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

Opinion, Please

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

  • #61
    Re: Opinion, Please

    Dallas traded him for a 34-year old has been, and most people at the time thought DALLAS got the better end.

    Nobody saw im blowing up like this. Nobody. You figured his stats would go up a little because of playing a little more, but for him to develop into a top-5 PG? Absurd.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Opinion, Please

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      Dallas traded him for a 34-year old has been, and most people at the time thought DALLAS got the better end.

      Nobody saw im blowing up like this. Nobody. You figured his stats would go up a little because of playing a little more, but for him to develop into a top-5 PG? Absurd.
      I don't believe most people felt that way. Most felt Kid was better suited b/c of his leadership and what he brings to the floor, but I remember wondering why the Mavs gave up on Harris so soon, as did most of the media.

      Harris was already showing solid signs, and once the trade happened last year you could instantly see that the Mavs had made a mistake.

      He had all the tools, it was just a matter of him getting the minutes and in the right situation. Not to mention that Vince Carter still drew most the attention this year, and still does even after Harris was named an all-star

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Opinion, Please

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Dallas traded him for a 34-year old has been, and most people at the time thought DALLAS got the better end.

        Nobody saw im blowing up like this. Nobody. You figured his stats would go up a little because of playing a little more, but for him to develop into a top-5 PG? Absurd.
        Really?

        I mean, no offense to Devin, who I think has been great - that's not my point here. It's just in Dallas he averaged 5 less minutes, 5 less shots, 5 less free throws and didn't have the ball in his hands nearly as much as in NJ. As a result of those four elements, is it really surprising that he is now scoring 7 more points (from about 14ppg, which is not that high to begin with).

        No, I wasn't expecting all-star out of Devin Harris, but 20 PPG? Hell yeah, I was. Especially after they traded Richard Jefferson. That's not a huge leap to make with increased playing time and going from 4th-5th option to 1st option playing with the ball in your hands pretty much all the time.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Opinion, Please

          you can't say harris's stats in NJ are merely a result of more time and then turn around and say granger's aren't. That would be a joke.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Opinion, Please

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            you can't say harris's stats in NJ are merely a result of more time and then turn around and say granger's aren't. That would be a joke.
            Hardly. Granger jumped from 19 PPG to 25 PPG, in both seasons he averaged almost exactly 36 MPG. There was no time increase.
            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

            - ilive4sports

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Opinion, Please

              Yeah Danny is worthy was winning Most Improved Player. He improves his scoring every season of his career by at least 5 PPG. It's a tough decision for the league to choose between him or Devin Harris. Danny deserves it.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Opinion, Please

                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                Sorry, I was banned when you posted, and didn't read through. If we do post the same idea, I think it raises my lowly status but only drags yours down.
                No need to apologize. I was just trying to say we agreed, in an awkwardly joke-y fashion.

                I clearly failed.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Opinion, Please

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Dallas traded him for a 34-year old has been, and most people at the time thought DALLAS got the better end.
                  Dude, go back and find the trade thread. It was an almost universal "what the heck was Dallas thinking."
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Opinion, Please

                    This is a fun thread. Mark, please allow me to add my 2 cents.

                    For me, the MIP award should go to a guy who you look at and think "Wow, I didn't think he had it in him." That's why Durant's not interesting to me... he surprises nobody. Even Harris hasn't been that surprising. Danny has shocked me. The only thing that would cause me to vote against Danny is the fact that his scoring has tailed off a bit as the season's gone on, while Durant's has climbed.

                    If it was mine to give, I originally would have given it to Jameer Nelson. I really didn't think he was capable of that level of play, and apparently neither did anyone in Orlando since they were still shopping him last summer. But the Magic haven't really fallen apart without him, so that takes some of the edge off that argument.

                    After Jameer, Danny would be my top choice.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Opinion, Please

                      Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                      I also really like Mr. Millsap, but I feel his credentials this season lack the cache of the other two
                      His credentials lack the short access time needed to store material that's used frequently?

                      Oh... you meant cachet.

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cachet



                      I can't believe I got to do that to Mark Boyle... lifelong dream.

