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

Latest caught in the web

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

  • Latest caught in the web

    Normally I don't comment on his pieces because honestly he is the web P.R. person for the Pacers. But today's little blub at the end which I have bolded just made me ill.

    We should just loan him this smilie

    Because basically that was the implication in my mind. If you disagree with this it's most likely because you are either a Tyler or Josh fanboy and well you just care about them and not the team. That's not what he said in words but in implication that what he meant, at least to me anyway.

    I make no bones about it, I like both Josh & Tyler but I also like Roy, Jeff & Solo (yes I have no real problem with S. Jones) and no I do NOT like Posey at the four.

    It's not because I don't like him as a person or that I grew up wearing either a Tar heel or a Blue Devil. Simply put I like my power forwards to protect the rim, rebound on both offensive and defensive sets, be physical & last but not least not stand in one spot outside the three point line.

    He wants us to be happy because small lineups were a big part of last years club? Really, we should be happy about anything about last season other than it ended? People use stats and numbers to justify things all of the time and yes I do it myself just like I'm going to do right now. He wants us to look at the lineup of when Danny started at the 4 last year (I wonder how many of those 5 wins came during the 5 game win streak that Murphy did not play in) which is fine. Now Bruno tell me what is our record when Tyler plays more than 20 min. a game this year? Or for that matter when Josh gets the most min. on the floor at the 4 and not either split with Posey or less than, I don't know in this case but my guess is we have won more or as many as we have lost.

    Like I said, I don't normally pay attention because I understand at the end of the day it is his job to bring you the positive outlook. But let's not throw everyone under the bus who disagree's as being fanboy's and haters.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/blog_brunner.html

    by Conrad Brunner

    There is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, at least in the world of talk radio and fan forums, about Jim O'Brien's decision to begin employing a small lineup.
    Frankly, I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. He didn't say he was going to start a small lineup every game – although he probably will on occasion when matchups dictate – but rather he would begin using that group on a more regular basis.

    To which I must say: Why all the fuss?

    The small lineup was a big option last season. In fact, the Pacers were 5-5 when they started Danny Granger at power forward with Roy Hibbert at center. That may not sound like much until you consider they were 27-45 with all other combinations.

    The only surprise is JOB waited this long to pull this particular arrow out of the quiver. He has shown admirable commitment to the McRoberts/Hibbert combination, even as both have struggled to produce.

    And here's another stat to consider: the Pacers' starting lineups have been outscored in 12 consecutive games by an average of 11 points. In that span, the starters combined to average just 60 points per game.

    It's pretty clear, then, something had to be done and going small plays to the strength of the roster -- depth and talent at the wing positions.

    Though it probably means fewer minutes for Tyler Hansbrough, the small lineup creates much greater opportunity for Paul George and maybe even Lance Stephenson.

    No matter what combination the coach uses, somebody's going to be left out and fans of that player (or players) are going to complain.

    Ultimately, all that matters is the result. And JOB has good reasons to believe the small lineup will shake the Pacers out of their offensive funk.


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

  • #2
    Re: Latest caught in the web

    LOL, no way, we need 3 more career 3 point shooters, and then we will do it. Our talent doesnt match JOB, and until it does, he wont produce, we either gotta build around the coach, or build around the players, both arent gonna work here, ever.
    "Did we learn anything?"-Jonathan Ames

    "No, but thats okay, It's a good thing to stay in the dark about things - it keeps life more interesting."- George Christopher

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Latest caught in the web

      Ultimately, all that matters is the result. And JOB has good reasons to believe the small lineup will shake the Pacers out of their offensive funk.
      ...and the builders of the Titanic thought they had good reasons to believe it was unsinkable too...
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Latest caught in the web

        Bring on small ball!

        "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Latest caught in the web

          I love how he praises Jim for sticking with Josh/Roy as if we haven't noticed when Josh started being used more like Troy Murphy and then reducing him to token starts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Latest caught in the web

            The next insightful "article" by Bruno will be the first.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Latest caught in the web

              I'll keep it brief on Josh or try to.

              Last season 09/10: Josh felt to play he had to hit the 3 to get minutes.

              Over the summer 2010: he worked on his 3 and was told they want him to shoot the 3.

              Training Camp 2010: Obie says Josh won't be judged by how he scores, but by how he does the other things.

