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

#2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

    Jennings has way more physical tools than rubio and he also happens to stink in the NBA too
    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: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      believe it or not nobody here retains every line they read in the thread.
      Oh, I believe it. How could I not when it's so frequently demonstrated?

      For the record:

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      If you trade Granger and get good but younger value, the team will be better off in the long run (i.e. 4-5 years from now).
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        As for #1, this is the core that made up the bulk of that run in the 1990's:

        PG: Jackson - 1965
        SG: Miller - 1965
        C: Smits - 1966
        SF: McKey - 1966
        PF: D. Davis - 1969

        They were all within 4 years of age, most were about the same age. There were other key players that entered the scene in the late 90's, but that's the group this franchise used to compete with NY.

        So, did the Pacers build that team by forming a core group of players about the same age. I think they did. More than forming a base where the two best players may be over 7 years in age different...where neither will be in their prime years 28-32 together.
        I think you may have missed the point that was made. The group that we used in the 90s was close in age... that much is true. However, obviously not all of those players were drafted by the Pacers. More importantly, the two players that were acquired (McKey, Jackson) were not youngsters nor mere prospects with "potential" when they were acquired.

        The Schrempf for McKey was not popular with a lot of folks in Indy, primarily because Schrempf was himself a high-scoring popular player. But make no mistake about it, McKey was also a very capable scorer, when so inclined. McKey also had the rep of being a truly elite defender, probably one of the top 2-3 in the league at his position. So we did not give up one of our best players for "potential", Walsh targeted a player that he considered to be the missing link, one who could contribute greatly in getting us to the next level in the playoffs. As it turns out, Walsh was correct in his assessment.

        Ditto for Mark Jackson. He was not a young prospect with potential, he was considered one of the best pass-first PGs in the league.

        The fact that all five players were close in age was inconsequential to the point. The point was that the Pacers did not trade away prime assets for youngsters, instead they made trades of key rotational players to acquire other veteran players that had specific talents to fill the needs of the team.

        And quite frankly, that is precisely the tact that I would want Bird to take now. If Danny must be traded, it should only be for a player (regardless of age) that is already Danny's equal or better, that satisfies a specific need of the team. More than likely, trading Danny would also imply to me that George is already considered capable of filling Danny's position.
        Last edited by beast23; 05-22-2011, 05:39 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Anyone know where the Kings might land?
          Sacramento

          Comment


          • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

            The way I look at this is our small forward position is set, and in that position we do not need to improve, Danny is one of the best small fowards in the league. We absoloutley do not need to improve this position. Why would you want to trade Danny for a bunch of unknown players? If you want to trade, don't forget about the other position that need improvement.

            Comment


            • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

              Originally posted by daschysta View Post
              Jennings has way more physical tools than rubio and he also happens to stink in the NBA too
              He doesn't suck but what he lacks is good decision making and thats one thing that really hearts him... from what I hear Rubio is better than him in that aspect. He also has a lot more size than Jennings from what I have seen.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                Jennings has way more physical tools than rubio and he also happens to stink in the NBA too
                Gerald Green had more physical tools than Danny Granger and he stinked in the NBA.
                Rubio has 3 inches and 7 pounds of brains on Jennings. Also, huge wingspan and high motor on D. Surely it does not mean he'll be the next Rondo. But it doesn't mean he'll be worse than Jennings either just because of athletic ability.
                Last edited by ballism; 05-22-2011, 06:35 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                  Originally posted by PacerFreak31 View Post
                  Really dude? You are going to throw up stats like that? How about looking up what Brandon Jennings did overseas..... I guess with stats like what he produced no way he would be anything more than a 15th man on the bench... Get real!

                  yeah but rubio is a euro player, so he gets his minutes. jennings was straight out of high school just warming the bench up and getting no respect from his euro league coach, thats the difference. rubio did do alright in the 2008 olympics but nothing since. if bird pulls the trigger on this deal, the pacers are dead

                  Comment


                  • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                    Originally posted by troy_225 View Post
                    yeah but rubio is a euro player, so he gets his minutes. jennings was straight out of high school just warming the bench up and getting no respect from his euro league coach, thats the difference. rubio did do alright in the 2008 olympics but nothing since. if bird pulls the trigger on this deal, the pacers are dead
                    No Granger is replaceable which means he's expendable which means if he's traded the Pacers aren't dead. You speak as if were trading Lebron.