                      Signed,

                      PD's Resident Grammar Nazi.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Opinion, Please

                        Originally posted by Graham Mernatsi View Post
                        His credentials lack the short access time needed to store material that's used frequently?

                        Oh... you meant cachet.

                        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cachet



                        I can't believe I got to do that to Mark Boyle... lifelong dream.

                        Signed,

                        PD's Resident Grammar Nazi.

                        Nobody likes you.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Opinion, Please

                          Originally posted by Graham Mernatsi View Post
                          His credentials lack the short access time needed to store material that's used frequently?

                          Oh... you meant cachet.

                          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cachet



                          I can't believe I got to do that to Mark Boyle... lifelong dream.

                          Signed,

                          PD's Resident Grammar Nazi.
                          I'm confused. I thought you were the Grammar Nazi. You just pointed out an error in diction. Is that part of your domain as well?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Opinion, Please

                            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                            Hardly. Granger jumped from 19 PPG to 25 PPG, in both seasons he averaged almost exactly 36 MPG. There was no time increase.
                            He's also jacking up 4 more shots per game and shooting a career-low %FG and a career high in turnovers. Oh yeah, that isn't a product of increased workload at ALL...

                            playing the same minutes does not mean he's playing the same role.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Opinion, Please

                              Graham,

                              Busted. I realized that I had forgotten the "t" as soon as I posted, but was hoping nobody else would notice. I humbly bow in your direction.

                              Anthem, with all due respect, I think you misunderstand the criteria for this award. It's not supposed to go to the player that surprises the most, it goes to the one that is most improved from one season to the next. While it may be fun to talk about players that have seemingly come from nowhere - and I don't agree with your assessment of Granger in that regard, anyway - that's not what this award is about.

                              Thanks for the input, though. There have been some interesting points made on this matter.

                              MJB

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Opinion, Please

                                Great Thread


                                As much as stats mean a lot, as much as the win-lose means a lot..

                                I think Granger should be MIP because; well he is the most improved in Maturity, Team Leadership and exceeding expectations..



                                Granger is in a team surrounded by accomplished underachievers with big salaries that have failed to make a great impact in this league on a winning Basis.. Sorry Dunleavey and Murphy and Marq, nice players but role players at best.



                                Everyone knows what Durant is capable of, Harris is a nice Surprise and I really like Nelson as well before the injury but they are all in remarkably different situations then Granger.



                                Durant is an Athletics Stud and no2 draft pick from last year, he’s always going to be a star and might win a MVP one day but his time is still to come

                                Harris plays one of the easier positions to get good stats because he has the ball a lot, sure he’s a gifted player but the coach allows for his ease of play

                                Nelson well has Howard, Lewis, Turkoglo, some Quality All Stars to assist his game.



                                Granger has none of the above and being slightly older has more locker room pressure to deal with like any workplace, more responsibilities..


                                I think he should be MIP because these two stats are game changes

                                Game Winning Shot Opportunity = 24 seconds or less left in the game, team with the ball is either tied or down by 1 to 2 points.


                                '08-09
                                Granger 5-7
                                Roy 4-7
                                R.Mason 3-3
                                Durant 3-8
                                Felton 3-8


                                Danny is going to be the 1st player in NBA history to bump his ppg up 5pts 3 years running. That’s pretty impressive to me. His improved every year.



                                Granger plays one of the hardest positions on the court, makes the All Star team for the first time and with the above stats has showed great progress, not major jump in one year but steady mature progress.



                                From what I understand Granger isn’t a dominate mental person in the locker-room, he’s no Sheed or Shaq that talks smack and gets in peoples face, when he screams onn the courr it’s genuine frustration and a love for winning and I think he’s getting slowly cementing his place in the team which will allow a more natural locker-room presence to occur over time..



                                On the roster 8 or so players are older with more experience then Granger and combine that with his respectful personalty can be viewed as a negative on his leadership, but that will improve over team, this is just his 3rd season in the league.



                                I don’t think you can blame the W-L column on him because well the team just under performs and if that’s Coaching, Talent, Commitment who knows but you can’t factor that in this case because we are to emtional about winning, I think we are all aware of our problems so I’ll leave that alone..

                                Just my Two Cents, Good Luck MJB.
                                Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X