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?

    Between Jason Thompson and Landry, my impression from what I have gleamed on Kings Forums.....if either could be had....it would be Jason Thompson.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Who do you want at PF?

      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.

      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.
        I would say no.

        Rush is a guy that I have some issues with, and was willing to trade if it meant getting a Collison-type player, but...

        The Collison deal really changes where he fits with the team, IMO. He becomes less important, and therefore, much more useful. I still want to see him be more aggressive offensively, but I like him as a long term fit for the Pacers now, because he can be solid at both ends, and I think he'll be cheap.

        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.

        Unless we could just make some kind of really big move that's going to catapult us towards 50 wins (which I can't even imagine), I'm OK with going into the season playing a combination of McBob, 4-out Small Ball (Granger/Posey/George), and (hopefully) Hansbrough.

        I'd also like to see Rolle get a taste from time-to-time. I like the "theory" of Rolle - a long, athletic shotblocker that can step out on the floor and hit midrange and has a decent post game - even as I recognize that it's doubtful he'll ever achieve great heights.

        I wouldn't use Foster at PF, because I think he's more valuable in his 20 minutes mostly playing backup C. Roy remains our only real low post player, so when he's off the floor, I want Jeff out there. He does not score, but I don't agree that he doesn't give us anything offensively. On the contrary, he creates more possessions with his work on the glass and he is very good in the high post as a passer/screener.

        I'd like to see us thin out the wing position, but I would put Paul George and Brandon Rush as off limits unless it just knocks our socks off.
        Last edited by count55; 08-13-2010, 03:32 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Who do you want at PF?

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          I would say no.

          Rush is a guy that I have some issues with, and was willing to trade if it meant getting a Collison-type player, but...

          The Collison deal really changes where he fits with the team, IMO. He becomes less important, and therefore, much more useful. I still want to see him be more aggressive offensively, but I like him as a long term fit for the Pacers now, because he can be solid at both ends, and I think he'll be cheap.

          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.

          Unless we could just make some kind of really big move that's going to catapult us towards 50 wins (which I can't even imagine), I'm OK with going into the season playing a combination of McBob, 4-out Small Ball (Granger/Posey/George), and (hopefully) Hansbrough.

          I'd also like to see Rolle get a taste from time-to-time. I like the "theory" of Rolle - a long, athletic shotblocker that can step out on the floor and hit midrange and has a decent post game - even as I recognize that it's doubtful he'll ever achieve great heights.

          I wouldn't use Foster at PF, because I think he's more valuable in his 20 minutes mostly playing backup C. Roy remains our only real low post player, so when he's off the floor, I watch Jeff out there. He does not score, but I don't agree that he doesn't give us anything offensively. On the contrary, he creates more possessions with his work on the glass and he is very good in the high post as a passer/screener.

          I'd like to see us thin out the wing position, but I would put Paul George and Brandon Rush as off limits unless it just knocks our socks off.
          I couldn't agree more.....

          Comment


          • Re: Who do you want at PF?

            I would like to have a David West-type player. I love his tenacity and his eagerness to go after the rebounds.

            Comment


            • Re: Who do you want at PF?

              I stated I'd put Rush in a trade for Landry, and I'd do the same for Jason Thompson. The reasoning I gave I see Rush & Evans would be a good backcourt for the Kings. I have never seen Rush as the answer to the SG, and I have felt for quite sometime Bird feels the same and would be willing to move Rush if he could get what he wants back in return. My impression from the draft was George is to be Rush's replacement, and if not George then Stephenson now that Collison has been acquired to be the PG of the future. The Pacers have too many players who can play SG not to be able to trade Rush. Rush is a popular player, but if he can bring in a PF for the future then do it. I'm not sure Bird can pull another rabbit out of his hat, but GO for it Bird.

              Comment


              • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                The way Rush has played the last 2 years you should know by the first month if he has become more decisive with the ball. Either way I don't think we have to be in any rush to trade him. I mean its not like his value is going to get any worse.

                Comment


                • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                  what would you guys think about bringing in Nene from denver. im not supporting it one way or the other but i was reading somewhere he could be an option. dont know any details regarding his salary and yrs remaining either.

                  seems risky to me but i think posey should net us some value. i dont see how the pacers can really intend on keeping him with the gluttony of wings we have and the focus on youth.

