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

Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

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

  • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

    Originally posted by Lou Bega View Post
    Tyler is the reason a lot of people are actually attending games. Our city has embraced his play over the last month. He saved this season for the Pacers. Hansbrough is the only reason the national media is mentioning this organization.
    basically. not sure he has saved the season, but i agree that lots of people have come to the games to see him play.

    Originally posted by Lou Bega View Post
    . . . Hansbrough is the only one on the roster capable of becoming MVP of the league. His game is worth the price of admission and you can't say that about any other PACER !!!!!!!!
    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    And this is the exact type of absurdity that so riles up Seth, Mackey, and myself.
    i agree with BRWD. this is a silly thing to say. right now, there are maybe 2 guys with enough talent to be an MVP. danny and paul. maybe 3 if you include lance. but that is it. the rest of the guys, not so much.

    Comment


    • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
      basically. not sure he has saved the season, but i agree that lots of people have come to the games to see him play.





      i agree with BRWD. this is a silly thing to say. right now, there are maybe 2 guys with enough talent to be an MVP. danny and paul. maybe 3 if you include lance. but that is it. the rest of the guys, not so much.
      Everything was good here until that last sentence, Danny, PG could be MVP's and then you trow Lance?
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

        Tyler is the best player on this team over the last month. When we either draw Chicago or Boston in the playoffs Tyler will be the first player on the squad the national media mentions. He is becoming the face of the franchise!!

        Comment


        • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Everything was good here until that last sentence, Danny, PG could be MVP's and then you trow Lance?
          i understand your . but i did say talent. not current skill level. lance has a looooong way to go to develop his talent. but he does have the basic talent level to be that good. if he really works at it. that was my point. tyler or josh or roy or DC or whoever will never be good enough because they don't have the basic talent level that can be developed. but danny, paul and [maybe] lance do.

          Comment


          • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

            I would honestly take danny off the list. At maximum I believe he could be an all-NBA 3rd teamer, 2nd at abolute best. (I believe that had we won a good amount of games the year he put up 26-6-3 on great percentages he would be all-NBA of some sort) Lance is skilled but I don't see that ceiling.

            Paul is the only guy that has the potential to be all-nba firstish, which is typically an MVP candidate if he reaches his entire potential.

            He is more athletic than Danny, and can do some things in isolation situations now that Danny can't do in his 6th year in the league.

            Not that Danny isn't awesome but potential being MVP level is a bit of a stretch to say the least. If Paul reaches it then there's no problem though, because if you have one player of that caliber a second isn't necessary to surround him with a team that can compete at the highest level.

            Also this thread seems silly when the vast majority of this board is firmly on Tyler's bandwagon, and even the most skeptical members are in a wait and see mode, which is perfectly valid when you take into account the finite time that Tyler has actually been performing at this level. Let's not go and deify Tyler and have a witchhunt of anyone that isn't actively praising and worshiping everything that he does. This is coming from me, and I am not one of the aforementioned skeptics in the sense that I believe I have seen enough to at least conclude that tyler is talented enough to be the long time starter, if he is a good fit with what we are doing going forward.
            Last edited by daschysta; 03-25-2011, 10:10 AM.
            Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

            Comment


            • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              And this is the exact type of absurdity that so riles up Seth, Mackey, and myself.
              And this is when I chime in to say that your responses to them have collateral damage on the rest of us.

              Comment


              • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                Why does every thread about Tyler Hansbrough end up so polarizing? That's the most baffling thing to me. You'd think he'd be one of the parts of the team that creates the least amount of contention.


                Comment


                • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Everything was good here until that last sentence, Danny, PG could be MVP's and then you trow Lance?
                  It's the galloping and crab walk dribble. Everyone knows that to be an MVP you have to be able to do the crab walk dribble. Who else on our team can do the crab walk dribble? No one but Lance. /duh

                  Lance for MVP 2013

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    And this is when I chime in to say that your responses to them have collateral damage on the rest of us.
                    What does that even mean?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Why does every thread about Tyler Hansbrough end up so polarizing? That's the most baffling thing to me. You'd think he'd be one of the parts of the team that creates the least amount of contention.
                      just a guess, a product of the josh/tyler debate. combined with the gaping hole the pacers had at the 4 starting the season. add to that the vitriol from the JOB topic. guys get used to over stating stuff. tyler-philes see him with rose colored glasses. since they were right about tyler > josh, that means tyler is the answer to the PF need.

                      this kind of discussion/arguement will happen when a team has guys with similar levels of ability. if the pacers sign a guy like nene, clearly better than tyler, then the discussion will calm down except for the craziest of the tyler-philes. if tyler blossoms into a top 10 PF guy, the same thing happens except for the tyler haters acting like the danny haters now.

                      the arguements are bad for the same reason the pacers have a 10 man rotation. pacers have a 10 man rotation because they don't have 8 good players. when a team has guys that are clearly better than the others, they play. if the pacers had 8 guys that were clearly better than the rest, we wouldn't be arguing about it. since they don't, we are.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                        What does that even mean?
                        I think he's saying people can't be excited about a player without others dragging that player down, warranted or not.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                          But this isn't a simple fact.

                          Is the team playing better than they were during their 6 game losing streak (of which 5 were on the road)? Absolutely. That is not a question.

                          I don't think it is fair to entirely discount the first 44 games of the year but I'll play along.

