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

When Mike comes back...

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

  • #61
    Re: When Mike comes back...

    How about this view instead - what if Dun returns and the team goes 1-6 in a similar mix of competition and looks much less competitive against a team like Detroit.

    Then what? I'm willing to let there be a chance to find out, but that means that a tough choice MIGHT still need to be made.

    It would help so much if Dun was willing to back Danny and plays some 4 in the smaller lineups like Danny does.

    Keeping him off the perimeter is doing wonders for the outside defense thus far. So many deflections and turnovers higher up the court (closer to HC line), things that helped get just enough easy scores to hold off the Nets and their zone defense.

    Defense has clearly helped out the offense this year.


    4. Another thing that needs to be taken into account was that last season Dunleavy's offensive production outweighted his defensive liabilities by quite a bit. His On Court/Off Court net production was a +7.9 for the season. To provide a basis for comparison, Granger's was -4.2.
    I won't knock +/- because I am a believer in it and stats, but I would ask this - what was that team's record again?

    While our defense has certainly improved, our offense has declined a bit. Last year we averaged 104 ppg. This year we're at 95.5 ppg. Last year we shot 37% on 3 pointers, this year we're at 29%. Some of this can be attributed to us playing two good defensive teams, but Dunleavy's absence accounts for quite a bit also.
    Pace is way down due to a drastically improved offensive patience. Plays typically run 5-10 seconds longer than they did last year. It's like a different team on that end, nothing like the style they went with last year.

    First, this is the second year in a complex defensive system for about 1/2 the team
    First year for - Ford, Jack, Rush, Hibbert, and Rasho.
    Second year for - Quis, Granger, Foster, Murph
    I'd say Jack at the 2 is a big factor and that comes at the expense of Dun at the two at times.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-13-2008, 08:56 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: When Mike comes back...

      You people are acting like the Pacers are undefeated and mainly because MD is out. Two of the four wins have come against the lowly Nets, right?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: When Mike comes back...

        Jack and Quis are huge X factors. They are the main reason our perimeter D has improved...and they also contribute on the offensive end, often with clutch shots. It will be those two that lose minutes to Dunleavy...because Ford and Granger will not.

        Why start Dunleavy over Quis and Jack to fix something that is not broken? The argument is to make it better. Well, that's the sticking point.

        I think we all know that defense wins championships and will continue to be more important than offense to be successful in the NBA. Perimeter defense leads to steals and easy baskets....momentum changers. It protects bigs from getting fouled...especially our slow bigs who are not shotblockers. I simply don't believe Granger and Dunleavy fit on the court on the defensive side...and that's one reason our defense was horrible last year...and why JO was taking a charge a minute. Teams were penetrating us at will.

        I think the plan should be obvious. Dunleavy should backup Danny Granger at the three spot. Rush should backup Quis at the two. Jack should backup TJ...and Quis at times. Sure, Dunleavy should be able to play some minutes at SG, but that should be limited and matchups should be considered. This plan allows Danny to play in the front court on defense allowing him to block shots and rebound...and conserve some energy by not having to chase quick guards. People seem to ignore how much Dunleavy negates from Granger's game on defense.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: When Mike comes back...

          Am I the only one concerned that at least some of Quis's improvement this season is due to the dreaded "contract year?"

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: When Mike comes back...

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            Am I the only one concerned that at least some of Quis's improvement this season is due to the dreaded "contract year?"
            It's a great concern, but at least he cared enough to dedicate his whole summer to becoming healthy and better. He could've easily taken the Shawne Williams approach.

            To me, Marquis turned his game around last season not long after Bird and O'Brien went public with their disappointment in him (sometime around Jan/Feb).

            Plus, it's not necessarily a contract year.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: When Mike comes back...

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              Am I the only one concerned that at least some of Quis's improvement this season is due to the dreaded "contract year?"
              Well, I'm not concerned because I don't think he'll be back after it's over ..... so I'm good with it.

              If I was a GM I would NEVER, and I mean NEVER sign a guy off a contract year like that who suddenly has a good season. Only exception being if it's a rookie contract and it was maybe a playing time issue or something. Veterans who play well in contract years are a cancer. I would steer clear of them every time and let the other teams overpay for their services.

              -- Steve --

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: When Mike comes back...

                Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                Well, I'm not concerned because I don't think he'll be back after it's over ..... so I'm good with it.

