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

Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Discussion

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

  • #16
    Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

    After listening to the first part of the presser, I feel better. He was actually very positive about Jennings...it sounded like he thought very highly of the European experience, and he's sure that Jennings learned a lot.

    He that at 13, there will be "a big, a point guard, and a wing player"...then he confirmed that they'd all come in to work out.

    Then, he said the bigs were "Mullens, Blair, and Hansbrough" (IIRC)...I think the one-year comment may be directed at Mullens.

    The feed is choppy, so I'll come back to this.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      School, like everything else, must be judged case by case. Lawson misses that DUI and he's not at NC in 2009. So he's not some scholastic hero, just making the best of his situation.
      Lawson misses that DUI, I think there was a fair chance he was a Pacer, it seemed at least.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Going by the comments so far I'm not thrilled either. However I'd say the 4 year comment and the Jack not impacting comments mean Maynor (4 year PG) or Blair (PF means no Jack relevance).

        Of course Terrence Williams is a 4 year guy that replaces Quis but doesn't directly impact the PG situation. (not happening, I realize)
        Really? I thought the opposite. It's the first time I've heard him say "We need a wing."
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

          So who is the top 8 he's talking about dropping?

          Who is the 4 that he thinks 3 will be there?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

            One thing, I think we can pretty much be sure they are not considering Terrence Williams, at all.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

              Sounds like we can scratch Holiday and Jennings off the list.

              Both are one year players who didn't perform great.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                4 guys they think they'll get at 13, but only 3 of 4 available.

                I think we can all agree that 2 of the 3 are likely Ty Lawson and Maynor. Lawson for sure.

                Who are the other 2 or 3?

                Based on last year it would come from this list, since both Roy and Brush did work out before being chosen, sure it's a big assumption, but still.

                Ty Lawson

                Maynor
                Jennings
                Blair
                Henderson
                Hansbrough
                Teague
                Holiday
                James Johnson

                I left off

                BJ Mullens
                Sam Young
                Bundinger
                Toney Douglas

                So I think Bird thinks these three will be there

                Lawson
                Blair
                Maynor


                I think Jennings is the one he thinks could be gone.

                So I think the big probable board at Pacers head quarters looks like this, in this order.

                Jennings
                Lawson
                Blair
                Maynor

                Just my opinion.

                Lastly, the whole move to #5 I think is in case Rubio drops, I think he's the one they would want there, unless Mike Wells has inside info and it is Tyreke Evans.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                  Bird claims that we could have up to five new faces !! Any speculations ??

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                    Originally posted by Pacemaker View Post
                    Bird claims that we could have up to five new faces !! Any speculations ??
                    Tinsley
                    Rasho
                    Maceo
                    Marquis
                    Grahm

                    I think those guys are gone, Grahm maybe iffy.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                      Originally posted by Pacemaker View Post
                      Bird claims that we could have up to five new faces !! Any speculations ??
                      Tinsley is getting plastic surgery.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                        Originally posted by Pacemaker View Post
                        Bird claims that we could have up to five new faces !! Any speculations ??
                        Yeah, that's almost a foregone conclusion. We only have 9 guys under contract, including Tinsley.

                        Some more notes:

                        Teague - Hometown could be a distraction, but he thinks he'll be fine. He had a real good first half, he's got good focus, and he'd be a nice fit here.

                        Jennings - Practiced and played hard over in Europe. Learned a lot, and Bird thinks he's ready for "about anything anybody throws at him" and "he played against men" in Europe.

                        Players targeted - Four players, and he's sure that three of them will be available at 13. They include at least one of a point, a big, and a wing.

                        Bigs - Mentioned Mullens, Blair, & Hansbrough (so does that mean that James Johnson isn't in the mix, or that they consider him a wing?) I think the one-year comment is directed at Mullens.

                        Blair - Didn't sound overly concerned about his height, but did say that there were defensive concerns, (but modified to say that they had defensive concerns about all the guys, which I took to mean the three bigs bein discussed.

                        Blair's Knees - Before the draft, he'll talk to the doctors, and if the doctors tell him not to draft a guy, then he won't.

                        European Scouting - Not many (or any) players in Europe this year that he thinks can make the leap, but there will be a bunch next year (heavily paraphrased).

                        Maynor - Asked about him coming from a small school, and Bird said, "So did I." Said that they saw him compete against players his age in the workouts, and he is a fine player. There are quicker or longer players, but Maynor is a fine player.

                        Teams Shuffling above our pick (trades) - That will not affect us, as we seem to have zeroed in on our four guys.

                        I can't get through the whole feed...I can't tell who the four are, but I believe that Hansbrough is one of them.

                        Another is likely either Lawson or Maynor, and I'm guessing a third is Gerald Henderson.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                          well this part makes me feel good:

                          Bird said he can see as many as 5 new faces on the team. and that theyve been talking to many diffferent teams about different scenarios. so look for a draft day trade. i also heard reggie miller say that he heard the pacers are trying to trade either jack or ford. David aldridge also said that as well.
                          "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                            It sounds like he says that a big, a wing, and a PG are all in the 4 players he says he's looking at. He also says the bigs are Hansbrough, Blair, and Mullens. That pretty much means that he considers James Johnson a wing.

                            If there's a wing player in the top 4, we've looked at Johnson, Budinger, Henderson, and Young.
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                              Originally posted by Speed View Post
                              4 guys they think they'll get at 13, but only 3 of 4 available.

                              I think we can all agree that 2 of the 3 are likely Ty Lawson and Maynor. Lawson for sure.

                              Who are the other 2 or 3?

                              Based on last year it would come from this list, since both Roy and Brush did work out before being chosen, sure it's a big assumption, but still.

                              Ty Lawson

                              Maynor
                              Jennings
                              Blair
                              Henderson
                              Hansbrough
                              Teague
                              Holiday
                              James Johnson

                              I left off

                              BJ Mullens
                              Sam Young
                              Bundinger
                              Toney Douglas

                              So I think Bird thinks these three will be there

                              Lawson
                              Blair
                              Maynor


                              I think Jennings is the one he thinks could be gone.

                              So I think the big probable board at Pacers head quarters looks like this, in this order.

                              Jennings
                              Lawson
                              Blair
                              Maynor

                              Just my opinion.

                              Lastly, the whole move to #5 I think is in case Rubio drops, I think he's the one they would want there, unless Mike Wells has inside info and it is Tyreke Evans.
                              The three who Bird "guarantees" will be there are probably Blair, Lawson, and Maynor. The fourth I'm not sure on.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                The three who Bird "guarantees" will be there are probably Blair, Lawson, and Maynor. The fourth I'm not sure on.
                                We both know you are just praying for Lawson.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X