                          You say it is a simple fact that the team is playing better since Tyler's insertion into the starting lineup.

                          They are 5-4 since Vogel has started Tyler.

                          They were 10-9 starting Josh.

                          The Pacers have scored 98.2 points per game and given up 100.4 in the last 9.

                          They scored 103.7 and gave up 104.1 in the 19 games before that.

                          You also say it is a simple fact that Roy is playing better since Tyler's inserstion but if we are going to discount Tyler's first stint as starter then we need to compare Roy's numbers only since Vogel was hired.

                          Roy is averaging 10.1 on 50% shooting and 7.2 rebounds in the last 9.

                          He averaged 14.9 on 48% shooting with 7.7 rebounds in the 19 games prior.

                          You and nearly everybody on PacersDigest think that it is cut and dry that this team is better with Tyler starting than with Josh. Yet the only statistics that are better are Tyler's personal numbers.

                          As cdash said, it is very similar to the Dunleavy debates. Every rational person here realizes that we were a better team with him on the floor. I can understand the people that don't think the amount that he improves the team is worthy of taking minutes from a younger guy. I am one of them. But no rational person can say that it is cut and dry that we are better team with him out of the lineup when all of the evidence is to the contrary.

                          If the argument was made that the amount of downgrade from Josh to Tyler was too minimal to be playing a guy who probably won't be here next year versus a guy who certainly will be I would understand it. I would probably even agree with it. But I have never seen that argument. I've seen the "it is cut and dry that we are a better team with Tyler starting" argument over and over. Despite every shred of evidence being to the contrary.

                          And that I do not understand.
                          But in those statistics you are including the first 2 (I think it was 2 could have been 3) games that Hans started where the team was just in a funk. That wasn't Hans fault.

                          The starting lineup has been better since putting Hans in the starting lineup. It's fairly obvious, after their slump.

                          Those numbers are flawed because you aren't looking at the whole picture. A major reason for the decrease in scoring is that there is no scoring in the second unit. No offensive threat in the post, and Rush, Dahntay, and AJ are struggling.

                          When we were starting Josh and Rush, it was often "the goons" that got us back into the game. They team was much more balanced then..but the starting lineup would often dig us in a hole. Now, I don't for a second think that us getting in a hole was Josh or Rush's fault. But I think because DC plays well with Hans, and because Hans is very aggressive, it keeps the starting lineup energized.

                          Part of the reason Hans is needed is because there is no real offensive threat at the SG position (in the flow of the offense) with Dun being out. But we had one at the PF position..so that's where it was added. And we needed it. Because Rush and Josh just provided too little. Josh worked out well when the other four guys were looking to score. Not as much with DC and Roy struggling and Danny being on and off..and Rush being invisible. Hans provides another option.

                          Still, you are forgetting, before the six game slide..there was a problem with the starting unit. (Around the time Dun was injured, actually)

                          However, I think it's also pretty obvious that Roy plays better with Josh. And when it's Hans and Roy in the game, you have to pick one or the other to score..and more often than not it's going to be Tyler. (Because there is really no point in having him out there if you aren't looking for him to score...and..he's been the best on our team a it..)

                          Anyway..my point is..the team statistics are skewed/taken out of context. The starting lineup is better with Hans in it. Our bench isn't nearly as strong or balanced, and Roy doesn't play as well with Hans as he does with Josh (but I really don't care..I think Tyler's more consistent at the moment) but that "statistical evidence" does not show the entire picture.

                          Tyler's been playing fantastic, and the team has performed well since getting out of their skid. It's not a coincidence. I don't know that he can continue to be playing the way he has. In fact, I don't really think he can. (Prove me wrong Hans!) But to say anything other than Tyler has been a needed addition to the starting lineup, is silly. Nothing against Josh. I love Josh..in fact..I really haven't picked a side with Tyler and Josh. But IF (big big big IF) Tyler continues at this rate, its pretty obvious which one is the starter, and which one makes the starting lineup better. (And that's if Josh doesn't catch him.)
                          Last edited by Sookie; 03-25-2011, 11:34 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Why does every thread about Tyler Hansbrough end up so polarizing? That's the most baffling thing to me. You'd think he'd be one of the parts of the team that creates the least amount of contention.
                            Tyler is as polarizing now as I am told he was in college.

                            I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I think it's ultimately that his game (what he is, what he is not) is one that some love, and some hate.

                            As I think tbird said after we drafted him, Tyler is a hammer in search of a nail. Some people love that, but there are others who prefer a more diversified toolbox than one that just has a really big hammer in it, and I think that's where the divide begins.

                            I think the next part is he's not flashy (not athletic enough to be... most of the time). I think that makes him less appealing to some.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                              If Bro can continue to play at the clip he has the last ten games, then PF is no longer a pressing need. Which is probably a good thing, seeing as how Randolph is on the verge of re-upping in Memphis and West just went down with a nasty-looking injury.

                              Our biggest need right now is SG, followed by PG. And we need to fill out the bench with quality vets at almost every position while the core continues to grow.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hansbrough - What Does It Take To Please

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                What does that even mean?
                                It's like being a political moderate, stuck in a room with a hard core liberal continuously arguing with a hard core conservative. You see both of their points, to a degree, but ultimately you're just left worn out and wishing you could hear something else.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X