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

ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

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

  • #31
    Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

    I kind of agree with what Buck was saying.

    I think this team has had a very poor mix of talent. It has not been terrible talent, but just a terrible mix. It is hard to get a team of misfits to gel. JOB has adjusted his "system" to the strengths of the veterans up to this point. Our veterans have been highly overpaid for what they are and none of them have played a lick of defense. Ford, Dunleavy and Murphy (and Granger) have all been much better offensive players than defensive players over the years. Increasing the tempo plays into those players hands. We did this back when Dunleavy was playing much better, Murphy has been consistent with what he brings, and Ford has been extremely inconsistent. Our veterans have really let us down in one form or another, but we have really not focused on our defense for several years now. In the philosophy of our system, we have over-achieved. Our talent is not conducive to slowing it down as if we were playing playoff basketball. We had to outscore teams to win games. We knew this. The actual talent on our team IMO has been bottom five talent for several years. Each of the individuals would do a great job in a different role on another team. Ford, Dunleavy and Murphy are perfect bench players that get solid minutes and don't hurt their team. As starters, their talents are not good enough to win a lot of NBA games. I think JOB has done a good job adjusting to those players. Unfortunately, I think he was adjusting his system to all the wrong players and giving inappropriate minutes to certain individuals. That is the conundrum we have had. We win a few more games with our veterans, but those veterans were clearly not enough for us to be successful long-term. We won more games than we should have the last two or three years. Our team was that bad.

    Our focus this year should be different. From the players we prioritize, to the system being run. There needs to be some adjustments to what we are asking our players to do. If JOB changes his rotations and system to cater to our future, this is the year for him to do that. If he refuses, he will lose his job early in the season IMO.

    As to Buck's point, given our talent the last several years, why would these "experts" predict much from the talented backups we have been starting? People have *****ed about not getting a better draft pick, so why are their opinions so much different than the reality of our team the last several years? I hate Broussard. He is brutal. I don't care for Hollinger, because he interprets basketball entirely based on his PER. If I thought the guy could watch a game and find a matchup problem, I would respect him much more. Statistics are aides and not the whole game.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

      Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
      So in one thread we go from 7th or 8th place in the Eastern playoff hunt to now bottom 5 in this one?


      We have been a bottom 5 talent team for a couple consecutive years. So we can't fault Hollinger for calling it like he sees it.

      As a fanbase we tend to be Pollyanna. People on Indy cornrows have predicted 6-7 seed every single season. More hopeful than logical.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        Other options at PF are Granger, Tyler and Magnum. I fully expect Granger to put so
        I have seen alot of people throw out Granger as an option to play power forward. Are you thinking he should start at the 4? If so who would start at the 3?
        we will be known forever by the tracks we leave

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

          Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
          I don't care for Hollinger, because he interprets basketball entirely based on his PER. If I thought the guy could watch a game and find a matchup problem, I would respect him much more. Statistics are aides and not the whole game.
          Hollinger doesn't have time to watch basketball games. He's too busy trying to work up a new formula to support his latest crackpot theory. The game itself doesn't matter, its only a way to fill up a boxscore so that he can test his various looney theories.

          I just can't decide if Hollinger is that stupid, or if he's just nuts. Either way, I blame ESPN for keeping him employed and putting his garbage on what is being touted as a "legitimate" news site.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

            Originally posted by mmpfm1 View Post
            I have seen alot of people throw out Granger as an option to play power forward. Are you thinking he should start at the 4? If so who would start at the 3?
            Look around the NBA. There is no "3" and there is no "4" anymore. Just two interchangeable forwards and a single-post.

            But if you insist on using the old terminology, Dunleavy and Posey are probably going to battle for the other forward position, and in a season or two, Paul George should develop into being that player.

            On the rare occasions that a Dunleavy-Granger, Posey-Granger, Granger-George frontcourt is undersized (and it won't happen very often) at the defensive end of the court, then you can bring in Tyler.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

              Originally posted by aaronb View Post
              As a fanbase we tend to be Pollyanna. People on Indy cornrows have predicted 6-7 seed every single season. More hopeful than logical.
              Two years ago, the consensus preseason prediction on here was about 44 wins. Of the 90 or so predictions, less than ten of us picked the team to be under 0.500. TJ Ford was the "answer" back then.

              Three years ago, it was simlar.

              Last year, the PD poll was more of a reality-based forecast. Sure there were some that picked win totals in the upper-forties. There may have even been a couple of 50+ win totals, but the consensus was finally closer to sub-0.500 (and was probably still too high given our awful talent level last season.)

              I can get into the idea that

              Collison - Price
              Rush - TBD
              Dunleavy - Posey
              Granger - Tyler
              Hibbert - Rolle

              could be a #6 or #7 seed, slightly above 0.500.

              (Somebody in the consensus top-six right now won't end up there. I think it might be Chicago.)

              At the same time,

              Ford - Collison
              Dunleavy - Rush
              Granger - Posey
              Foster - Tyler
              Hibbert - TBD

              is a 30-win team.

