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

Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

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

  • #46
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    Excellent post. And good pricing. I highlighted a couple of snippets that I think should get emphasis.

    The question we need to ask ourselves is this: how much time, effort and money should the Pacers spend on a guy who would be nothing more than a backup guard on a good team?
    I disagree with this, by the way. I think Jack could have started on either Finals team this year without much dropoff.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
      Well - yeah but why would Dumars do that? Unless he's gonna let Bosh expire next summer and take the cap space it's a bad trade for Detroit. Tayshaun and Rip give you a lot more than Bosh.
      I'd do that in a heartbeat. Just gives Joe $5 million more to build with this summer.

      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


      • #48
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
        I disagree with this, by the way. I think Jack could have started on either Finals team this year without much dropoff.
        I don't think Jack is better than Nelson, and I have Alston around his level. Talent wise he's better than Fisher/Farmar, but I question how well he fits the Lakers offense.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

          Originally posted by flox View Post
          I don't think Jack is better than Nelson, and I have Alston around his level. Talent wise he's better than Fisher/Farmar, but I question how well he fits the Lakers offense.
          Nelson wasn't Nelson these finals and if you gave Jack some time to learn the triangle, he'd be great there.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

            Originally posted by rexnom View Post
            I disagree with this, by the way. I think Jack could have started on either Finals team this year without much dropoff.
            Debating whether or not Jarrett Jack is an according to Hoyle starter or back-up is just semantics.

            The relevant part of this in terms of whether or not another team is going to offer Jack a contract that Larry will deem too rich for our blood is that no team is likely to say "Let's target Jarrett Jack and make him our starting PG for the next five years so that we don't have to worry about that aspect of our team anymore."

            No one is likely to say that with Skip either. Both those guys would be considered stop gap starters at best, with Jarrett probably giving a GM a little more peace of mind in the sense that he is seemingly more willing to come of the bench and not pout about it.

            So if no team is going to target Jack and give him the keys to the team for the next four years, the question is whether or not anyone will target him as a first guard off the bench/spot starter-type player in a Bobby Jackson/Mario Elie-type role?

            I don't think it's a stretch to say that some teams would be all for that. (San Antonio and Boston seem like candidates.) But I just don't see anyone, in this economy, with this many "marquee" free agents soon to be available, wanting to pay Jarrett Jack $6 million per year to do that. I'm pretty sure we don't want to pay that either, but without any actual knowledge of Jarrett Jack's psyche', I think that, all things being equal, he would rather take our $4-5 million per year offer to come back and play 35 mpg than take a 3 year/$15 million to go play 20 mpg on a better team.

            Jarrett's still young and trying to prove himself as an NBA player, and most people in that category would rather show the world what they can do than be a Luke Walton-esque piece of a Championship team.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              I'd do that in a heartbeat. Just gives Joe $5 million more to build with this summer.
              Do it.

              It's no secret that Bosh wants to come to NY - I'd rather Detroit be left holding the bag with nothing after he opts out than Toronto anyway. Especially if they trade Tayshaun and Rip so they hurt themselves defensively and don't help themselves on offense even for the one year he's there.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                Debating whether or not Jarrett Jack is an according to Hoyle starter or back-up is just semantics.

                The relevant part of this in terms of whether or not another team is going to offer Jack a contract that Larry will deem too rich for our blood is that no team is likely to say "Let's target Jarrett Jack and make him our starting PG for the next five years so that we don't have to worry about that aspect of our team anymore."

                No one is likely to say that with Skip either. Both those guys would be considered stop gap starters at best, with Jarrett probably giving a GM a little more peace of mind in the sense that he is seemingly more willing to come of the bench and not pout about it.

                So if no team is going to target Jack and give him the keys to the team for the next four years, the question is whether or not anyone will target him as a first guard off the bench/spot starter-type player in a Bobby Jackson/Mario Elie-type role?

                I don't think it's a stretch to say that some teams would be all for that. (San Antonio and Boston seem like candidates.) But I just don't see anyone, in this economy, with this many "marquee" free agents soon to be available, wanting to pay Jarrett Jack $6 million per year to do that. I'm pretty sure we don't want to pay that either, but without any actual knowledge of Jarrett Jack's psyche', I think that, all things being equal, he would rather take our $4-5 million per year offer to come back and play 35 mpg than take a 3 year/$15 million to go play 20 mpg on a better team.