                    Comment


                    • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Oh, I believe it. How could I not when it's so frequently demonstrated?

                      For the record:
                      That is not the post you quoted. Not even the same person. Do you always respond to the wrong person Anthem?

                      You are a little emotional aren't you? Geez.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        That is not the post you quoted. Not even the same person.
                        Observe, grasshopper, and I will teach you the secrets of VBulletin.

                        See the little arrow right next to "Taterhead" in my quoted material? Clicking that will direct me to the post in which the quoted material comes from. It's useful in case you want to see if the quote was altered, or to what the person quoted was responding.

                        A couple of clicks would have answered all of your questions before you'd asked them, and would have been a reasonable expectation for somebody jumping into the conversation. Thus my (admittedly mean) "lazy" comment. I'm sorry if that upset you.

                        Here's your original post:

                        http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...93#post1239493

                        Give it a try. It's a really useful feature for keeping track of who's arguing what.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                          Originally posted by tflo View Post
                          The way I look at this is our small forward position is set, and in that position we do not need to improve, Danny is one of the best small fowards in the league. We absoloutley do not need to improve this position. Why would you want to trade Danny for a bunch of unknown players? If you want to trade, don't forget about the other position that need improvement.
                          I saw a ranking of small forwards from the end of December 2010, Granger was ranked 6th followed by Beasley, Wallace and then Deng. We rate Granger highly because he's been our "go to guy", but in reality he probably is more of a top 30 player in the league, not a top 20. This trade would never happen because it's so one sided in our favor. We'd have a small drop in talent at the 3, a potential game changer in the #2 pick, and a potentially great pg. All while saving money....
                          Danger Zone

                          Comment


                          • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                            Originally posted by troy_225 View Post
                            yeah but rubio is a euro player, so he gets his minutes. jennings was straight out of high school just warming the bench up and getting no respect from his euro league coach, thats the difference. rubio did do alright in the 2008 olympics but nothing since. if bird pulls the trigger on this deal, the pacers are dead
                            That's just not true. To the opposite, generally. There are limits on number of American players in almost every European league. 2-4 per team mostly. So if a team signs an American, he's generally expected to play and produce. Otherwise it's a wasted valuable roster spot.

                            Jennings was expected to produce when he was signed. His skillset just wasn't viable. You have handchecks and bumbs on every corner in Europe. So a ball dominant penetrating weak-ish low IQ point guard like Jennings has trouble.
                            That's why I find it funny when I read his interviews that he might go back to Europe during lockout. He would be benched again more likely than not.

                            Young Euros on the other hand, they are plenty. How many 18-19 year old Euros get 10+ minutes on Euroleague teams? One every 5 years, on average. Kirilenko, Rubio, Valanciunas, those are few and far apart.

                            Comment


                            • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                              Although this trade is never going to happen, it would set us up with a boat load of trade-able young talent and cap-space. ala Boston before the big three.

                              Comment


                              • Re: #2 pick, Michael Beasley, Ricky Rubio for Danny rumor? Woah.

                                yes, the number 2 pick is enticing.. but Rubio is what really intrigues me..

                                I've been following him in the Euroleague since he was 15.
                                It is of my opinion , that Rubio will become excellent in the NBA , and a joy to watch.
                                I wanted him on the Pacers from day 1.

                                I'd really like to see us do some sorta deal to get him. Such as the #15 and any combo of Posey/Price/Rush/DJones .. I know they will want us to take on Beasly.. but I'd gladly take him..

                                Then Bird can be on the phones and try to swing another deal or sign someone, without giving up our core of Granger, George,Hibbs and Collison
                                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X