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

Odd man out?

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

  • #31
    Re: Odd man out?

    I think Stephenson will be cut. He has legal issues and apparently is a horrible defensive player. Plus we are stacked at the wing. Not what id like to see, but what I expect to see.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Odd man out?

      Cant we send either Rolle or Stephenson to the D League , thereby freeing up a roster spot?
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Odd man out?

        I think it'll be one of the Jones' cut, but I can't say Rolle would shock me. It'd slightly surprise me, though.

        Then again, even though it's not a ton of money, Dahntay still has two years after this one. I guess I'd say he's safe.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Odd man out?

          A player in the D-League still counts against your 15 man roster if you retain his rights.


          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Odd man out?

            My first thought is Soloman Jones is the odd man out. There just doesn't seem to be alot of room for him at PF or C, but he'd be an "insurance policy" should Foster or Hansborough go out again.

            The next players in line, IMO, are either Dahntay Jone or James Posey. Right now, I'd say the coaching staff/mgmt are taking a "wait-and-see" approach on both players trying to gauge which player brings the stronger defensive skills to the hardwood.

            Last, I'd say TJ Ford only because no team really needs 3 PGs with a potential 4th waiting to develop.

            So, right now everything's still in flux, but my guess is unless some big trade happens between now and beginning of the season, Soloman Jones is the primary candidate on the chopping block.
            Last edited by NuffSaid; 10-12-2010, 03:31 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Odd man out?

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              I think you misunderstood me.

              Stephenson is the player I believe they are going to cut, not George, but George would be my second choice. I believe the Pacers probably recognize the liability of Stephenson due to his history, took a chance due to his scoring capabilities, and are seeing for themselves how one dimensional his play is. It wouldn't be the first time that the Pacers have cut a highly athletic scoring machine from the second round after giving them a guaranteed rookie contract, only to discover that they didn't have the remaining skills to actually play effectively in the NBA. I could be wrong, it could just be that O'Brien has told him to focus on scoring and not bother with anything else until he gets more comfortable, but I doubt that.

              I was thrilled when the Pacers drafted George because I thought he was the best available player with the most upside, and he may still be that. He at least attempts to play defense and has offensive skills, but needs lots of time to develop court awareness on both ends of the court. I just don't think the Pacers have the luxury of waiting for him to contribute, especially with O'Brien's dubious history with respect to developing young players. But, I hope the Pacers keep him for a time that they decide to bring in a coach who will teach him the game.

              No, I didn't misunderstand. I saw PG was your 2nd choice, and that was what I was referring to. Coming from you, PG being your 2nd choice, just surprised me. If Stephenson was the one cut, I can't say I would be opposed or upset.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Odd man out?

                Brad, advocating cutting George, a high 1st round pick in his first year in the NBA, is one of the most asinine comments I've ever read on a message board. Why, for any possible reason, would you maintain fringe NBA talent out of the 2nd round because the developmental player with the most potential on the entire team you drafted isn't ready to play after his very first offseason? Much less even giving him a season.

                The Pacers could cut their losses and cut either D. Jones or Posey. I'm guessing like many before me it will be Solomon Jones who has been given a fair amount of time for evaluation and will probably fall behind Rolle on the pecking order. One thing this team cannot do, under any circumstance, is eliminate talent and players with high ceilings (George), especially to maintain a fat role player in Posey when the Pacers are very much in need of more talent, as they are a fringe playoff team at best right now.

                IMO, I'd cut Posey, the possible injuries to Foster and Hans combined with the youth movement this team has undertaken gives Solo slightly more value, is the most logical choice to me. Posey is not the type of player that puts a team over the hump, I don't want to see him take away minutes from someone like George all season while Posey continues to age and grow in girth.

                BTW I don't see the Pacers not cutting George as evidence of Bird being prideful, its just absolutely the wrong thing to do, even if the guy was trying to dribble the ball off his face right now. Sit a coach right beside the guy, throw him some gametime minutes, and get him ready sooner rather than later. And if thats 3 years great, if its 5 then its still absolutely worth it, this guy might very well become the most talented player on the team.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Odd man out?

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  I was thrilled when the Pacers drafted George because I thought he was the best available player with the most upside, and he may still be that. He at least attempts to play defense and has offensive skills, but needs lots of time to develop court awareness on both ends of the court. I just don't think the Pacers have the luxury of waiting for him to contribute, especially with O'Brien's dubious history with respect to developing young players. But, I hope the Pacers keep him for a time that they decide to bring in a coach who will teach him the game.
                  I feel like that's pretty short sighted.

                  They do have all the luxury in the world. The best we'll be able to do this season, realistically, is 7th in the East. We aren't winning a championship, we do not need "win now" players, and quite frankly none of our vets (Dahntay, TJ, Foster, Dun) will help us win "now." So no way would I cut a first round draft pick with the most potential on the team. Is he going to contribute this season..probably not. But you can see his talent, and he seems to have an incredible work ethic, so as much as I'm not big on the "potential" factor, you have to keep George.


