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

Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

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

  • #31
    Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

    Dun is not a good player. No championship contending team would use Dun in their playoff rotation. Maybe he'd be useful as an 8-10 mpg player on a real quality team, but when playoff rotations shortened he'd be the first and easiest player to drop time from.

    I don't really understand why he gets so much love on this board. He has never done anything particularly good in his entire NBA career. His teams, year in and year out, are average at best, more frequently being substantially worse than average. He has never helped his team get to a playoff game.

    Dun apologists will quickly claim that it isn't his fault that he's been on bad teams, but that's clearly a hollow defense if you want to claim he's a good player. A good player who starts and/or gets 30 minutes a night for this many years gets his team into an 8 seed at least... I mean honestly, it doesn't even take a winning record to get an 8 seed in the East.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
      I look at your moniker, and can only shake my head.

      I would say that like about 13 other players, all Dunleavy and Foster have proven is that they are not the answer... alone.

      Again, you go after the 15 best players that you are capable of getting your hands on. After signing a couple of free agents and our first round pick, if we still have ample cap space left without cutting into that portion that might be intended for summer 2012, then if Dunleavy and/or Foster is the best available to us at their respective positions, then it would be wise to attempt to go after one or both of them.

      Presently, Dunleavy is playing better than MANY players on this team. We are weak in our frontcourt, but Foster is one of the better defenders we have.

      If we acquire players such that our depth would render them obsolete, or not worth the amount that would have to be paid in consideration of their position on that depth chart, then fine... let them go and never look back.

      If not, and we have room, then bring one or both back on the cheap.
      Yeah well if either of those guys are any good at all they should get MLE type deals from other teams, and that's too much.
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

        I'll take Dun ON THE CHEAP if we miraculously acquire an elite level talent or two where he can be the fifth starter or sixth man. Note, at least one elite level guy will have to be a serious defender to hide MDJ's on-ball defensive shortcomings.

        The point about the glut of players we have that can play his position is legit in this discussion. I think that makes him expendable if he returns something of value, which I'd be all for.

        Foster I'd take on a cheap short-term deal, but if he's ready to retire, go for it.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

          Most people don't notice the little things Mike does. He is skilled enough to play point guard, which is why you see him making nice passes, great vision. He has a really nice shot, sometimes it goes in, sometimes it doesn't.. what do u expect, 100% fg? He has the highest basketball IQ by far on the pacers, always making nice cuts and runs. Also gets a decent amount of rebounds for his position..because unlike other guards, when Dunleavy isn't shooting the ball, he goes for boards to help out. He is a really under-appreciated player, and it's a shame people judge him more by the amount of money he is making instead of the skills he has. Sorry he can't be the perfect all around defender, aggressive type scorer that everyone wishes he was.. he makes the most out of the abilities he was born with, and tries every game.. i'd rather pay that guy, than the bum just happy to be in the NBA.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

            I'd like to have both of them at the right price perhaps 2-3 mil per year for 2 years. We're not going to find a better backup center or wing player at that price. I keep reading about people wanting Foster to retire but I don't see why. For 2-3 mil the best you can hope for in a young backup center is another Solo. If you'd rather have Solo as the backup center then Foster then I don't think I can reason with that. If Dun thinks he can get more money elsewhere then I'd just say good luck to him. Backup wing players are a dime a dozen but centers are another issue. Both of these guys need to wait until we sign whoever we're going to as free agents. I don't think we'll know what the status of Foster and Dun will be until very near the start of training camp and that's if there's no lock out.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

              Originally posted by Mark View Post
              Dunleavy is a fine player and probably the average result of a third overall pick, maybe very slightly disappointing. It's not like the guy's Stromile Swift or something.

              I found this kind of interesting when I looked at it. I looked up all the top three picks from 2000 til now. Then I picked the most disappointing of the top three each year.

              2000- Stromile Swift (2) (or Darius Miles at 3)
              2001-Kwame Brown (1) (or Tyson Chandler at 2)
              2002- Jay Williams (2) (Dunleavy? at 3)
              2003- Darko Milicic (2)
              2004- Emeka Okafor (2)
              2005- Marvin Williams (2)
              2006- Adam Morrison (3)
              2007- Greg Oden (1)
              2008- Beasley (2)
              2009- Hasheem Thabeet (2)
              2010- Evan Turner (2) (maybe?)

              I'm just saying that Dunleavy has been a solid player for a lot of years, and is more a victim of circumstance than anything else. He's built to be a sixth man, but has never been truly played that way.

              And I definitely think Foster can still contribute, and he was actually a big contributor on some of the great pre-brawl Pacer teams. Which were as good as any in the league. Just like any other player he needs the right mix around him.
              Beasley is not a bust

              Jay Williams wasnt ethier he was a good player who just got hurt doing something stupid.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                My hope is we make the playoffs and Foster decides to retire after the season. I doubt he will, but I'm hopeful only because I'd like to see him retire w/the Pacers and not with some other team.

                As for Dunleavy, I guess it depends on two things:

                1) if he accepts the vet minimum; and,

                2) if the Pacers don't find another SF/SG whose better at moving without the ball.

                My guess is they'll work Lance Stephenson into the role at SG and let Dunleavy go at season's end. Overall, I wouldn't mind seeing Dunleavy back next season but as the 6th Man, and I certainly would mind seeing Foster return.
                Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-30-2011, 06:26 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                  I hope Jeff will just retire. I hope dunleavy is traded or let go.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                    I'll take both back in a heartbeat. If they both want to sign for 2 years $4 million, then I'll be thrilled. Jeff can sign for 10 years $20 million if he wants.

                    With Vogel coaching this team, solid veterans with wonderful leadership qualities are major assets.

                    Dynasty

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                      Am I the only one who likes Dun, and wouldn't mind him sticking around? Not to play 30+ minutes mind you, but you know..20 minutes and the occassional hilarious chat.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                        Am I the only one who likes Dun, and wouldn't mind him sticking around? Not to play 30+ minutes mind you, but you know..20 minutes and the occassional hilarious chat.
                        I certainly wouldn't be upset if he was brought back, but overall I think Dahntay and Rush can take those 20 minutes and handle them well.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                          I'd agree that Dunleavy's minutes are replaceable. However, we'd be in bad shape if Jeff was not here. Unless we get a better big next year, we'd be in bad shape next year as well if Jeff was not here. I just don't see Roy being able to turn on a switch and suddenly be a consistently great center in the next couple of months. I hope I'm wrong, but if not, it wouldn't be logical to part with Foster, whom I think would be happy with one more year at a reduced rate of compensation if he could retire a Pacer. Roy has to improve both as a physical player as well as psychologically, and has to become more of a student of the game. When he can consistently avoid picking up 2 fouls in the first 5 minutes of a game, he will have progressed quite a bit in that latter respect.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                            I think Dunleavy is severely "misunderestimated" by a lot of fans. I don't think TPTB make that mistake, so I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see him back. Less money in the deal would be good.


                            [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster

                              Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                              I think Dunleavy is severely "misunderestimated" by a lot of fans. I don't think TPTB make that mistake, so I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see him back. Less money in the deal would be good.
                              I think you are right. I said his minutes are replaceable, but when he's on, he can carry a team when the first or second option hasn't done so well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X