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

Breakfast with Chris and Clark

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

  • #46
    Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    You know they might get more than 4 people to show up to something like this if they would let someone know it was happening.

    I'm a season ticket holder & I had no idea that this occurred.

    I've already re-upped for the season so maybe this was for people on the fence, have you re-upped for next season?
    That has to be embarrassing to the Pacers to only have four people show up. Must have been disheartening for Clark and Chris as well. On the other hand, it would have been a great experience for those who did attend to have a chance to sort of casually sit and chat with the two of them.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Also, Peck you're wrong about Magic in college. The reason he chose Michigan State over Michigan was because Jud Heathcoate told him he could play point guard there.
      How can I be wrong if I asked a question? I wasn't sure what position he played but for some reason I thought he was a forward but had no real idea.


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

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        How can I be wrong if I asked a question? I wasn't sure what position he played but for some reason I thought he was a forward but had no real idea.
        My fault.


        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
          That has to be embarrassing to the Pacers to only have four people show up. Must have been disheartening for Clark and Chris as well. On the other hand, it would have been a great experience for those who did attend to have a chance to sort of casually sit and chat with the two of them.
          It was awesome, one of the coolest Pacer related things I've been to. I think Chris and Clark had a good time too, they got to eat with us and just talk rather then sit up in front of everyone and answer questions

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Did Magic Johnson actually play pg in college? I think he was a forward.

            If so he transitioned very well to the pg spot.

            Let me ask you from a different angle, what do you see in him that tells you he can not succeed as a p.g. in the NBA?
            Intelligence. He doesn't have the intelligence to be a PG, and he doesn't have enough talent to make up for the fact that he doesn't have the intelligence to be a pg. This is the big one for me.

            He doesn't run an offense. Yes, he's good at getting assists. With flashy passes no doubt. But he doesn't run an offense. And I doubt very much that he gets the concept of anything more than "I dribble the ball, and make a pass to the person who shoots." Yes, I know that can be how Steve Nash and Chris Paul play. Notice neither of them have ever won anything. And also Lance is not nearly as talented as either. And finally, this style of play annoyed the crap out of his teammates. For a player that isn't a Point Guard god, he actually has to run an offense. Make decisions without the ball, call the correct plays ect..Lance doesn't do that.

            No way is he mature enough to manage/direct/lead a team. Another big one.


            He doesn't have good handles. Once again, flashy handles..yes. good handles. No.

            Then on the defensive end. Uh...his feet seem almost cemented.

            The biggest difference between a point guard and a shooting guard is mentality. A good majority of shooting guards can make a great pass. It's whether you can lead a team, run an offense, handle the ball, and have the bball IQ to make the proper decisions. (This is of course, other than the fact that some players are forced to learn to play point guard because they can't score. Not the case for Lance though.) Can a player learn that..maybe. I haven't seen to many SG to PG conversions work though, unless the SG already had that mentality/intangibles and just had to score for their previous team.
            Last edited by Sookie; 06-10-2011, 11:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              I don't believe Lance possesses the feel for the game necessary to be successful as a point guard. He is, however, very good at pounding the ball into oblivion just above the free throw line.
              I'm not sure how you can tell that in the limited time we have seen him play? I just didn't get the impression from him that he was any worse than A.J. or really even Darren.

              I like his size for sure though at the p.g. spot, but I'm not committed either way and his character bothers me far more than any on court stuff I've seen.


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

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                Did Magic Johnson actually play pg in college? I think he was a forward.

                If so he transitioned very well to the pg spot.

                Let me ask you from a different angle, what do you see in him that tells you he can not succeed as a p.g. in the NBA?
                Magic was absolutely a point guard at MSU. Heathcoat was smart enough to let Magic play wherever he wanted to on the floor.
                Last edited by Tom White; 06-10-2011, 11:59 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                  Limited? I've said many times on here that I've been watching Lance Stephenson play basketball for 5 years. He came onto IU's radar when he was still just a 15 year old. I've never watched him and thought "there goes an NBA point guard" Shooting guard? Yeah, definitely at times, but never a point guard.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                    I don't see why there is so many negative things to his game being brought out.. He's the third, second at best, option on our depth chart.. We aren't expecting him to lead the team yet. He's very young, and there is plenty of time for him to polish his skills. He has raw skill out the rear. He isn't supposed to be a star PG yet, why are you comparing him to Nash/CP3, etc... He was a Rookie last year, has off the court problems he has to get together, but other than that he has shown nothing to me that he is a terrible PG. I saw him make passes last year that were crazy good. Left me thinking, "how did he just get that pass in there? Looks like there is no room"....His passing lead to even Foster getting dunks just for instance.

