This is a good thing.
      would you prefer cavernous void?
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: PF Situation

        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
        would you prefer cavernous void?
        I'd prefer a reality check.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: PF Situation

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I'd prefer a reality check.
          you're new to this board, aren't you?
          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...splay.php?f=15
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: PF Situation

            If we had a superstar 4 to go with the rest of our complementary parts our team would be very good. Just how we go about getting that player without giving up someone is the question. The draft seems to be the only way.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: PF Situation

              Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
              If we had a superstar 4 to go with the rest of our complementary parts our team would be very good. Just how we go about getting that player without giving up someone is the question. The draft seems to be the only way.
              I'm with you on this.....we're not winning a Championship for another 3-4 seasons...I'm patient. For the next couple of seasons....I just want to return to the Playoffs...build some Playoff experience with the core of players that we have...I can wait
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: PF Situation

                I certainly don't think the Pacers should put off until next season what they can do now. By all means, if a player that fits the mold they desire appears, they should go get him.

                I believe this team will pick up offensively with the acquisitions we have already made. I fully expect us to be a better offensive team in both transition and in the half-court.

                So, I'm not really worried about the offense a new PF might bring. For my money, I want someone who can knock an opponent on his arse if the situation warrants it. A true enforcer who just doesn't proclaim to be "tough", but lets his actions speak for themselves and IS "tough".

                I want him to rebound and knock folks down while he's doing it. And I want him to be automatic with a put back when he rebounds under the offensive boards.

                I also want him to help his center defend the paint and to help prevent the opposing center and PF from putting the ball on the floor.

                What the hell? If Dale Davis has a younger brother capable of playing bball, I'll take him.

                I think that's exactly what this team needs. And if the PF doesn't hit many more shots from 15 feet than Jeff Foster, I really don't care.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: PF Situation

                  Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                  If we had a superstar 4 to go with the rest of our complementary parts our team would be very good. Just how we go about getting that player without giving up someone is the question. The draft seems to be the only way.
                  Then there's free agency and lopsided trades. See: Gasol, Shaq, Iverson, Garnett, you name it.

                  The draft is neither the only way nor is it even a good way.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: PF Situation

                    Of course we could luck into a lop sided trade, but how often does that happen? It would be great if we could get a free agent to come here, so maybe that is the best way.

                    As for beast's comment on wanting an inforcer at the 4 with no regaurd to offense, I believe that either the 4 or 5 have to be able to score in order to keep the offense in balence. If neither position is a threat then the offense can't work.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: PF Situation

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post


                      The draft is neither the only way nor is it even a good way.
                      Ah, someone who understands.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: PF Situation

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Am I the only one getting tired of people saying we have a "gaping hole" at the power forward position? Good grief.

                        Do we have a star there? Hell no. Do we have a low post threat there? No.

                        But Jeff Foster and Troy Murphy are a very solid pair of power forwards to have. They aren't meant to be star players, and they never were. The closest guys we have to stars right now are Ford and Granger, a PG and a SF.

                        I just get tired of calling it a major weakness just because our best player doesn't play there anymore.

                        Our two "centers" are back where they belong at the power forward spot. This is a good thing.
                        ** My original reply disappeared. So I'm trying again. **

                        That depends on how much better you think Murphy and Foster are at PF than C. Sure, it is thier "natural" position. But I wouldn't consider either of them "solid" Those guys struggle to get "starter's" minutes on losing teams, so its not like either of those guys are legit solution if your goal is to make the 2008-09 playoffs. (I don't think the goal should be to make the playoffs next season, I think the goal should be to allow Rush and Hibbert to learn the NBA game and play through thier mistakes.)

                        By "Gaping Hole" (and admittedly I just skipped past this previously), I mean that we have no idea who is going to be playing PF on the 2010-11 team. I was referring to the lineup of the future, as it exists now. With Jack, Rush, and Hibbert, we have at least identified a potential PG, SG, and C to match with Granger. So we at least have a clue who "should" be playing those roles on the 2010-11 team.

                        Give these four guys a season together, and then Bird & Company will have a better clue as to whether they need to draft a scoring PF a la JO (I doubt it) or a rugged paint presence/ defensive presence a la DD (more likely).

                        Or play the veterans, miss the playoffs by a couple of games, have a mid-first-round pick, and no clue what type of player you need at PF to compliment the rest of the future core of the team.
                        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


                        • #72
                          Re: PF Situation

                          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                          Yet everyone really liked Sam Perkins when he played here.
                          Sam was a pretty good defender. Sam shot the three, sure, but he wasn't a liability on defense.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: PF Situation

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            ....

                            I wouldn't consider either of them "solid" Those guys struggle to get "starter's" minutes on losing teams,
                            I must have missed the part where Murphy was always starting in Golden State, Jeff Foster started on an ECF team, and the fact that both started the vast majority of this past season on a losing team. Often together. At least three of our starters are better players than either Jeff or Troy, so I'm not concerned with either of them being our 4th or 5th best starter right now.

