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

Most of you aren't going to like this

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

  • #91
    Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

    Playoff experience really only matters if you have enough talent to capitalize on it. Do we have that talent level? I'd say no. Making the playoffs wont do jack diddly for the long-term health of our franchise.

    What the pro-38 win playoff brigade doesn't realize is that nobody wants to lose, but the fact is we are. No amount of message board sunshine is going to fix that. We need to be looking at realistic, proactive solutions to turning our team around, not unrealistic wishful thinking.

    Our #1 priority needs to be improving our talent level, not playoff experience. How do we accomplish that? Through a trade? Maybe, but with our limited trade assets and the fact that we're batting about .200 on trades with Bird in control, I doubt it. We don't have the capspace to make a big time free agent signing. So then what are we left with...?

    The best way for a team with limited assets (like us) to acquire top-tier talent is through the draft, preferably a top-5 pick. I know a lot of you are draftaphobics and don't like hearing it, but it's the truth. Look at Danny. A great talent for certain, a huge steal at #17, yet multiple players of his quality are found at the top of the draft almost every single year.

    History doesn't lie. The draft is what primarily turns most franchises around. It's our only hope.
    Last edited by Quis; 01-15-2009, 01:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

      We should just change the title of this thread into the yearly "Lottery or Playoffs" thread.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

        Originally posted by Quis View Post
        Playoff experience really only matters if you have enough talent to capitalize on it. Do we have that talent level? I'd say no. Making the playoffs wont do jack diddly for the long-term health of our franchise.

        What the pro-38 win playoff brigade doesn't realize is that nobody wants to lose, but the fact is we are. No amount of message board sunshine is going to fix that. We need to be looking at realistic, proactive solutions to turning our team around, not unrealistic wishful thinking.

        Our #1 priority needs to be improving our talent level, not playoff experience. How do we accomplish that? Through a trade? Maybe, but with our limited trade assets and the fact that we're batting about .200 on trades with Bird in control, I doubt it. We don't have the capspace to make a big time free agent signing. So then what are we left with...?

        The best way for a team with limited assets (like us) to acquire top-tier talent is through the draft, preferably a top-5 pick. I know a lot of you are draftaphobics and don't like hearing it, but it's the truth. Look at Danny. A great talent for certain, a huge steal at #17, yet multiple players of his quality are found at the top of the draft almost every single year.

        History doesn't lie. The draft is what primarily turns most franchises around. It's our only hope.
        nice post ,I agree. by the way there is not way this team could get 38wins I don't even think they could get 30wins
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

          I'm not saying bench the vets, I'm saying don't bench the younger players.

          ...Although you could bench Foster or use several of his minutes to get some of these young guys some space in the rotations and I wouldn't complain. Foster is increasingly looking like a situational guy... in the wrong situation... to me....

          -Bball
          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


          • #95
            Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

            Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post

            None of the 3 in my opinion will ever be more than solid reserves in the NBA , all teams need that . But to think giving them 25-30 minutes a night will make them big stars - sorry its not going to happen.

            Thank you and I agree 100%. I mean it isn't like we have a rookie Chris Paul sitting on the bench while Jack is playing.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I'm not saying bench the vets, I'm saying don't bench the younger players.

              ...Although you could bench Foster or use several of his minutes to get some of these young guys some space in the rotations and I wouldn't complain. Foster is increasingly looking like a situational guy... in the wrong situation... to me....

              -Bball

              He's been downright terrible recently. And has been getting more and more minutes because of it.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                Originally posted by Quis View Post
                Our #1 priority needs to be improving our talent level, not playoff experience. How do we accomplish that? Through a trade? Maybe, but with our limited trade assets and the fact that we're batting about .200 on trades with Bird in control, I doubt it. We don't have the capspace to make a big time free agent signing. So then what are we left with...?

