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

Current Pacers roster

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

  • #31
    Re: Current Pacers roster

    Originally posted by joeyd View Post

    I think Sporting News rated us next-to-last for the 2010-2011 season.

    Who's ranked below the Pacers, Detroit?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Current Pacers roster

      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
      but were not the same exact team. Dunleavy, Foster, Hansbrough missed the entire season.
      Dunleavy played 67 games. Hansbrough played 29 games. Foster played 16 games.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Current Pacers roster

        Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
        If Ford is our starting PG we could be in trouble. I like him, but he doesn't fit here. Price is out 4-6 months. Will he even make the final roster? Rush as our starting SG is laughable. You don't know when he will show up, and when he wil be timid Brandon and not show up . Most of us are happy with George, but he hasn't palyed a game yet, so we don't know what he will bring. At SF we don't even need to talk about Granger 25 pts per game, enough said. Dunleavy will never be like he was before he was injured. PF is another issue Murphy is a stat hog who will get his numbers but not help the team. I think foster has fallen off too. He is 33. He can be effective but not like he was a few years ago. Hansbrough is a mystery. He could be fine next year, or he could be done. McRoberts should improve even more next year, but will JOB give him enough minutes. Hibbert is still a work in progress and should improve even more this year. He could be the key to this team.
        With the current lineup we might crack 40 wins, but probably won't make the playoffs. I don't like it anyway when a team with a losing record makes the playoffs, so unless we win 42 or more games next season I don't want to make the playoffs.
        excellent synopsis with many valid points. Rush at sg is not laughable, at least he can defend. is hansbrough's career really in jeapordy?? i guess im under the assumption Hansbrough will be fine.

        with competition at each position, esp SG, PF Rush and Murphy will have no choice to step up their game. i agree, would rather not make the playoffs either, but considering this team wins despite having a lock at a top 5 pick, im hoping were at least competitive and fun to watch.

        whats Hansbrough's true status, if that kid's career is really in limbo..

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Current Pacers roster

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          Don't mean to rain on your parade, but this has already been discussed and put to rest months ago. Same with Dun being PG.
          my parade was rained on a long time ago, no worries there. i respectfully disagree with most of the comments on here about D. Jones. sure he is not the answer at point, but if he can defend the pg's in this league with sucess, thats sufficient for me backing up TJ.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Current Pacers roster

            Fire O'Brien and make Ford a non-blackhole on offense and then get back to me later lol.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Current Pacers roster

              Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
              So you are pinning our problems entirely on O'Brien? That is absurd. As Jeff Van Gundy says, it is a players league, and it is a make or miss league. Ford's problem is not O'Brien. Ford drives the ball constantly, puts himself in bad positions and throws up ill advised shots. That is on TJ Ford, not Jim O'Brien.

              And what is up with everyone thinking anyone on the team can just be a point guard? In one thread it was Dhantay Jones, now it is Mike Dunleavy. Guys, if finding a quality pg to run a team were this easy then no one would ever be in need. You need to be able to run pick and roll, defend it, handle the ball against the quickest defenders, make smart decisions, pass well and defend the position. That is a lot of stuff to ask which makes finding a pg extremely tough. If it were as easy as moving a two guard or forward over we would have solved this issue a long time ago. Unfortunately it is not that easy.

              And no, players don't go from starters on good teams to garbage on bad teams like you suggest about Jones and Rush. Sure, being on a good team may be able to mask certain weaknesses, but the two guard position is one of the major reasons why we are a bad team. The reason they don't preform well isn't because of the team they are on, it is because at this point in time they are not very good players.

              You also really think Murphy is a SF? Seriously? I would love to see Murphy match up against the Paul Pierces of the world on defense. Do you have any idea how bad we would get tourched by the Carmelo Anthony's? Even someone like Loul Deng would kill Troy Murphy. Murphy is a terrible defender at any position, but he would get badly exposed at SF.
              No I'm not pinning all of the teams problems on O'Brien. I'm just saying that with the right coach this team would have the talent in the current central division if Lebron leaves. I still don't think the team would win more than 45-47 games, and would in no way be talented enough to compete in the playoffs.

              The thing about PG's is that PG's of similar talent as Ford tend to fit better in different systems. They don't have the skill to overcome a bad match, but within the right system they can excel.