                            By "Gaping Hole" (and admittedly I just skipped past this previously), I mean that we have no idea who is going to be playing PF on the 2010-11 team.
                            I'm more interested in 2009 right now. 2011 will be addressed eventually. I'm sure by trade or draft we'll have someone different at that spot by then. Well, probably.


                            I was referring to the lineup of the future, as it exists now. With Jack, Rush, and Hibbert, we have at least identified a potential PG, SG, and C to match with Granger. So we at least have a clue who "should" be playing those roles on the 2010-11 team.
                            I think T.J. Ford (who is not old) will be that PG. I'm not just going to assume he'll be out. I think Ford will prove to be a very good starter while Jack would prove to be a "merely" good starter. Worries about Ford aside, I feel very good about keeping those two around for a good while.

                            Give these four guys a season together, and then Bird & Company will have a better clue as to whether they need to draft a scoring PF a la JO (I doubt it) or a rugged paint presence/ defensive presence a la DD (more likely).
                            In the more DD-ish role, what about Udonis Haslem? I don't think he's very old, is he?

                            Or play the veterans, miss the playoffs by a couple of games, have a mid-first-round pick, and no clue what type of player you need at PF to compliment the rest of the future core of the team.
                            Not that I need to tell you this as you seem to do it well by yourself , but be prepared to be disappointed if you truly think we're going to start all of the young guys if they aren't better than the old guys. Or if you assume we're automatically not going to make the playoffs.

                            I'm not worried about that. There will be times where we'll see our "future lineup" on the floor for good stretches, and that will be enough to have a good sense of what we will need later.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: PF Situation

                              Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                              Of course we could luck into a lop sided trade, but how often does that happen?

                              As for beast's comment on wanting an inforcer at the 4 with no regaurd to
                              You have to be actively seeking trades (and FA's for that matter) for deals to come your way. If you're not an active player and prefer more times than not to "stand pat" then you're not likely snag an eye opening trade. If you're constantly putting feelers out and keeping your ear close to the ground, you just might find that a "lopsided" trade can come your way afterall.
                              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


                              • #75
                                Re: PF Situation

                                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                                Thanks to Since for pulling up the research that I was too lazy to compile myself.

                                Look, MY point is, other than Lebron who I woefully left off the short list of modern teams, tanking for draft picks is the way it USED to be done, but not anymore.
                                I agree, that's part of my point. At the same time, who has tried? The Hawks made the playoffs last year with a team built primarily though the draft. Billy Knight was using the same model for that team than he & Donnie used for the 1990s-era Pacers. And the Bobcats were making more progress building through the draft before they screwed it up by trading for Jason Richardson. So I don't think it is impossible to build a team this way. The Sixers made the playoffs last year with a team comprised primarily of players they drafted (or were drafted for them.) Yes, the current CBA changes things, but it does not eliminate the strategy of rebuilding via a youth movement (via the draft or other means.)

                                You're complaining that Bird is trying to make a team with a 90s template, but then you're demanding he use an even more antiquated 80's method for success.
                                I'm not demanding. But to my point above, its not impossible. I'm okay with either trading our vets for draft picks or for players drafted by somebody else but are still on their rookie contracts.

                                I want a youth movement. I frankly don't care if it is via the draft or trades.

                                But then you get to my larger point - I trust these guys to make good draft picks more than I trust them to make good trades and good FA signings. We have not placed a premium on acquiring draft picks in some of our recent trades, and I think that has been a mistake. And with a trade for a player, its generally trading your problem for somebody else's problem that you think will magically be solved on your team. Whooppee!! Murphy is still soft and overpaid. And while that's better than keeping Stephen Jackson and his baggage, neither player is an important building piece.

                                At any rate, I think you're off the mark with the 90's argument. Bird isn't trying to remake the 90's pacers. He's trying to make a modern team - by mixing a salad with equal parts Utah and the modern-era Pistons.

                                Sadly he doesn't have Utah's talent - but he is setting up a Sloan-type coaching staff. Nor does he have Detroit's toughness - but he is hoping for a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" make-up.
                                And that's exactly what the 1990s-era Pacers were. The sum of the parts was that every player's role was maximized to make the TEAM better. He's finding players that "CAN" fill the same roles.

                                The Rush- Reggie comparison (pure shooters, play better in pressure situations) and Hibbert-Smits comparison (slow, fundamental, methodical, questionable p-n-r defense) are pretty compelling, and the Granger- Rose comparison and Dunleavy- Mullin comparison make sense to me. Even the Murphy- Perkins, Ford- Jackson, and Jack- Best comparisons are interesting. In fact, one could argue that every one of the current players is a better defensive player than his 1990s era counterpart.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X