                  i would like to see what the pacers have in hansbrough before making any blockbuster deal of sorts.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    I stated I'd put Rush in a trade for Landry, and I'd do the same for Jason Thompson. The reasoning I gave I see Rush & Evans would be a good backcourt for the Kings. I have never seen Rush as the answer to the SG, and I have felt for quite sometime Bird feels the same and would be willing to move Rush if he could get what he wants back in return. My impression from the draft was George is to be Rush's replacement, and if not George then Stephenson now that Collison has been acquired to be the PG of the future. The Pacers have too many players who can play SG not to be able to trade Rush. Rush is a popular player, but if he can bring in a PF for the future then do it. I'm not sure Bird can pull another rabbit out of his hat, but GO for it Bird.
                    I agree with you on Thompson who would be a great fit.I don't understand why everybody is so high on Landry.He is a undersized PF, who has trouble contesting shots and is a horrible rebounder.I'm assuming you guys like him because he is a terriffic offensive player.I just think if your going to throw 8-10 million at a starting pf to play for us he has to fit with Hibbert or you have to consider moving Hibbert for a center that balances Landry out.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                      Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post
                      Actually, Varejao makes an average of 8 million for the next four seasons (including this upcoming one), following which there's a 50% guarantee on a final year's salary of about 9.7 million. That's definitely a commitment to make considering the fact that the Pacers will have to make decisions on what to do in terms of extensions for Hibbert, Rush, Collison, and potentially Hansbrough. I'd love to have Varejao for the reasons I mentioned, but I understand if there's any constraints in acquiring him.
                      Yeah, I meant 5, it was a typo. That was exactly my point, that the length of the contract is a plus. If he had only 1 or 2 years left on his contract, he'd need to be extended and his asking price would be higher. As it is, I don't think his contract is large enough to tie the Pacers hands in the short term - adding another quality player next off-season, negotiating the extensions - or in the long term. If you add another PF, his contract is still fair for a high quality 3rd big/6th man - due to his ability to play both positions, he can eat all those backup minutes, meaning you'll never be paying for less than 25mpg or so. If, say, you trade Hibbert for an All-NBA PF, he can be the center. If he remains the starter at the 4, it's an excellent price. So, to me the length of the contract is what makes him more interesting.

                      ----------------------

                      The only potential problem would be the spacing problems created by having him and Hibbert playing together on the offensive end.

                      I do think that you can pair Hibbert with a player without a ranged shot or with a garbage man as long as that player is quick, mobile and good enough as a cutter to play from the 13-17 out. Someone who can get to the rim quickly from that distance and has good enough hands and touch to finish at the rim if their man helps off of them. Also, play the pick'n'roll well and be comfortable passing the ball from the high post.

                      So, a guy who can't move well enough, like Okafor, would be a bad fit. A guy who can move but does have bad touch, like Foster, would be a bad fit. But a guy like Varejao, who can do all the above things, would be a good fit, even if he doesnt' have a jump-shot/shot-creation skills.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        what would you guys think about bringing in Nene from denver. im not supporting it one way or the other but i was reading somewhere he could be an option. dont know any details regarding his salary and yrs remaining either.

                        seems risky to me but i think posey should net us some value. i dont see how the pacers can really intend on keeping him with the gluttony of wings we have and the focus on youth.

                        i would like to see what the pacers have in hansbrough before making any blockbuster deal of sorts.
                        I'd have to say nay-nay to Nene.

                        As for Posey, I believe that he slots in ahead of most of the wings that we currently have on the roster. That is the impression that Bird/Morway gave in their recent statements, and you also have to recall that Posey can hit the perimeter shot as well as do a great job of defending the perimeter.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                          Posey isn't a PF. Period. Anybody that was upset that Dahntay Jones played PF (which should be any Pacer fan) would know this.

                          He shouldn't even be a legit wing option. Despite the fact that the wing is his only position, he should be behind Granger, George, Rush, and Stephenson on the depth chart.

                          I don't care if he plays ahead of Dunleavy or Dahntay as long as they don't take time from the other four.
                          Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 08-14-2010, 01:29 AM.
                          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                          -Lance Stephenson

                          Comment


                          • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                            I still have the old man crush on Josh Smith from ATL. If we do not make any more moves this summer I'd say McBob unless Tyler is completely healthy.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                              One bright side to this was the during the press conference to announce the trade, where Bird mentioned Murphy being a big that could stretch the floor, but them now looking for more of a low post presence at the 4 spot

                              Comment


                              • Re: Who do you want at PF?

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                                As many have mentioned here, I want to be in a position to make a serious push to make a MAX Offer to Horford next offseason. Getting a PF with a long-term contract will hinder that. At this moment, I do not believe that there is a PF out there that is likely available THIS season that will fit the "Player X" mold that we are looking for that is strong enough to play next to Hansbrough at Center while being athletic enough to play next to Hibbert at the PF spot. Even if there is a strong liklihood that the Hawks will match a MAX Offer that we throw at Horford, I want to at least say that we tried and failed rather then not at all.

                                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..

                                .
                                Last edited by Kemo; 08-14-2010, 03:44 AM.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X