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

Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

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

  • #61
    Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    Murphy and Dunleavy were horrible defenders under every coach they played under and they're still horrible now. So what? Nellie said he planned to play Murphy at center. Someone asked him if he thought he could defend 5s. Nellie: "No. He can't defend 4s either."

    Antoine Walker, Pierce and JOB got to the ECFs with JOB coaching. So either JOB is a better coach than you think or Pierce, Walker and a bunch of scrubs are that much better than Granger and this current bunch of Pacers.
    I am saying they were a bunch of scrubs that got lucky... or maybe that was the all time perfect JOB team, the one he will always try to emulate. 3 pt shooting at every position.... Paul was always good though. I do think he is better now.

    As far as Dun and Murph go. Yeah... they had their "best" years here under Jim. When almost any other coach would never have played them, except for the great Nellie... I mean what does that prove other than Nellie is just as terrible at coaching?

    Defense is half the game. Not 10-20% of it. Mike and Troy's best years are still awful in my opinion. How can you average a double double and yet still lead your team in epic +/- failure... I would rather see SJones out there than Troy.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      I am saying they were a bunch of scrubs that got lucky... or maybe that was the all time perfect JOB team, the one he will always try to emulate. 3 pt shooting at every position.... Paul was always good though. I do think he is better now.

      As far as Dun and Murph go. Yeah... they had their "best" years here under Jim. When almost any other coach would never have played them, except for the great Nellie... I mean what does that prove other than Nellie is just as terrible at coaching?

      Defense is half the game. Not 10-20% of it. Mike and Troy's best years are still awful in my opinion. How can you average a double double and yet still lead your team in epic +/- failure... I would rather see SJones out there than Troy.
      You're just all over the place now.

      What Nellie proved with Murphleavy didn't show that he was a terrible coach. It showed that he was a good evaluator of talent. He tried something with them, it didn't work and so he shipped them out in a trade and helped the team make the playoffs. He didn't think he could win with Murphleavy and so far he hasn't been proven wrong. I don't know what part of this makes Nellie look bad.

      Murphleavy certainly aren't my choice for players to build around. I wouldn't have done the trade to get them, but that's a different thing from saying that their talents have been maximized in Indy. Fact is both guys have had their best years under JOB. Maybe that really doesn't mean much because both guys just aren't that good, but it'd be false to say that most every player out there will be at their worst under JOB. That's just not true and the facts prove it.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        You're just all over the place now.

        What Nellie proved with Murphleavy didn't show that he was a terrible coach. It showed that he was a good evaluator of talent. He tried something with them, it didn't work and so he shipped them out in a trade and helped the team make the playoffs. He didn't think he could win with Murphleavy and so far he hasn't been proven wrong. I don't know what part of this makes Nellie look bad.

        Murphleavy certainly aren't my choice for players to build around. I wouldn't have done the trade to get them, but that's a different thing from saying that their talents have been maximized in Indy. Fact is both guys have had their best years under JOB. Maybe that really doesn't mean much because both guys just aren't that good, but it'd be false to say that most every player out there will be at their worst under JOB. That's just not true and the facts prove it.
        I think we are just on a different page. I am saying a good coach would never have played them, would never have given them the oppurtunity to have their best years, would have tried to get them off the roster in desperation... kind of like the desperation that brought them here. This is my issue with the coach and the front office.

        And you are right, to Nellies credit he and Mullins did try to get them moved, and found a sucker in Indy. And now with our horribly misguided front office and coach, Murph is our 09-10 "MVP" (their words, not mine)

        Last edited by PaceBalls; 06-21-2010, 08:52 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

          Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
          I think we are just on a different page. I am saying a good coach would never have played them, would never have given them the oppurtunity to have thei best years, would have tried to get them off the roster in desperation... kind of like the desperation that brought them here. This is my issue with the coach and the front office.
          What choice did O'Brien (or Carlisle, for that matter) have in whether or not to play them? They were both making huge money and they were replacing two players at the same positions. It would have been ridiculous if O'Brien refused to play them. And it's not like they are without talent- Dunleavy averaged 20 pts. and Murphy averaged a double double, regardless of their other deficiencies.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

            Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
            I think we are just on a different page. I am saying a good coach would never have played them, would never have given them the oppurtunity to have thei best years, would have tried to get them off the roster in desperation... kind of like the desperation that brought them here. This is my issue with the coach and the front office.
            It's a coach's job to get the most out of his players' right? Well that's what JOB did Murphleavy. Again, that's not who I would've traded for, but that part of it isn't JOB's job.

            Murphleavy being on the roster is Bird's responsiblity, not JOB's. Hey, come to think of it, so is JOB still coaching the team. That's on Bird too. And exactly how desperate would you be to get rid of them. Enough to trade them for a guy like Stephen Jackson? Go read prevous posts on this board about Jackson and how badly people wanted to throw him over a bridge from a few years ago.

            FWIW, a good (or a bad coach or any NBA coach) will never play a guy like Soloman Jones big minutes.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              It's a coach's job to get the most out of his players' right? Well that's what JOB did Murphleavy. Again, that's not who I would've traded for, but that part of it isn't JOB's job.