                Jarrett's still young and trying to prove himself as an NBA player, and most people in that category would rather show the world what they can do than be a Luke Walton-esque piece of a Championship team.
                Jack's not amazing....but Luke Walton? Poor Jack with fans like these....
                Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                  Good post, Jay.

                  People who have already looked ahead to next year's projected draft crop lick their chops at all the PFs (and PF/Cs) apparently available. Maybe Tbird's front-court "Player X" will be among them (although Gamble and I are pushing to acquire Marcus Camby).

                  HOWEVER, another observation of note is that very few PGs are on the list. If this holds, then only a trade or a FA signing will prevent Jack or Ford from being our PG for at least the next two years. Given TPTB's open dissatisfaction with either as our "PG of the future," a trade or FA signing seems highly likely, perhaps even imminent.

                  Allow me to draw attention to two unsigned PGs: Atlanta's Mike Bibby and Philadelphia's Andre Miller. Atlanta is rumored to be preparing to re-sign Bibby, but I've read Philly blogs that suggest they rather expect to lose Miller -- 33 years old now, but performing better than ever -- maybe to a contender (such as the Lakers, said one or two blogs), and are thus scratching their heads trying to figure out why the team drafted young Jrue Holiday instead of the more-ready Ty Lawson. As for us, unless we pay quite a premium for a young buck like Conley (who I think is developing quite reasonably), let alone for Rubio, I think Miller is a shaky 3-pt shot away from being the perfect solution for us. (Justin, you've said this for a long time, I know.)

                  If Philly would accept Ford as a stop-gap solution as part of sending us Miller in a sign-and-trade, I will be really excited. If we can trade Ford to the Clippers for Camby and acquire Miller by other means, I will swoon like Peck getting ready to have dinner with Dale Davis.
                  Last edited by DrFife; 06-28-2009, 05:00 PM.


                  "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                  - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                    I would send Ford to the Blazers for Blake, this guy is a floor general and I think that the pacers are a better fit for his up tempo game, the same for Ford, I think that he could be a nice pick for the Blazers also.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                      http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...s_and_han.html

                      According to Mike Wells' blog, the Pacers are about to make a qualifying offer on Jack @ $2.9 million.

                      If true, what's everyones' read on this?

                      This sounds like a Peja offer, imo. And it makes me wonder who exactly Bird really wants.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...s_and_han.html

                        According to Mike Wells' blog, the Pacers are about to make a qualifying offer on Jack @ $2.9 million.

                        If true, what's everyones' read on this?

                        This sounds like a Peja offer, imo. And it makes me wonder who exactly Bird really wants.
                        They've been saying that they were going to make the qualifying offer since the end of the season. The plan, as I understand, in both camps was for Jack to test the market. The Pacers have a price in mind that they'll match, and Jack's going to see how much he can get.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...s_and_han.html

                          According to Mike Wells' blog, the Pacers are about to make a qualifying offer on Jack @ $2.9 million.

                          If true, what's everyones' read on this?

                          This sounds like a Peja offer, imo. And it makes me wonder who exactly Bird really wants.
                          I like that they are not trying to pay to much 2.9 mil is fair. Mike wells is also saying that they have an extra 9mil to spend, can anybody tell me if that is together with the mid level exception.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I like that they are not trying to pay to much 2.9 mil is fair. Mike wells is also saying that they have an extra 9mil to spend, can anybody tell me if that is together with the mid level exception.
                            They have no expectation of paying $2.9mm. They have to make this offer so that they can retain right of first refusal.

                            There is a complete breakdown of their cap situation in the Cap Resource thread at the top of the page.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              They've been saying that they were going to make the qualifying offer since the end of the season. The plan, as I understand, in both camps was for Jack to test the market. The Pacers have a price in mind that they'll match, and Jack's going to see how much he can get.
                              Thank you.

                              So it's more of a procedural thing, and we'll still have the ability to match offers from other teams. And it's nothing like the Peja situation, where we basically said "we're not resigning you" by lowballing.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                                Thank you.

                                So it's more of a procedural thing, and we'll still have the ability to match offers from other teams. And it's nothing like the Peja situation, where we basically said "we're not resigning you" by lowballing.
                                Yup...just procedural. It's pretty common for a guy coming off his rookie contract who has not been extended.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X