                If I was a GM I would NEVER, and I mean NEVER sign a guy off a contract year like that who suddenly has a good season. Only exception being if it's a rookie contract and it was maybe a playing time issue or something. Veterans who play well in contract years are a cancer. I would steer clear of them every time and let the other teams overpay for their services.

                -- Steve --
                I'm not saying I disagree, but the thing you keep hearing time & time again is "He's Healthy Now". Add that to the coaching change & "disfunction" that exsisted (Tinsley influence?), plus a yr. w/ Rick - & a style that didn't fit his game, & maybe we are now just beginning to see the player we thought we were getting - the player who was a beast for Dallas in the playoffs just a few years ago. Injuries, disfunction, playing out of position.... Basketball has not been as simple as stepping on the court & playing for him. I think he has his head on straight, is in a good system w/ good guys around him. The coaches have always supported him, so there has to be a reason for that.

                7+ mil may be too much for us to keep him n/y, but its only 1 yr, & unless we can bring in someone esle who improves us, its only a 1 yr extention so he would not be the worst option. Besides, he still expires at a very convenient time for teams looking @ 2010, making him very tradable n/y too.
                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: When Mike comes back...

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  Am I the only one concerned that at least some of Quis's improvement this season is due to the dreaded "contract year?"


                  I get frustrated every time I see Daniels is in a contract year. This implies he has an expiring contract. I often read where others feel he has an expiring contract as well. Daniels dos not have an expiring contract, but at the end of this season the Pacers have a team option on the last year(09-10) of his contract. They can opt to pick up his last year of his contract or not to. If they don't, he's a UFA which is what I expect to happen.

                  Now, let's look at what you have stated about he's in a contract year. No one knows for a fact if the Pacers will pick up the last year of his contract
                  or not. Granted it is a year Daniels has to impress TPTB in order to get them to pick up the last year of his contract, but that to me doesn't imply it is a contract year. To me a contract year is the LAST year of a contract. Daniels has to have an impressive 08-09 season to get the Pacers to pick up the team option which would be the last year of his contract which would then make that a contract year.

                  I'm sure you are already aware of this, but I just get frustrated when I read posts stating Daniels is in a contract year and especially when I read he has an expiring contract when he has a team option year. It's like saying Boozer is in an expiring contract year b/c he has a player option. How can it be an expiring contract when no one knows if the player will opt out or a team will decline to pick up the option year? It's an "option" year.

                  Now, that I have that rant out of my system(thank you for baring with me), yes, I'm like you I just hope Daniels having an impressive season doesn't lull TPTB into picking up his team option year. BUT if they did, Daniels would truly be playing in a contract year, and have to have a 2nd very impressive year in a row to get the Pacers to re-sign him. I don't see TPTB picking up the team option next season let alone re-signing Daniels to a future contract. JMOAA

                  P/S Is the Bayless trade still as upsetting now as it was to you when it happened? I'm still not sold on Rush yet, but I REEEEEEALLY like Jack. Then I always wanted Jack in a Pacers uni, and he's showing why. Thank you Mr. Bird!

                  I just wish Bird could have squeezed one of Portland's 2nd picks out of them. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute is looking good at PF and has Charlie V with the 2nd team.
                  Last edited by Justin Tyme; 11-14-2008, 11:24 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: When Mike comes back...

                    It is for all purposes an expiring contract, if the team that owns his rights decides to make it that. It's no different.

                    If you go to trade him and the other GM asks if it's an expiring contract the answer is "Yes, if you want it to be." It's BETTER than an expiring contract, if you are trying to create space under the luxury cap, which almost everyone is. It's better because you have a choice to keep him, if you think he's worth the money or create cap space if you decide he's not.

                    It's not comparable to when a PLAYER can opt out because you can't say as a GM he's an expiring contract. You may have to pay the player regardless if you like him. That's not attractive. If it's player option, it absolutely NOT an expiring contract. Big difference.

                    From a players standpoint, it's an expiring contract. You better play like it's a contract year or you will be expired. So, again, no difference. Marquis is playing for the 7 million (way too much with his track record) or his next contract (part of the MLE). Either way, he's playing like it's an expiring contract.

                    Bottom line, when people say "expiring contract" it means you can use him as an attractive piece in a trade to a team looking for cap relief. Marquis qualifies and then some.

                    He is an expiring contract, if a team wants him to be and that is all that matters.

