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

Who do you want at PF?

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

  • Re: Who do you want at PF?

    Realistically, if we are looking at getting a somewhat solid "Long-term" PF this season.....we're not going to get much with an Expiring Contract. I'd suspect ( as some here has suggested ) that we'd be looking at an Expiring Contract ( I assume Ford but would likely be Dunleavy + Solo ) + Prospect ( likely BRush ) would be the best offer that we could make. But as count55 suggested, I'd prefer to keep BRush just to see how well he does with a real PG that can help alleviate some of the scoring pressure.

    Honestly, I'd rather just waive Solo and go into the season with what we have while waiting it out to see what ( if any ) opportunities arise. If none arise....then let Dunleavy, Ford and Foster expire then wait for the 2011 ( or the next ) Offseason ( whenever that is ) to pursue Horford. I'm in no rush for the Playoffs and although a PF/C rotation of Hibbert/Hansbrough/Foster/McRoberts/Rolle with Granger/George filling in at times with some PF minutes isn't Playoff caliber.....I'd prefer to continue to exercise patience to see what happens and ( most importantly ) what we have.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Who do you want at PF?

      Originally posted by Kemo View Post
      I really think the Pacer's front office are gonna be very weary of offering anyone big money at this point in time..

      You have to stop and think for a moment , Let's say Hibbert , George , Stephenson , Rush and Rolle , ALL reach their potential before their rookie contracts are up .. and this is not even taking into consideration Collison .. whom by all accounts , will probably end up commanding a sizable contract himself.. And Hansbrough is a big question mark right now , but if he becomes as dominant as he was in college , there's even more money that will be going out to pay him...

      Then what??

      Even if 2 out of the 6 guys above reach their potential , how in holy hell will they be able to be paid the kind of money/contract that they will have played their way into?

      Those are things that must be taken into consideration. Otherwise we will end up losing them to other teams that WILL pay them what they deserve.

      I really think Collison, Hibbert will most definitely pan out and become all stars eventually .. I definitely see the potential in the rest of the guys to become very good..

      .
      One way or another, I think that we will be pursuing ( either through trade or FA ) a Starting Caliber PF that will command a sizeable contract. Even if we luck out and get a young PF that pans out ( for example, Jason Thompson ), at some point we're going to be paying for him at some point as well.

      IMHO.....no matter how you look at it....starting caliber Players cost $$$.
      Last edited by CableKC; 08-14-2010, 04:32 AM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Who do you want at PF?

        Originally posted by Kemo View Post
        I really think the Pacer's front office are gonna be very weary of offering anyone big money at this point in time..

        You have to stop and think for a moment , Let's say Hibbert , George , Stephenson , Rush and Rolle , ALL reach their potential before their rookie contracts are up .. and this is not even taking into consideration Collison .. whom by all accounts , will probably end up commanding a sizable contract himself.. And Hansbrough is a big question mark right now , but if he becomes as dominant as he was in college , there's even more money that will be going out to pay him...

        Then what??

        Even if 2 out of the 6 guys above reach their potential , how in holy hell will they be able to be paid the kind of money/contract that they will have played their way into?

        Those are things that must be taken into consideration. Otherwise we will end up losing them to other teams that WILL pay them what they deserve.

        I really think Collison, Hibbert will most definitely pan out and become all stars eventually .. I definitely see the potential in the rest of the guys to become very good..

        .
        They do have a crop of promising players. A good problem which is unlikely to happen is that most of the pan out as starters. Hibbert is already a starter. I think George is the only other player with that type of potential.

        I am convinced that the Rush we've seen so far is all we are going to see. McBob and AJ Price are role players. These guys are all good players who will get starts in the NBA, but there are too many weaknesses in their games and/or there is nothing particularly special about their skills. I have not seen enough of Rolle and Stephenson to make any conclusions.

        Comment


        • Re: Who do you want at PF?

          Originally posted by Kemo View Post
          I really think Collison, Hibbert will most definitely pan out and become all stars eventually .. I definitely see the potential in the rest of the guys to become very good..
          We have to wait and see. Personally I am the same gut feeling that you have.