              Dec/Jan 2011: Obie says the scoring at the PF position is very poor and they are going to go small (aka decrease in Josh's minutes)

              I mean how much longer does Josh get jerked around here.

              I'm not a fan boy in any way of Josh, if he was gone tomorrow and a more viable option was found, I'd not blink an eye. Name on the front, not the back.

              HOWEVER, you can't keep jerking around these young guys in what you expect from them, it stunts their growth adn therefore your teams development.
              Last edited by Speed; 01-05-2011, 12:35 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Latest caught in the web

                Do you really expect someone who works for the Pacers (even if it is just the web site) jump on the "Fire JOB" bandwagon?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Latest caught in the web

                  It's a shame the only person in the media being critical of things within PS&E is Mike Wells! I guess if it isn't Pacers getting in trouble, no one but the beat writer cares.

                  As far as Bruno..... Should I have expected anything else?! He's just a glorified shill for PS&E! He must be running out of positives for Jim O'Brien to bring up anything last year as a reason to get behind O'B's plan.
                  Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 01-05-2011, 01:13 PM.
                  ...Still "flying casual"
                  @roaminggnome74

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Latest caught in the web

                    There's a new in town...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Latest caught in the web

                      Bring on 'Born Ready'. Steady minutes for PG.

                      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Latest caught in the web

                        Originally posted by grace View Post
                        Do you really expect someone who works for the Pacers (even if it is just the web site) jump on the "Fire JOB" bandwagon?
                        He can't. There aren't any more open seats on that bandwagon.
                        "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


                        • #13
                          Re: Latest caught in the web

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          I'll keep it brief on Josh or try to.

                          Last season 09/10: Josh felt to play he had to hit the 3 to get minutes.

                          Over the summer 2010: he worked on his 3 and was told they want him to shoot the 3.

                          Training Camp 2010: Obie says Josh won't be judged by how he scores, but by how he does the other things.

                          Dec/Jan 2011: Obie says the scoring at the PF position is very poor and they are going to go small (aka decrease in Josh's minutes)

                          I mean how much longer does Josh get jerked around here.

                          I'm not a fan boy in any way of Josh, if he was gone tomorrow and a more viable option was found, I'd not blink an eye. Name on the front, not the back.

                          HOWEVER, you can't keep jerking around these young guys in what you expect from them, it stunts their growth adn therefore your teams development.
                          Let's break this down into offense and defense....we've beaten to death how effective they are on the offensive end ( the whole "stretch forward" debate )....but let's look at the other aspect that JO'B could gauge the Players....their effectiveness on the defensive end.

                          For both McBob and Posey:

                          Has the way that the both of them been used in the defense overall effective?

                          Whose the better overall defender?

                          Given that Posey appears to be the "preferred option", is his defense that much better then McBob's that there are legitimate reasons to play one over the other?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Latest caught in the web

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I love how he praises Jim for sticking with Josh/Roy as if we haven't noticed when Josh started being used more like Troy Murphy and then reducing him to token starts.
                            I'm hoping that JO'B is going to magically come to his senses after this little break and run everything differently; something that works best for the roster. Which would include Josh playing more naturally, getting to the rim aggressively and such. And you know, some minutes for our wings and Tyler.

                            Of course, dreams don't come true. But things might change depending to fan response, and this is the way we're doing it. We have a different team than we had last year when we ran this roster. I mean, I understand I'm delirious, but it could happen.

                            Oh yeh, and...

                            Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                            Bring on 'Born Ready'. Steady minutes for PG.

                            cosign. or QFT. I also "thanks"-ed the post.
                            witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                            Originally posted by Day-V
                            In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                            Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Latest caught in the web

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              No matter what combination the coach uses, somebody's going to be left out and fans of that player (or players) are going to complain.

                              Ultimately, all that matters is the result. And JOB has good reasons to believe the small lineup will shake the Pacers out of their offensive funk.
                              OK I guess these are the two parts that are getting the most comment.

                              I think it is very logical to assume that a smaller lineup will help the pacers offense. That makes sense. The problem will be will the improved offense offset the loss in defense and rebounding.

                              The part in bold I believe also - happens every year. The question of why isn't so and so getting any time has been going on for decades in every NBA city. I think when Conrad says fans of that player, I think he means tfans who think that player would help the team more than the player who is getting minutes
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-05-2011, 01:49 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X