                    If it's just semantics you're arguing about then okay, but it looks, smells, and acts like an expiring contract. I don't care what it's called.
                    Last edited by Speed; 11-14-2008, 11:45 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: When Mike comes back...

                      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                      I get frustrated every time I see Daniels is in a contract year. This implies he has an expiring contract. I often read where others feel he has an expiring contract as well. Daniels dos not have an expiring contract, but at the end of this season the Pacers have a team option on the last year(09-10) of his contract. They can opt to pick up his last year of his contract or not to. If they don't, he's a UFA which is what I expect to happen.
                      Justin,
                      It's all just semantic's... The fact is that if we do not pick up MD's option, then he has no contract for next year, so yes, infact it IS a contract year. If we do not pick up the last year then his contract DOES expire, thus making it an expiring contract. Chances are he will not get a 7mil/yr offer for n/y from anyone else, so yes, he s motivated to A.) get 7mil for n/y, & B.) prove he is worth a long-term deal. These facts support the discussion brought up by PF46, bo they not?
                      Don't get me wrong, I get your point & you are technically correct, but in this case it proves nothing, nor does it resolves anything by getting all worked op on technical language. There are those battles worth fighting, & those that are not. Save this argument for when it is relavent to the discussion, but in this case it does nothing to change the facts or misrepresent the opinion of PF46.
                      You are also correct that if we DID p/u MD's contract for n/y, he would be driven to have another good year - not a bad thing IMO.
                      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: When Mike comes back...

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        It is for all purposes an expiring contract, if the team that owns his rights decides to make it that. It's no different.

                        If you go to trade him and the other GM asks if it's an expiring contract the answer is "Yes, if you want it to be." It's BETTER than an expiring contract, if you are trying to create space under the luxury cap, which almost everyone is. It's better because you have a choice to keep him, if you think he's worth the money or create cap space if you decide he's not.

                        It's not comparable to when a PLAYER can opt out because you can't say as a GM he's an expiring contract. You may have to pay the player regardless if you like him. That's not attractive. If it's player option, it absolutely NOT an expiring contract. Big difference.

                        From a players standpoint, it's an expiring contract. You better play like it's a contract year or you will be expired. So, again, no difference. Marquis is playing for the 7 million (way too much with his track record) or his next contract (part of the MLE). Either way, he's playing like it's an expiring contract.

                        Bottom line, when people say "expiring contract" it means you can use him as an attractive piece in a trade to a team looking for cap relief. Marquis qualifies and then some.

                        He is an expiring contract, if a team wants him to be and that is all that matters.

                        If it's just semantics you're arguing about then okay, but it looks, smells, and acts like an expiring contract. I don't care what it's called.

                        It's still an team option no matter how you sliced it, dice it, or cut it. Call it what it is.... an team option. Just b/c it has teeth, a tail, and growls doesn't make it a dog.

                        Any GM understands what a team option is w/o having to say it's an expiring contract if you so choose. If it has to be explained to them, then that team has some major problems.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: When Mike comes back...

                          I can't believe how well Marquis Daniels is playing in his Team Option Player Contractual Obligation year.

                          That rolls right off the tongue.

                          I'm in.

                          ----

                          I'm playing Justin, call it whatever you want.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: When Mike comes back...

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            I can't believe how well Marquis Daniels is playing in his Team Option Player Contractual Obligation year.

                            That rolls right off the tongue.

                            I'm in.

                            ----

                            I'm playing Justin, call it whatever you want.

                            ROFL! It's been an uneventful day, and I appreciated the laugh.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: When Mike comes back...

                              Is anyone the least bit concerned thar Dun will not be back this season? As always fans never know the extent of player injuries. Mike has tendonitis, bone spurs etc. Who knows? They are waiting to see if he responds to treatment and if another month goes by it is possibly season ending surgery or season ending recuperation.

                              The pacers PTB never seem to be forthcoming with fans with respect to injuries.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: When Mike comes back...

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                Is anyone the least bit concerned thar Dun will not be back this season? As always fans never know the extent of player injuries. Mike has tendonitis, bone spurs etc. Who knows? They are waiting to see if he responds to treatment and if another month goes by it is possibly season ending surgery or season ending recuperation.

                                The pacers PTB never seem to be forthcoming with fans with respect to injuries.

                                Great now you have me worried.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X