                The best way for a team with limited assets (like us) to acquire top-tier talent is through the draft, preferably a top-5 pick.
                So are you saying we need to tank a season? Maybe a couple of seasons? I'm not sure this franchise can suffer too long without at least making the playoffs. What a slippery slope that could be. How long before the Ps have a player(s) reincarnate into a Gilbert Arenas twin? Can you imagine Dunleavy or Granger saying 'Oh what the heck since we're losing I just might shut it down for the season'.
                Last edited by RWB; 01-15-2009, 01:21 PM.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  We should just change the title of this thread into the yearly "Lottery or Playoffs" thread.
                  When I started the thread - I didn't intend it to end up like that (typically I get bored with those threads)

                  For those critisizing Jeff - I'm just thankful that you aren't coaching the team and I do have to wonder what you are watching. Pacers are just better with jeff on the floor

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                    Major flaws with the logic in the initial post:

                    A) Playing Rush, Hibbert, or McRoberts inherently gives you less of a chance of winning the current game.

                    Not if they are doing something better than the guy they are replacing, such as defense from Rush vs Jack on SGs or post scoring which no one else on the team does besides Roy.

                    B) That the Pacers have been playing these kids a lot and that they've been the key elements in the losses, and not key in the wins.

                    Since when were we seeing mostly youth in all these losses? They've lost plenty when Rush, McBob and Roy barely saw the floor. I will admit that the +/- for Rush and Roy is poor, but Jack and Troy aren't doing so hot themselves. Also Rush is part of 2 of the Pacers top 5-man units also (82games.com) by win% and minutes.

                    C) That the vets are just waiting to suck up tons of minutes without an ounce of impact on their playoff home stretch game.

                    A HUGE reason teams like to get the younger guys some minutes during the year and only shorten the bench in the playoffs is specifically to keep guys fresh when they need them most. Have you seen Rasho? Have you seen Foster's back issues the last few years? These guys badly need Roy and McBob sucking up some minutes now if you want them to play well in April.

                    D) The core 4 have some huge history of winning.

                    Look, love the effort this year and obviously Danny and Troy stepped their games up to a higher level than last year, but DG, Dun, Troy and Jeff weren't exactly ripping up the win column the last season and a half either. I think the idea that we are obviously sitting on wins that are being flushed away for the benefit of developing players is just wrong.



                    One other thing to think about is the Long/Reggie situation. A case could have been made to just play Long a ton and back off Reggie and his poor defense that first season. Long was still shooting it well and was an experienced vet.

                    Carry this also to Granger while we are at it. In both cases there came a time when you were winning "then" because the guy had gotten prior playing time. Granger is awesome now, but his +/- was in the toilet his first 2 seasons. He was often lost, didn't have anywhere near the scoring he does now, and easily could have been set aside as a 17 pick that was way too raw to be tolerated in the "win now" world he came into.

                    I want wins now as well, but I ALSO want wins in 2-3 years. At some point that's going to be the now just like this one. Will we be looking at a team that still hasn't developed and recalling fondly a few seasons prior when the vets got the team to 38 wins and almost made the playoffs?

                    Nope. We'll be unhappy with the growth of the younger players.

                    It's about balance, and good teams (see Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Celtics, etc) all win with young guys getting a chance too. I mean it's not like Rondo had tons of seasons under his belt or that George Hill is pulling splinters in San Antonio. Or Randolph in Phoenix who I just pointed out recently (and KILLED the Pacers in that game).


                    Rush has hit the bench, the team still kept losing. McBob doesn't even get to play and nearly every time he does get good minutes they win. Hibbert started off weak but has been part of solid starts in recent weeks. So really what's the issue here?

                    I see two things, the same two I've already seen. McBob's +/- vs Graham/Jack suggest you should be toning down the small ball and getting him more minutes. And while Rush isn't great, it's not like Graham has had so much +/- success that you've got to keep Rush out.

                    Unless you really think Graham is the future there is no reason not to continue to feed MILD MINUTES to both Rush and McBob. Each getting 5-8 per night isn't costing you games at all, and in fact it's probably helping you win NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      When I started the thread - I didn't intend it to end up like that (typically I get bored with those threads)

                      For those critisizing Jeff - I'm just thankful that you aren't coaching the team and I do have to wonder what you are watching. Pacers are just better with jeff on the floor
                      I'm 100% anti-tank. I just think you must balance playing youth with the normal vets getting worn down.