              The idea of Dunleavy play the point position is not a new idea, and has been thrown around for as long as he has been on the Pacers. I believe there were times before his injury that he in fact did play the point position. I was never trying to suggest that Dunleavy would be a quality point player, but he would defiantly be an acceptable back-up.

              I don't know who you were arguing about SG's, but I'm pretty sure I said the same thing as you. we don't have anyone who is really a quality starter, and they may APPEAR to be better on a better team than they really are for the exact reason you pointed out.

              That is exactly Murphy's problem he is a SF in a PF's body. He can't realistically play the SF position because he would be demolished by all competition, but he can play like a SF at the PF position. So when he is on the floor it is no different than having a SF playing the PF position.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Current Pacers roster

                The current Pacer roster wouldn't win 20 games.

                They do not currently have a PG. Ford will not play again for us. AJ can't walk.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Current Pacers roster

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  The current Pacer roster wouldn't win 20 games.

                  They do not currently have a PG. Ford will not play again for us. AJ can't walk.
                  i would bet pacer tickets on that statement. healthy, this team will win 35 im certain.

                  as is i could see 28-42 wins this season.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Current Pacers roster

                    Our current lineup is:

                    PG: Ford/Price(injured)
                    SG: Rush/George/Jones
                    SF: Granger/Dunleavy
                    PF: Murphy/Hansbrough(still trying to get healthy)/McRoberts
                    C: Hibbert/Foster/Jones

                    That is the same lineup as last year minus Watson and Head and adding George. The bench could be better if Hansbrough and Price are healthy. If Stephenson and Rolle make the team we will have added depth. If we are forced to play with Ford at the point than I am worried about our offense. I don't really want Murphy here either, but even if Hansbrough is healthy Murphy would stil need to start just because of his experience. With this current lineup I would give us 30-40 wins next year and somewhere between the 10th and the 14th pick in the lottery.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Current Pacers roster

                      at least draft day will be exciting next year if we stink again plus we have expirings hopefully we can sign a player if we hang on to them so it's not all doom and gloom....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Current Pacers roster

                        With our current coach, if we get all of our players healthy, it would surprse me if our record is any better than 37-45. If, as always seems to be the case, we have health issues, especially on the interior, and no play from our young rebounders, our threes might get us 34-48 or so.

                        Different coach who maximizes the talent actually available on the roster, probably 1st year 40-42 if not healthy, 45-37 if healthy. Ford is a better pg than he is allowed to show in the O'B way. After developing the young guys for a year, this roster could be in the 50+ win territory with a good coach (Byron Scott is still available, isn't he?).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Current Pacers roster

                          Originally posted by joeyd
                          My outlook hasn't changed much from this time last year. Basically the same team.
                          Be careful saying that. The same players aren't the same team as time passes.

                          Some guys are improving and some are declining. Foster, much as I like him, hasn't got much left. Even if he is healthy and able to play, he won't be as good as in the past. Other guys will be better. I think the preponderance of change from last year will be improvement if, as you say, Hansbrough is healthy, Dunleavy can do something, Hibbert plays 35+ minutes a game and Granger stays on the floor for 82 games.


                          As to the OP, it is too soon to think in terms of standing pat with this roster.


                          .
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Current Pacers roster

                            Keep in mind, In Golden State Mike Dunleavy ran the point at times. Although it wouldn't work in all situations, he might be able to come in and run the point for a few minutes. Again, not ideal but just a thought..
                            Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Current Pacers roster

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              Hibbert plays 35+ minutes a game
                              I am not hopeful about Hibbert ever being able to play that many minutes. Even in college, Roy never averaged more than 26.4 minutes per game. In fact, over the last 34 games last season, Roy played 918 minutes, compared to the 894 minutes he played in 34 games as a senior. Over the last 37 games last year, he played 990 minutes vs. the 975 minutes he played in 37 games as a junior.

                              My expectation is that Roy will max out at about 30 minutes a game during his career, owing to a combination of three factors: conditioning issues, foul issues, and matchup problems. The first two he should (hopefully) be able to overcome to a degree, but the third will probably be an issue throughout his career, just as it was with Smits (who never averaged more than 30 minutes a night).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Current Pacers roster

                                Good call, count.

                                Let me change it to, "Hibbert being able to play optimum minutes"


                                .
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X