                  I think it's pretty obvious who's going to go. It'll be Stephenson if he's guilty, and Solo if Stephenson isn't. But I think the Pacers are hoping to get a two for one trade with Dahntay/Rush and TJ for one player.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd man out?

                    Again, if it's a matter of skill versus financing, I'm convinced Soloman Jones is the odd man out. At worse, we plug Mangum Rolle in at PF and excellarate his development. At best, we removed the odd-man-out at PF who doesn't seem to fit into the team's future plans and let the two primary/alternate candidates - McRobert (starter) and Hansborough (reserve) - fulfil their respective roles I'm sure just about everyone knew would get the job(s) anyway long before the 2010 draft occurred.

                    I mean, let's be real here. Anyone who paid attention to roster/team salary situation had to know that Earl Watson and Luther Head weren't coming back. Dahntey has upwards of 2-years remaining on his contract (with a player-option in the 3-yr). So, if it was difficult to move Troy Murphy w/just 1-year remaining who was the 2nd-leading scoring on the team, how difficult do you think it's going to be to move Dahntey who really hasn't shown he's anywhere near being worthy of earning the $8.1M remaining on his contract as far as I'm concerned?

                    You could drop McRoberts, but you'd be giving away one of the better and more athletic PFs we have among our already young group of PFs. So, if it's just a matter of financing, you drop McRoberts who is due just over $8K on this his last year of his contract compared to Solo-Jones who stands to earn $1.5M. But if it's a matter of overall skills, I say you eat that $1.5M if you have to* and go into the season with what you've got.

                    *This all hindges on what happens w/Stephenson's legal issue.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd man out?

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      I think it's pretty obvious who's going to go. It'll be Stephenson if he's guilty, and Solo if Stephenson isn't. But I think the Pacers are hoping to get a two for one trade with Dahntay/Rush and TJ for one player.
                      I'd say you're absolutely, 100% dead on the mark! I'm sure TPTB are looking at every option including whether or not to add Posey in the trade mix, but I think they'd like to keep him only because of his NBA experience. My hope, however, is that Posey doesn't become one of those players who just sits and collects a paycheck if things aren't going so well for the Pacers in the "win" column. It would be too easy to do for a veteran player. Of course, if he believes he still has alot more to offer, he'll probably come out and put forth his best effort...I hope anyway.

                      But yeah, I think the candidates on the chopping block are pretty clear: Solo and Stephenson (pending his legal issues). I hate it for him if he is found guilty and has to do time, but if it does come to pass he did it to himself.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd man out?

                        Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                        Again, if it's a matter of skill versus financing, I'm convinced Soloman Jones is the odd man out. At worse, we plug Mangum Rolle in at PF and excellarate his development. At best, we removed the odd-man-out at PF who doesn't seem to fit into the team's future plans and let the two primary/alternate candidates - McRobert (starter) and Hansborough (reserve) - fulfil their respective roles I'm sure just about everyone knew would get the job(s) anyway long before the 2010 draft occurred.

                        I mean, let's be real here. Anyone who paid attention to roster/team salary situation had to know that Earl Watson and Luther Head weren't coming back. Dahntey has upwards of 2-years remaining on his contract (with a player-option in the 3-yr). So, if it was difficult to move Troy Murphy w/just 1-year remaining who was the 2nd-leading scoring on the team, how difficult do you think it's going to be to move Dahntey who really hasn't shown he's anywhere near being worthy of earning the $8.1M remaining on his contract as far as I'm concerned?

                        You could drop McRoberts, but you'd be giving away one of the better and more athletic PFs we have among our already young group of PFs. So, if it's just a matter of financing, you drop McRoberts who is due just over $8K on this his last year of his contract compared to Solo-Jones who stands to earn $1.5M. But if it's a matter of overall skills, I say you eat that $1.5M if you have to* and go into the season with what you've got.

                        *This all hindges on what happens w/Stephenson's legal issue.
                        Cutting Josh McRoberts makes about as much sense as cutting Paul George at this point.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd man out?

                          Looks like a 2 for 1 is the plan, but my guess is no one bites and Solo is gone b/c he's cheaper to buyout

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd man out?



                            Any new opinions with the deadline approaching?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd man out?

                              Originally posted by pwee31 View Post


                              Any new opinions with the deadline approaching?
                              My guess is still Solo or Magnum. I don't really care who it is, if it's between those two, because both are pretty much our 15th man who will rarely, if ever, see the court.

                              I'd prefer Solo, but honestly, I won't care if Magnum gets cut. Seems like a great kid, but I don't really care who our 15th man is.

                              Talent wise, however, Solo is the obvious cut IMO.
                              Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd man out?

                                I'm thinking Dahntay.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X