          IN the future I see worst case scenario money wise being this:
          Granger- close to a max contract
          Hibbert - 12 to 15 mill David lee contract
          Collsion - 12 to 15 mill Tony Parker contract
          George - to early to tell but worst case 8-10 mill

          Again this is worst case scenario but that is a lot of money locked up in to 3-4 guys. Add in a pf that we spend a lot of money on next year then we may be quickly out of cash.

          Comment


          • Re: Who do you want at PF?

            KEVIN LOVE

            Is who I want, whether or not that is realistic is another story.

            Comment


            • Re: Who do you want at PF?

              Originally posted by ryheathco View Post
              KEVIN LOVE

              Is who I want, whether or not that is realistic is another story.
              Now that a Kevin Love and Al Jefferson combo doesn't exist, I couldn't think of a worse defensive tandem than Love and Roy Hibbert.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                I think Battier would be great at the 4 next season. I believe he's a free agent after the season, but I'm not sure if he is restricted or not.

                Comment


                • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  Now that a Kevin Love and Al Jefferson combo doesn't exist, I couldn't think of a worse defensive tandem than Love and Roy Hibbert.
                  Murphy/Lopez.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    Murphy/Lopez.
                    Lopez is at least a good defender and mobile.

                    As for the PF, yea I like Varejao. Bird Man wouldn't be too bad either. I'd like a defensive minded PF next to Hibbert. A young Foster would be good too.
                    Last edited by Sookie; 08-14-2010, 02:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                      a healthy Tyler Hansbrough

                      Comment


                      • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        Now that a Kevin Love and Al Jefferson combo doesn't exist, I couldn't think of a worse defensive tandem than Love and Roy Hibbert.
                        Murphy/Hibbert?

                        By the way I don't want Kevin either
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          Lopez is at least a good defender and mobile.
                          Robin yes, Brooke no. I think Hibbert has a slight edge on Brooke in mobility but it's a wash.


                          Originally posted by sookie
                          I'd like a defensive minded PG next to Hibbert.
                          You never know. With OB as the coach you might yet your wish .


                          I want to see Tyler and Josh next to Hibbert. If we look to get somebody, they have to shore up one of our weaknesses; rebounding and defense. There are only one/two players suggested so far that would do that.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I'd be interested in Thompson. Is it worth giving Rush up for him?

                            I hate losing that kind of perimeter defense, but with Paul George and Lance Stephenson around, we have a lot of looks at the 2 position, and George might not be a slouch defensively himself one day. Probably not as good as Brandon, but decent.
                            Thompson might be the ideal fit. And I'd give up Rush for him, but the Kings may see more value/established productivity in a healthy Dunleavy.

                            Because Hansbrough may be the answer next to Hibbert, because he likes to mix it up and can score but the injuries have us waiting until this season to find out more...

                            And because McRoberts may be the answer next to Hibbert, because he is maybe our most versatile player but hasn't had to opportunity to show that he can produce consistently....

                            Thompson could come in at a similar point in his career to both, and you settle it with the 3 competing for minutes all season. At the end of the year, the dust has settled and you have your rotation, with who fits best with Hibbert being a deciding factor.

                            If McRoberts or Hansbrough end up the winner, Thompson has the size to be a solid back-up to Roy.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              To be honest, I'm not in a huge hurry to fill the 4. It certainly needs to be addressed, but I'm not sure why it has to happen this summer. The only thing I think is imperative for this summer is to get rid of TJ.

                              I'm OK with going into the season playing a combination of McBob, 4-out Small Ball (Granger/Posey/George), and (hopefully) Hansbrough.
                              Agreed 100%.

                              We can be patient. See if Tyler is healthy, and if he is capable if filling that spot long-term. Or if McRoberts is part of the answer there.

                              Play the core youngsters (sorry Solomon). See how they develop.
                              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                              - Jimmy Buffett

                              Comment


                              • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                                Originally posted by Doug View Post
                                Agreed 100%.

                                We can be patient. See if Tyler is healthy, and if he is capable if filling that spot long-term. Or if McRoberts is part of the answer there.

                                Play the core youngsters (sorry Solomon). See how they develop.
                                This is where I'm at as well, unless we can pick up a future stud.

                                If we CAN pick up a future stud, it's worth doing just to stockpile the talent and hopefully spend it in a KG-like trade.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X