                      Jeff is the smartest player on the team which is a big part of his success, although his hustle is also key. I want to see him play too, but I also hate to see him lose his back late in the season.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoffs or youngsters?

                        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                        How is this gonna generate a different line of conversation than UB's thread. There are no prizes for who starts the most threads.

                        As a caveat, I'm not intentionally calling you out mellifluous. It's just that we don't need multiple threads about the same damn thing. The last few weeks everytime I click on a thread it's exactly the same as the one I'd just clicked on.
                        I was more interested in the poll results than in the conversation. Some clarification on whether or not UB was correct in his thread title.

                        Thanks for merging the threads.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                          So this is how we create a poll in an already existing post?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                            Have faith - we have a good group and a budding superstar. This is an average team plagued by injuries. We are one or two good players away from a 44 win season - a good first step (and I remind you that O'Brien took a 44 win Celtics team to the Conference finals).

                            We got our star player 4 years ago. Now we have to get a good compliment of players in the lower picks, like when we got Davis at #13 in 1991 and Best at #23 in 1995. I'm hoping that process started last year with Hibbert and Rush and we can add to it in the next draft.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              When I started the thread - I didn't intend it to end up like that (typically I get bored with those threads)

                              For those critisizing Jeff - I'm just thankful that you aren't coaching the team and I do have to wonder what you are watching. Pacers are just better with jeff on the floor

                              Maybe they saw the blown layups. Like the one at the start of the game he should have dunked instead of missing the layup. The constant complaining he's getting fouled or he didn't foul when he gets called for one. He's turned into a constant whiner.

                              Maybe they feel as a 10 year vet, he never improved his game each year. Maybe the foul shots he missed in last nights game. Never developing a jump shot in 10 years... something more than dunks and put backs. He is notorious for missing FT's and layups/putbacks, which he did numerous times last night.

                              Or as a 10 year vet, they felt he should have done more look like a deer in the headlights with the ball at the end of the game recently.

                              Maybe up until the last game or two he hasn't been producing like he did earlier in the year. He even hit a few 3's earlier in the season, remember? He was scoring double digits scoring as well as rebounding.

                              Maybe, they feel they have seen a drop in his game after the start he had and aren't happy with his play.



                              I like Jeff, but as of late he's really beginning to grate on me. Maybe the losing or age is catching up with him is the problem. Whatever it is, IMO, the Pacers should not have given him an extension. When they did, they took a valuable assest, his expiring, out of their trade arsenal, and saddled themselves with 6 mil in salary that could be used elsewhere next year. JMOAA

                              Comment


                              • Re: Most of you aren't going to like this

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                Maybe they saw the blown layups. Like the one at the start of the game he should have dunked instead of missing the layup. The constant complaining he's getting fouled or he didn't foul when he gets called for one. He's turned into a constant whiner.

                                Maybe they feel as a 10 year vet, he never improved his game each year. Maybe the foul shots he missed in last nights game. Never developing a jump shot in 10 years... something more than dunks and put backs. He is notorious for missing FT's and layups/putbacks, which he did numerous times last night.

                                Or as a 10 year vet, they felt he should have done more look like a deer in the headlights with the ball at the end of the game recently.

                                Maybe up until the last game or two he hasn't been producing like he did earlier in the year. He even hit a few 3's earlier in the season, remember? He was scoring double digits scoring as well as rebounding.

                                Maybe, they feel they have seen a drop in his game after the start he had and aren't happy with his play.



                                I like Jeff, but as of late he's really beginning to grate on me. Maybe the losing or age is catching up with him is the problem. Whatever it is, IMO, the Pacers should not have given him an extension. When they did, they took a valuable assest, his expiring, out of their trade arsenal, and saddled themselves with 6 mil in salary that could be used elsewhere next year. JMOAA

                                Thank you for saying what so many others have been thinking. The airball free throw was just a microcosm of his recent play.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X