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

Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

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

  • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    what I don't get from you and Buck is that why you keep saying that Roy's defense is bad and for that you justify see him seating on the bench, when everybody here knows that Murphy is the worst defender on the team and he keeps starting and playing most of the minutes and now this amazing coaching stuff or coach decided that he is just a better center than Roy.
    Another parrot pops up his head.

    Troy 1121 minutes played
    Roy 1091 minutes played

    So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.

    Comment


    • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

      I'm not defending JOB's actions in regards to Murphy, I still think there is some kind of Sith Mind Control going on. All I'm saying is that there are other reasons besides "JOB is an idiot" to sit Roy at times.

      Just because a coach is an idiot in one way does not automatically mean he's a complete idiot. It makes the chances higher, but there are still other reasons.

      I really hate arguments that turn entirely on the concept that "everyone who doesn't see <argued point of view> is stupid."
      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


      • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

        Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
        The key problem is not that Murphy is on the team, although admittedly I'd like to get rid of Murphy, his contract, and his el matador defense.

        The real problem is that O'Brien is in charge of this team and just seems clueless. He's just not seeing what just about everyone else can see. He's lost the team and is doing no favors for our young players. In a year or so (although I hope much sooner), JOB will be gone and Hibbert will still be here. Hibbert needs to get experience RIGHT NOW, especially while we have the luxury to give him some playing time given that there's no chance of a championship run at this point in

        time.

        Damn the parrots keep popping their heads up.

        How many minutes do you think Roy has played this year?

        Repeating the same wrong stats doesn't suddenly make it true.

        Comment


        • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

          Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
          Another parrot pops up his head.

          Troy 1121 minutes played
          Roy 1091 minutes played

          So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.
          Well, considering the number of games Troy was out for, that probably averages to a significant number of minutes more PER GAME. I don't have time for the math right now, but this number doesn't impress me in isolation. Got a minutes per game stat? I would GUESS it shows Murph playing 6-8 minutes more per game.
          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


          • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

            Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
            Another parrot pops up his head.

            Troy 1121 minutes played
            Roy 1091 minutes played

            So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.

            For accuracy's sake, Murphy was not available for several games this season. So even though their numbers are tight, I'd think they wouldn't be that tight if you removed games from the equation where Murphy was out (and instead only compared their minutes when Murphy was available).

            Considering Murphy missed several games, and still has a lead in minutes, that would tend to support the idea that Murphy gets a lot of minutes over Hibbert. But without the actual minute breakdown from games where both were available it would be hard to say for certain.
            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


            • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

              Hibby 23.7
              Murphy 31.1

              Minutes per game. The one game Murph got hurt he played like 6 mins if I remember right. Probably not enough to sway the numbers, I'm sure.

              Comment


              • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Hibby 23.7
                Murphy 31.1

                Minutes per game. The one game Murph got hurt he played like 6 mins if I remember right. Probably not enough to sway the numbers, I'm sure.
                True, but the point I was making is Roy has played almost as many total minutes as Troy and yet many posters continue to parrot the same old misinformation that Troy plays and Roy sits. The truth of the matter is Roy is playing and progressing and to play him more minutes may result in a regression in his game. Sounds illogical, just think on it for awhile.

                Comment


                • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                  Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                  True, but the point I was making is Roy has played almost as many total minutes as Troy and yet many posters continue to parrot the same old misinformation that Troy plays and Roy sits. The truth of the matter is Roy is playing and progressing and to play him more minutes may result in a regression in his game. Sounds illogical, just think on it for awhile.
                  You see the part I have highlighted from you is a good solid logical statement. I disagree with it but that is just purley opinion and I don't dispute the fact that you may be right.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                    Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                    True, but the point I was making is Roy has played almost as many total minutes as Troy and yet many posters continue to parrot the same old misinformation that Troy plays and Roy sits. The truth of the matter is Roy is playing and progressing and to play him more minutes may result in a regression in his game. Sounds illogical, just think on it for awhile.
                    I have thought at length on this, and so have most of the rest of us since last year.