                    We haven't seen enough to decided if he knows how to run the team with plays or not. But I would be willing to bet that with time there would be no problem there either. This guy is not quite even at drinking age and we expect him to know how to run an NBA team? ..Time will tell.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Limited? I've said many times on here that I've been watching Lance Stephenson play basketball for 5 years. He came onto IU's radar when he was still just a 15 year old. I've never watched him and thought "there goes an NBA point guard" Shooting guard? Yeah, definitely at times, but never a point guard.
                      Yea, I watch the Big East, so I've seen him plenty.

                      edit: I wasn't comparing him to CP3/Nash. I was saying that his style of play at the point. Dribble the ball around and then pass it to someone to shoot..is a style of play that really, only point guards like CP3 and Nash can get away with..and yes, that's obviously partially because they are so talented that a coach would be foolish to not give them complete control of a game. That's not the case with Lance. And it won't ever be the case with Lance. That style of play, is okay for a SG though. Because as a SG it won't be every time down the floor, just when the point guard decides Lance gets the ball. (I don't like the style of play anyway..but it's certainly better as a SG)
                      Last edited by Sookie; 06-10-2011, 12:05 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                        RE: Lance

                        Maybe Larry is still in love with Magic?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                          I don't know how you can say he doesn't have any passing ability. I forget which game it was, but him and Foster ran a PnR and Lance delievered a bounce pass behind the back of the defender who was recovering after a hedge. Lance threw it not to Foster, but at the spot where Jeff was going.

                          It was a one-handed bounce pass going away with great accuracy and great feel for the play, not only knowing where Jeff was going but where the defenders were and where they were going as well.

                          I'm not as high on Lance as some around here, but he's maded some pretty spectacular passes.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                            Originally posted by JBones19 View Post
                            I went to a season ticket holder breakfast this morning at Conseco that was held in the player's locker room. To my surprise there were only 4 of us that showed up and the guest speakers were Chris Denari and Clark Kellogg. Because there were only a few of us, we all just sat down at a table and chatted hoops for an hour. The tidbits that I remember and stuck out to me were-

                            -Both Chris and Clark listed the players that impressed them the most that worked out for us were in this consensus order- Marshon Brooks, Tobias Harris, Jimmer. Chris and Clark raved about Brooks saying he was a pure scorer and that's something the P's were obviously looking for and Clark commented on Brooks' tremendous length and how he really did look like Kobe when he first came into the league. Clark also seemed impressed with Harris potential, and both agreed that there was a place for Jimmer in this league just because he can shoot the basketball so effectively. Clark compared him to JJ Barea with a better shot- But the overwhelming vibe I got was that Brooks was really the guy they felt the P's were targeting and that he was most impressive.

                            -Clark spoke in length about his role with the P's and mainly his role with Lance. Gushed about Lance's ability and really wanted to mold him into being a man and was enjoying watch him mature. Said he has made great strides since the beginning of the season and that making the play-offs really built up team morale and any petty disagreements that happened between players was forgotten once the Bulls series started. Chris also mentioned he could see a huge difference in how Lance carried himself last night at the celeb softball game and was very impressed. Like most of us have speculated, Larry has big plans for Lance, and Clark specifically said- as a Point Guard.

                            -Both felt is wasn't "if" but "when" Frank is named head coach. Just a matter of time, and he will be surrounded with veteran assistants

                            -Matt Howard REALLY wants to play for the P's but understands it's probably not in the cards.

                            -Of the FA's on our roster they felt that Foster will almost for sure be back next year. Clark thought a team may over-pay for Josh, but he def. wants to stay a Pacer. Didn't speculate on Dun, and said obviously TJ and Solomon are gone.

                            -Clark raved about George but then expressed the importance that he couldn't quite yet give you 20+ pts a night yet, thus the need for another scorer to help Danny.

                            -Also mentioned that Chandler was someone the P's have targeted in the past and he is a UFA after this season and we may go after him.

                            That's what I can remember so far. Alot of it just verified things we already thought/knew but it was nice hear it coming straight from someone in the organization.

                            -J
                            My God, I didnt think it was humanly possible. Lance maturing? Positive feedback on Lance?

                            Thought we were supposed to crucify him downtown? Green
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Lance has more natural point guard instincts amnd talents than anyone else we have on the Pacers.
                              Thak you sir for providing a voice of reason

                              man somepeople want others to fail so bad it makes them say anything
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Breakfast with Chris and Clark

                                Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                                Thak you sir for providing a voice of reason

                                man somepeople want others to fail so bad it makes them say anything
                                Or they could just evaluate a player differently then you. If you don't see how its a problem trying to convert a lifetime wing into an NBA point guard you're not looking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X