              We've got to admit that its easy for the national media to look at our awful on-paper roster and think that is our best lineup because of name recognition. Just as it was easy to look at Murphy's stats and assume that he had to be contributing something positive with all those points and rebounds even though he wasn't.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                Hollinger doesn't have time to watch basketball games.
                Except, you know, for the hundreds of games he watches every year.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  Am I the only person who likes Hollinger?
                  Thats not in his immediate family?

                  Yep

                  I freakin cant stand the guy, he annoys me the way Reggie annoyed Spike

                  He has got a woody for putting down the Pacers


                  Seriously dude (Hollinger) sucks a dead mans blls
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                    Originally posted by binarysolo View Post
                    Except, you know, for the hundreds of games he watches every year.
                    Did you leave out the green font?

                    If he even watched 10 games a season, he'd realize just how stupid he makes himself appear with his math-nerd approach to analyzing box scores.

                    They should refer to him as a boxscore analyst, not a basketball analyst.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                      Originally posted by mmpfm1 View Post
                      I have seen alot of people throw out Granger as an option to play power forward. Are you thinking he should start at the 4? If so who would start at the 3?
                      Plainly, the starting 3 would be McRoberts, who I am sure has transformed himself into a 40% shooter from beyond the arc, thereby completing his transformation, from being a potential solution as a quick 4 with energy, passing skills, and on the ball defense, to the perimeter player O'B wants him to be.

                      No, Granger should not be considered the starting 4 IMO. He might go against 4's within the flow of the offense, but to put him there for significant minutes is asking for trouble physically.

                      The lineup should be 1 - Collison, 2 - Rush, 3 - Granger, 4 - McRoberts (given what we know about Foster still not being allowed contact in his workouts, and the same with Hansbrough coupled with his not being NBA ready due to not having played basketball in many months now), 5 - Hibbert.

                      My guess is that we WILL see 1 - Collison, 2 - Rush, 3 - Dunleavy (assuming he is healthy and in a better frame of mind knowing freedom is only a season away), 4 - Granger, 5 - Hibbert, or if Hansbrough is healthy Granger would shift back to 3 and Hansbrough would be at 4 despite not being ready to play due to his extended time away from the game.

                      That said, it would not surprise me to see this abomination tried at some point assuming things continue to not go very well: 1/2 - Collison, 1/2 - Ford, 3 - McRoberts, 4 - Granger, 5 - Hibbert. That would maximize dribble penetration and 3 pt potential while minimizing interior play in an attempt to create quickness mismatches and minimizing the role of the opponents bigs defensively. It won't work, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it tried at some point this season.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                        Rush will start at shooting guard.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          Did you leave out the green font?

                          If he even watched 10 games a season, he'd realize just how stupid he makes himself appear with his math-nerd approach to analyzing box scores.

                          They should refer to him as a boxscore analyst, not a basketball analyst.

                          I guess I just don't get why everyone who writes for a major media outlet has to be a target for such intense dislike.

                          Of course he doesn't know the Pacers like the diehard fanbase does. To expect that would be ridiculous -- he has to keep track of all 30 teams.

                          Of course he watches tons of games every year. He does detailed player projections for every freakin player in the league.

                          Sure, his approach is statistic-heavy. Isn't that the driving force for most player-evaluation innovations in all sports in the recent past? Darryl Morey uses a bunch of stats, he's such a nerd!!

                          Whatever. I think the guy knows what he's talking about -- I respect his opinion more than pretty much any national writer. Haters gon' hate (whatever that means) !!!!
                          Last edited by binarysolo; 08-24-2010, 11:06 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                            Originally posted by binarysolo View Post
                            I guess I just don't get why everyone who writes for a major media outlet has to be a target for such intense dislike.
                            I love Vecsey. D'Allesandro. Aldridge. The Sports Guy.

                            I think Spears and McCallum are well-connected and appreciate that they doesn't usually taint their writings with things that are unsupportable. Wojo is well-connected but I'd like him better if he kept his opinions to himself and just reported things.

                            Chad Ford knows everybody, so even though he doesn't always know what is going on on-the-court, he certainly knows what is going on off-the-court.

                            Charlie Rosen is enemies with everybody, so he's just a grouch and I don't waste my time on him. But he's usually on to something if you can get beneath the bitterness.

                            Sam Smith knows everybody, and I understand he's a good guy. But his claim-to-fame wasn't The Jordan Rules, it was all his crackpot "If I ran the NBA, here's why all the teams should trade their best players to the Bulls for nothing" Monday morning nonsense.

                            Kelly Dwyer is much funnier than even Bill Simmons, but without the ESPN brand behind him (he got screwed when ESPN acquired NBATalk.com.) There were three guys at NBATalk.com, and two of them were worth reading: Ford and Dwyer. And then there was Hollinger, the guy with a math PhD and a basketball GED.

                            So that's my, "Its not me, its Hollinger" speach.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                              Oh man, I used to love NBATalk.com - that was the best site.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: ESPN Insider: NBA Offseason Buzz: Teams 25-30

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Oh man, I used to love NBATalk.com - that was the best site.
                                Not named Pacers Digest.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X