                    More accurately, Troy often plays when his legs are plainly gone and both his three point shooting and rebounding have ceased in some games while Roy continues to sit which is painfully obvious to many of us here.

                    This is where the McBob argument kicks in for those of us who value him at all. If he were used to give Murphy a break, it would do two things. First, if nothing else it would ensure that Murphy has more available energy to do what he does most effectively for about 15 or 20 minutes per game. Second, it would provide an entirely unexpected and unplanned for look from our team that would cause disruptions for our opponents both offensively and defensively. They would have to respect his passing skills and aggressiveness defensively while not really knowing what to expect from him on offense which playing time would probably reveal that he can hit baseline jumpers and make moves to the rim due to his being quicker than a lot of 4's probably are.

                    Troy could get virtually the same positive stats he does in about 60% as much time as he currently plays, maximizing his positive impact on the game while also maximizing his trade value at the same time. And, the added experience that both Roy and McRoberts (and Hansbrough when he regains his health) can only help the franchise going forward. It is a win-win-win situation during a season that virtually all but the very most optimistic have given up hope on anyway.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                      Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                      Another parrot pops up his head.

                      Troy 1121 minutes played
                      Roy 1091 minutes played

                      So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.
                      Had Murphy not sat down for injury reasons, he would have an additional 310 minutes (31 per game x 10 games missed), and that's not counting the time he would have had in the two games where he got injured and had to leave those games early (vs. WAS and @ CHI).

                      Now even with the generiously lower addition of minutes, he's sitting at 1431 to Roy's 1091.

                      Troy averages 8 more minutes each game than Roy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        what I don't get from you and Buck is that why you keep saying that Roy's defense is bad and for that you justify see him seating on the bench, when everybody here knows that Murphy is the worst defender on the team and he keeps starting and playing most of the minutes and now this amazing coaching stuff or coach decided that he is just a better center than Roy.
                        I can't speak for BillS, but I dare anyone to find a post from either BillS or myself where we claimed that Roy's defense was worse than Troy's or even equal.

                        Actually I take that back, there have been times when certain aspects of Murphy's "team defense" has been better than certain aspects of Roy's team defense - that is primarily just based upon experience though. Please note I am using the qualifier "certain aspects"

                        But yes Troy's one-on-one defense is beyond horrible

                        Comment


                        • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Had Murphy not sat down for injury reasons, he would have an additional 310 minutes (31 per game x 10 games missed), and that's not counting the time he would have had in the two games where he got injured and had to leave those games early (vs. WAS and @ CHI).

                          Now even with the generiously lower addition of minutes, he's sitting at 1431 to Roy's 1091.

                          Troy averages 8 more minutes each game than Roy.
                          Ok so what do you and others want as far as minutes go. For Roy and Troy - and please be realistic. if Roy played 28 and Troy played 27 - would you be satisfied

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I did say a healthy Jeff Foster
                            A healthy Jeff Foster is still not as good as he used to be. This is ignoring the fact that he is never healthy, but even if he was, he is still slow on defense and a black hole on offense.

                            Foster is not the same player he used to be and likely never will be again. If you think otherwise, your stuck in the past.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                              A healthy Jeff Foster is still not as good as he used to be. This is ignoring the fact that he is never healthy, but even if he was, he is still slow on defense and a black hole on offense.
                              What? slow on defense and a black hole on offense. Either your definition of those terms is different from mine or I completely disagree with you. It doesn't really matter as he likely won't play again in a pacers uniform. But Jeff is fast, quick on defense and on offense how can he be a black hole when he rarely if ever shoots. OK, I'm confused

                              Comment


                              • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Had Murphy not sat down for injury reasons, he would have an additional 310 minutes (31 per game x 10 games missed), and that's not counting the time he would have had in the two games where he got injured and had to leave those games early (vs. WAS and @ CHI).

                                Now even with the generiously lower addition of minutes, he's sitting at 1431 to Roy's 1091.

                                Troy averages 8 more minutes each game than Roy.
                                True, you could make that deduction, however that is not the point that I was making. The fact is Roy has played only 30 less minutes for the season than Troy. That doesn't jive with the common theme around here that Roy sits and Troy plays.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X