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

Does this Make Sense?

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

  • Re: Does this Make Sense?

    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
    If you watch enough videos, you CAN make some judgements about a player's ability if you're using it IN ADDITION to other forms of data. There's NO difference in watching a highlight fastbreak vs a "live" highlight fastbreak. Gay is only going to run so fast. There's NO difference between watching a highlight dunk vs a "live" dunk. Gay is only going to jump so high. There's NO difference between watching a highlight layup vs a "live" layup. Most of his highlights are coming off a right-hand dribble drive. Even on his crossovers, I can definitely tell that his left-dribble is very suspect for someone at the NBA level.

    The last time I checked, NBA Players do watch film too to get an idea of their opponent. YouTube pretty much serves the same purpose for the casual fan or someone who doesn't have access to Syngery stats. As a side note...YouTube videos generally make a player look better than they really are. I'm looking at the videos and saying to myself...Rudy Gay is not all that and a bag of chips.
    Cant wait till i start classes that all we are gonna watch to scout players. Suppose to be the best thing ever and thats what all the teams use.

    Comment


    • Re: Does this Make Sense?

      Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
      A lot of the complaining was because of him jacking threes. he got much better at midrange/driving the ball after Vogel took over and in the playoffs. I think Granger should get the benefit of playing under a coach that doesn't preach jacking shots 5 seconds into the shot clock before we really judge him.
      Absolutely.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: Does this Make Sense?

        Granger definitely looked better in these playoffs and I'm excited to see how he'll do next season, but I think Rudy has a much bigger impact on our team. He's a more efficient scorer, he has no problem getting of his shot, he's very athletic, he's a great defender and he's still improving.

        I think there's no question that he's better. And he's also a very good complement to OJ Mayo, who can flat out score and has shown the capability to be a good defender but doesn't put the effort (just like Danny). You put these two in the starting lineup and your offensive problems go away. Your defense also gets better because Rudy is a more versatile defender. And you solve the shot creator problem by having two players on the floor that can create a shot at any time.

        And making this move allows you to keep George on the bench, which makes our overall wing rotation very good. And if George develops, you have two/three very tradeable assets for a larger trade.

        The downside is the financial impact. Rudy's definitely better than Danny and OJ is definitely better than Brandon, but is it worth the price? I'd prefer a significant upgrade at the PG for that price over a decent upgrade at wing. We need to make as big an impact as possible when we decide to spend more money, and I'm not sure wing is the position to do that. I'd rank my upgrade preference like this:

        1. PG 2. C 3. SG 4. PF 5. SF, or
        1. PG 2. SG 3. PF 4. C 5. SF

        Comment


        • Re: Does this Make Sense?

          Originally posted by PacersRule View Post
          I hate to trade Granger after watching him in this year's playoff, but we're talking about RUDY GAY!! Before he got hurt, I seriously doubt we could've traded for him with just Granger and Rush, but right now we're talking about getting Gay AND Mayo with just Granger and Rush/#15!! I don't see how you can pass that up (unless Gay's salary somehow impedes our chances of signing Hibbert/DC/PG in the future..)!! Granted, this is just an idea from someone's chat, but if this deal is on the table, I'd do it.
          Unless I misread the info in the linked article, this is just one internet journalist's response to a hypothetical scenario form a Pacers fan. This isn't a trade offer that is on the table or one that we even have reason to believe ever will be.


          Name-calling signature removed

          Comment


          • Re: Does this Make Sense?

            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4136

            Gay was as effiecient in the regular as Danny was against the Bulls. Gay also average more steals and blocks. His defense is where we all desire Danny's to be. He is a better rebounder.

            I would swap them if given the chance.

            Comment


            • Re: Does this Make Sense?

              But we will only get a superstar here in Indiana will only be by trade or way overpaying for a mediocre player if we can get Mayo and Gay for Granger and Rush, that's a good deal to me, if wr can pry Conely from them and trade our draft pick, or get the pg they drafted last year from them, dude from Maryland. But maybe we need to infuse some new blood into the Pacers, i think Granger has maxes out at his potential, and he showed in playoffs that he's kinda soft!!

              Comment


              • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                Originally posted by D squared fan View Post
                But we will only get a superstar here in Indiana will only be by trade or way overpaying for a mediocre player if we can get Mayo and Gay for Granger and Rush, that's a good deal to me, if wr can pry Conely from them and trade our draft pick, or get the pg they drafted last year from them, dude from Maryland. But maybe we need to infuse some new blood into the Pacers, i think Granger has maxes out at his potential, and he showed in playoffs that he's kinda soft!!
                What???????


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

                Comment


                • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                  Rudy Gay vs. Danny Granger

                  2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11


                  Danny's had the superior PER on three occasions (06-07, 08-09, 09-10), Rudy once (07-08), and once they've tied (10-11).

                  From the standpoint of measured productivity, there's really no question that Danny's been superior throughout their NBA careers. This is especially true on offense, where Danny's scored more points-per 36 minutes four out of five seasons, with that lone season, 07-08, ending in a tie. Also, despite the claims made earlier, Danny's the more efficient scorer, having shot a superior TS% every single season. He also averages more assists and less turnovers.

