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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • #31
    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    O'Brien will not donate playing time to younger players for the sake of their development. "I want to develop the young guys but I'm not developing anybody to the point that it might cost us a game," he said. " … We can talk about rebuilding all we want. My job is to win basketball games and develop talent. But the top priority is to win basketball games."

    This is always my thinking. I want the young guys to be as good as they can be as fast as they can be... BUT not if it means losing. If we have a better option then we need to go with that. This won't be the same team next year and the roster will look a lot less cluttered... in favor of the talent we may or may not have
    Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

    Passion. Pride. Pacers.

    It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
    #31 & Only

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I been saying for years now that they should be developing the guys by giving them playing time, we know about the three years rebuilding procces, why not make it two years? at this moment I don't care about winning but give the young guys enough
      Playing time so they can help the team next year.

      By the way I don't want to see Posey,Foster,Solo and Dun taking minutes from those guys either, maybe a max of 15 min unless somebody gets hurt.
      I completely disagree with you! Why? For one, the object of playing the game is to win.

      Two, you can give young guys all the time in the world and they still won't develop much. So the reason you don't sacrifice now for next year is you could still be in the same spot you were in last year.

      That's one reason why young players have to earn more playing time.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        My take on winning and losing is this, what's the differential?

        I've been of the mind, it's almost neglible with the recent history of the Pacers. So if you play young guys you win 35, but if you play Vets you win well 35, thats when I have a beef.

        Goes back to what BillS was saying it depends who your vets are and who your youngsters are.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            Originally posted by dohman View Post
            Sure lets acquire several top 5 picks and potentially the best player in the nba and see how that works out.
            We could of done that if when we said we were rebuliding we tanked at the end of those seasons. Instead of going on winning streaks and going from the 5 spot to the 13pick.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              I's like to make a related point:


              Looking at Jose Slaughter's excellent Front Page contribution, I see the list of All-Time Pacers listed by seasons played.

              How many Pacers ever have played in 10 or more seasons? The answer is 5. (Miller, Smits, Fleming, Foster and Davis).

              How many Pacers have played in only one single season? The answer is a whopping 138. This is not based on O'Brien's supposed mishandling of rookies, nor just the years of Larry "I Don't Play Rookies" Brown. The whole history of the franchise shows clearly that one-and-done is the usual pattern. Just defining "One" as a single year gets you more than half of all Pacers in history. If you define them as one contract, then you've got nearly the total. Players with a history of five or more years with the Pacers is still a very small number of 32, and that includes guys like Greg Dreiling who had nothing much to develop, and guys like Bender who couldn't even make it onto the court.

              So, what I'm saying is, just because you've got a young player on the roster doesn't mean you've got talent worth developing. The enthusiasm some feel right now about Magnum Rolle is nothing else than the enthusiasm that somebody in Atlanta felt for Solomon Jones when he was drafted there.

              Most players wash out. There just aren't enough minutes to go around. Developing a player who's not going to be here in three years is not smart.
              You haven't said it but I think the implication of your post is that most of the one & done players were rookies or very young players who flopped out. While I am certain there is a good number of those, probably even a majority (I'm not going to take the time to count) there still are a number of those players who were also players on one year contracts or brought over at the end of their contract via trade.

              Just think about last season we had Luther Head, Earl Watson both of whom were here for only one season and both were experianced players.

              In fact you really could make an argument knowing that Earl had zero future on the team that by the end of the season he should have been splitting min. with A.J.

              In fact I'm trying to remember the last rookie that we drafted and either didn't give them a couple of seasons before cutting ties with them or cut them prior to their first season. I honestly can't remember right now.


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

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.
                OK, but to make my point let me take your logical point and take it to the extreme. maybe the pacers should have traded away Reggie, Rik, Dale, Jalen in 1997, gone young built for the future. Wouldn't the team have been better in 2001, 2002 if they had traded the players in their prime. maybe the 2004 brawl and such never would have happened, maybe we would have won the championship in 2005. Hindsight is great, but you also have to think of now.