              Murphleavy being on the roster is Bird's responsiblity, not JOB's. Hey, come to think of it, so is JOB still coaching the team. That's on Bird too. And exactly how desperate would you be to get rid of them. Enough to trade them for a guy like Stephen Jackson? Go read prevous posts on this board about Jackson and how badly people wanted to throw him over a bridge from a few years ago.

              FWIW, a good (or a bad coach or any NBA coach) will never play a guy like Soloman Jones big minutes.


              You have to work with what you have, of course. But once it becomes apparent that the win/losses are rising at a unacceptable pace, most of all because of horrendous defensive skills from these two players, then reality needs to set in. You try to move them.. for a guy like Stephen Jackson who is not liked at all by the fans in his current town, but could make a fresh start in Indy. Hell move them for anyone. What could be worse? But no, our coach and front office tried to build around them, honestly believing they were the best players on the team. It is that disconnect with basketball reality that is the problem here.

              And yes, a good coach would play Solo over Murphy and his epic +/- worst defense ever...

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                I hate that were trying to trade down. We need an impact player not more role players.

                Either trade up, or trade the pick for a veteran
                I actually love the idea of trading down. The guys in our range right now seem to be surefire role players to me. If Bird is targeting a particular player who is a little bit more unsung in this draft like Paul George or Eric Bledsoe, who could have more upside than anyone available at our pick, and is also able to snag a decent veteran, I think he's doing the right thing. There are always unsung guys at the end or middle of the first round who pan out better than most if not all of the mid to late lottery picks who are often considered safer picks but have lower ceilings. It is a risky move to make, but we need to stop hitting singles at go for a double or triple at the least.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Murphy and Dunleavy were horrible defenders under every coach they played under and they're still horrible now. So what? Nellie said he planned to play Murphy at center. Someone asked him if he thought he could defend 5s. Nellie: "No. He can't defend 4s either."

                  Antoine Walker, Pierce and JOB got to the ECFs with JOB coaching. So either JOB is a better coach than you think or Pierce, Walker and a bunch of scrubs were that much better than Granger and this current bunch of Pacers.
                  While I agree with the majority of your post... one thing I CANNOT agree on , is your assessment of Dunleavy being a "horrible defender" ..

                  I believe that Dunleavy is a fairly decent team defender , and he always seems to be in the right place at the right time.... to draw a charge on the offense... I attribute that to his high basketball I.Q.

                  As far as man to man defense , he, is adequate . Nothing special , but he at least puts forth the effort and TRIES..

                  This last season , his overall gameplay was somewhat excusable..
                  I think we will see Mike come back to his form of 2 years ago , before the problems/injuries/surgery ...




                  .
                  "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    I actually love the idea of trading down. The guys in our range right now seem to be surefire role players to me. If Bird is targeting a particular player who is a little bit more unsung in this draft like Paul George or Eric Bledsoe, who could have more upside than anyone available at our pick, and is also able to snag a decent veteran, I think he's doing the right thing. There are always unsung guys at the end or middle of the first round who pan out better than most if not all of the mid to late lottery picks who are often considered safer picks but have lower ceilings. It is a risky move to make, but we need to stop hitting singles at go for a double or triple at the least.
                    Absolutely agree. A guy like Udoh, as highly thought of by posters here whose opinions I respect as he is, seems to be at a similar talent level as Hansbrough (and I don't know that you'd play them together to mask the other's weaknesses). I'd love to take a shot at a guy like Bledsoe instead.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                      Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                      Without question. I think Okafor doesn't have as good of a mean streak as Double D did. Double D wanted to kill mother****ers.

                      And as for Hibbert, I've been calling him the Black Dutchman for awhile now. While him and Rik have different strengths, he just reminds me of Smits whenever I see him. I do believe, however, that Hibbert is way more talented than Smits.
                      Agreed, except I don't think Roy is way more talented. He's coming, but Rik was a much better shooter. Neither rebounds well. Roy blocks more shots. Both get beat on defense some because they are slow afoot. Both need a defensive minded, strong bodied 4 next to him to take the beatings off them.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                        Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                        I personally feel like they'd have to add to get the 10. Last year's 20 (who hasn't played enough to have the value of DC or even Lawson) plus this year's 21 does not equal this year's 10 IMO. If we got Green, Harden, DJ, BJ, extra picks etc etc, some kind of sweetener that'd be good.

                        I'd like the sweetner to be their #32.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                          I distinctly remember JOB's Celtics giving the Pacers a couple of tough series in the playoffs.
                          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                            Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
                            your avatar captures your personality beautifully.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                              Chad Ford is getting ready to be on Mike and Mike in a couple minutes. See if he has anything new.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Chad Ford: Pacers most active in trade buzz, looking to trade down or out of draft...

                                Chad Ford:

                                quick summary:

                                - Monroe will biggest gamble in top 10.
                                - Cousins compares to Sheed, absolute great NBA body, says he is the #2 player talent wise in the draft.
                                - Turner most versatile, compares to Brandon Roy
                                - Favors alot of potential compares to Amare
                                - Wes Johnson is solid, and good size
                                - Very intrigued by Paul George, could be the biggest surprise of this draft, compares to TMac, but passive and too laid back
                                - Draft has 3 tiers talent wise, 1-5, 6-40, then the rest.
                                - Good players down to #40
                                - Mentioned the kid from France who is coming in today for the Pacers

                                Did not mention any pending trades
                                Last edited by BoomBaby33; 06-22-2010, 09:39 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X