                  Really, the only argument anyone can make for Rudy Gay being superior is that he's the better defender (bald assertion) and that trumps Danny's superiority on offense. I don't believe that's the case, but whatever.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                    The Grizzlies have always had better talent around Rudy than the Pacers have had around Danny, which means that Danny was THE GUY. So in turn I do not discredit Rudy because he has a better team with much more talented scorers around him. Rudy has ALL the tools to be a #1 scoring option, evidence being his 19 ppg on the Grizzlies. Put Danny on that team right now and he doesnt average 20 ppg, he'd be a role player.

                    Rudy>Danny.
                    Last edited by LA_Confidential; 05-14-2011, 06:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                      Originally posted by ballism View Post
                      And tbh, other than injury, hard to argue. Rudy this year was better untill he got injured.
                      Earlier you wrote this about Danny...

                      Originally posted by ballism View Post
                      What would be the argument for "Danny is the better player"?
                      Other than he had two (short) seasons in the past where he scored ~25 points on a much worse teams?
                      You try to discredit Danny's two best seasons due to being "short," yet that same reasoning doesn't apply to Rudy's best season, this year, which was actually shorter than Danny's aforementioned seasons (67 & 62 games played vs. 54)?

                      It's also silly to mention Danny playing on "worse teams" when three of Rudy's five seasons in Memphis have resulted in 24 or fewer wins. Also, this season Memphis has a better winning percentage without Rudy than with him:

                      With Rudy: 30-24 (.556)
                      W/O Rudy: 16-12 (.571)

                      The same holds true the two previous seasons, too, albeit on a very small sample size (five missed games).

                      For all of the gushing over Gay, it sure doesn't seem like he's much of a winner.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                        Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                        The Grizzlies have always had better talent around Rudy than the Pacers have had around Danny, which means that Danny was THE GUY. So in turn I do not discredit Rudy because he has a better team with much more talented scorers around him. Rudy>Danny.
                        Danny's averaged over five more wins per-season than Rudy has. If Rudy truly has had better talent around him, and he probably has, then that only further stresses the win differential:

                        Danny: 36.2 (41, 35, 36, 36, 32, 37)
                        Rudy: 30.8 (22, 22, 24, 40, 46)

                        Also, they take almost exactly the same number of shots per-36 minutes (Danny 15.1, Rudy 14.9) so it's not an issue of Danny being given significantly more opportunities to shoot.

                        I'd stick with Danny and let Memphis pay Rudy "Empty Stats" Gay $15M per season.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                          Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                          The Grizzlies have always had better talent around Rudy than the Pacers have had around Danny, which means that Danny was THE GUY. So in turn I do not discredit Rudy because he has a better team with much more talented scorers around him. Rudy has ALL the tools to be a #1 scoring option, evidence being his 19 ppg on the Grizzlies. Put Danny on that team right now and he doesnt average 20 ppg, he'd be a role player.

                          Rudy>Danny.
                          Yes, from elite 26 ppg scorer to role player. Give me a break.

                          Having more scoring options HELPS elite scorers, it doesn't hurt them.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                            Originally posted by Jared Sullinger View Post
                            Danny's averaged over five more wins per-season than Rudy has. If Rudy truly has had better talent around him, and he probably has, then that only further stresses the win differential:

                            Danny: 36.2 (41, 35, 36, 36, 32, 37)
                            Rudy: 30.8 (22, 22, 24, 40, 46)

                            Also, they take almost exactly the same number of shots per-36 minutes (Danny 15.1, Rudy 14.9) so it's not an issue of Danny being given significantly more opportunities to shoot.

                            I'd stick with Danny and let Memphis pay Rudy "Empty Stats" Gay $15M per season.
                            Memphis had a worse record than the Pacers because they were actually rebuilding, not only that but they play in the west, playing the young guys and giving them as much experience as possible was another reason why they didn't win as much, now look at how good that team is, compare that to the Pacers that were "playing to win" by playing a bunch of old guys, yes the Pacers won more games but Memphis benefited more.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                              Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
                              Yes, from elite 26 ppg scorer to role player. Give me a break.

                              Having more scoring options HELPS elite scorers, it doesn't hurt them.
                              Sorry but Danny is far from elite. He was the only option which means he was taking the large majority of the shots. Danny has been a Volume shooter since he's been in the starting line up

                              Danny can score I dont deny that but he is not a #1 option.

                              Save Elite for Lebron, Durant, and Melo. Danny is at the top of the second tier at best.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Does this Make Sense?

                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                                After watching some YouTube videos, Gay doesn't seem THAT much more athletic than Granger. The biggest difference is that Gay seems more likely to attempt a dunk than Granger. Also, Gay doesn't seem to have a strong left-hand dribble drive.

                                There are some players who can dunk, but just don't for whatever reasons. I know that I could dunk in my prime, but I rarely did. I was more happy with playing an all-around game instead of "showboating". Take away the dunks, and Gay is just a poor man's version of Granger.
                                Yep Granger is as athletic as Rudy, just look at the way he dunks on people

                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X