                It goes back to the value of winning a game. Is there any value for the pacers winning 36 games vs 22 games for a given season. The argument has been made that the pacers should have bottomed out the past three seasons, win 22, 20, 23 games - why not they didn't make the playoffs anyway - surely they would have gotten higher draft picks along the way and wouldn't they be in better position, wouldn't they maybe be the Thunder of the eastern conference? Maybe but how do you know ehn to bottom out, when to trade the vets, when to play the youngsters.

                I guess my overall point is - deciding all this is not as easy as it might first seem. But sure it is easy to look back two or three years and say should have. And I guess that is when I get frustrated when many of you look back three years and say in hindsights what now seems obvious, but at the time it was anything but obvious.
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-14-2010, 11:33 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  As long as George, Price, Collison (Yes, he counts as a young guy), Josh, Hansbrough, and Roy (Also, still a young guy) are given a chance to produce I have no problem with it. Even won't have a problem if sometimes we see guys like Tyler and Paul barely sniff the court in certain games. I just want them to get a chance to play.

                  Not really sure Posey has shown me anything yet that shows he deserves minutes...

                  I'm less concerned about Rush getting minutes even though I like his D, it's not a good sign for him that his option has not been picked up.


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    Really if you think about it, the "young guys" are dialed in mostly.

                    Looks like DC, Roy, JMac, AJ, and Paul George are all going to get a steady diet of minutes to start the season. If Hansbrough gets up to speed, he'll be on that list too. Thats 3 starters and 6 guys out of your rotation who are young or inexperienced. Really not much more I could ask at this point.

                    It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.

                    Speaking of the future, I'd guess Dunleavy is gone after this year, Posey and Jeff gone or not rotation guys. This is really the year where the young guys will start to take over the team. If this team could go .500 and get the 8th seed it's be a really huge step, not mandatory mind you, but a big step if it happens.

                    Side note, I don't know either where BRush fits in this.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.
                      I know I had fun.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        My take on winning and losing is this, what's the differential?

                        I've been of the mind, it's almost neglible with the recent history of the Pacers. So if you play young guys you win 35, but if you play Vets you win well 35, thats when I have a beef.

                        Goes back to what BillS was saying it depends who your vets are and who your youngsters are.
                        OK, I think everyone would agree with you. But how do you know that before the fact. How did you know two years ago that Josh would have helped the pacers win as much as a veteran would have.

                        How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.

                        Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          Really if you think about it, the "young guys" are dialed in mostly.

                          Looks like DC, Roy, JMac, AJ, and Paul George are all going to get a steady diet of minutes to start the season. If Hansbrough gets up to speed, he'll be on that list too. Thats 3 starters and 6 guys out of your rotation who are young or inexperienced. Really not much more I could ask at this point.

                          It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.

                          Speaking of the future, I'd guess Dunleavy is gone after this year, Posey and Jeff gone or not rotation guys. This is really the year where the young guys will start to take over the team. If this team could go .500 and get the 8th seed it's be a really huge step, not mandatory mind you, but a big step if it happens.

                          Side note, I don't know either where BRush fits in this.
                          If I were Larry and I had my absolute pie in the sky view of this team, by the end of this year you'd be seeing George playing 20+ a night in preparation for starting at the 2 next year. Rush becomes your wing off the bench or a spot starter against elite wing scorers.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            Originally posted by Peck
                            I'm trying to remember the last rookie that we drafted and either didn't give them a couple of seasons before cutting ties with them or cut them prior to their first season.

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              James White?
                              Just to pick nits, we technically traded for James White


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                                Response to UB: look if we had a team that was competing for playoffs and a championship every year I wouldn't be pushing the coach to play the young guys that much, the difference is that this is a team in rebuilding mode and is in the three years rebuilding process, do you really think that guys like Rasho that knew since the beginning that they were not coming back were playing as hard as they can? Were they following JOB's plans or they were jacking up stats to get a job somewhere else? How they care about the winning attitude you guys keep talking about when they know the won't be back?

                                I rather have the young guys that have something to probe and know that they could be part of the future playing that a bunch of old one year rental players.
                                Last edited by vnzla81; 10-14-2010, 11:47 AM.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X