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

The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

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

  • #76
    Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

    Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
    Trade our pick with Tyler and move up in the draft that would be my draft plan.
    If we can move up and get Perry Jones III I'm all for it, there's something about him that intrigues me. I think he is Paul George part two but can play the 4 at times as well.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
      ugh, the idea of trading Danny.....just makes me feel terrible. I maintain that if you bring in a great point guard alot of Danny's short comings will disappear.
      I don't suggest you trade Danny because of his short comings. I just think Paul is a better long term solution if you are acquiring a starting SG.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        ugh, the idea of trading Danny.....just makes me feel terrible. I maintain that if you bring in a great point guard alot of Danny's short comings will disappear.
        Is a PG going to improve his shot selection or percentage?

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

          Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
          Is a PG going to improve his shot selection or percentage?
          Seriously?? Both, they are directly related. Great point guard will set Danny up to take good shots.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

            I think that we shouldn't trade Granger because he was our leading scorer in the playoffs while guarding Lebron... Not only that, but Paul George isn't even a premier starter yet. Paul George would be a great 3rd wing, but as of right now he's an offensive weakness in the starting lineup.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

              i think it really showed that we need someone with precision passing, nash or williams would be huge for us. on another note i think paul george needs to be agressive to many times this season he would defer to the veterans, i hope thats not the case this coming year.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                Originally posted by #22 View Post
                PG -Nash or DWill. I f we cant get either, then Dragic. Dragic is the type of PG we need one who has energy, can drive past a defender and dish, or just hit an open shot. Re-sign Collison or Hill, whichever is cheaper.

                SG - Pick up Eric Gordon, trade Granger. DJones decent backup, but draft another who can play sg/sf.

                SF - George's natural position.

                PF - Keep West. I've lost condfidence in Hansbrough though.

                C - Hibbert and Fez.
                i hate the idea of trading granger for gordon, a straight up deal id still decline it as of now, gordon cant seem to stay healthy and i wouldnt want to risk that. lets get a nash or williams and i think we will see granger shine

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                  More appropriate to post this here:

                  Resigning Roy should be a priority. Dudes gotten better each season, and his hard work ethic means we haven't seen the end of Hibbs growth. I think he'll keep getting better and put up like 15pts, 10boards, 2 blocks type of numbers.

                  Love to see Hill resigned too, but hopefully close to the $5.5M mark than $7M.

                  Barbosa really disappointed in the playoffs. We already knew that our bench was weaker than we expected coming into the year, and Barbosa gave a nice spark during the regular season (most of the time). He stank it up in the playoffs. Seemed like he couldn't even walk and was a TO machine. No need to resign.

                  I'm advocating that DC and Hans are traded before the start of the next season. I honestly think Pends could put up better number than Hans and play much better D. I was sad he didn't get to play much. Just not sure what either could fetch. DC and Hans have to have a little value, maybe a late 1st, early 2nd pick? That'd be great! Maybe Popps can elevate Hans career.

                  PG:
                  Would love Deron, but he wants a big market team. *sigh*

                  Nash would be awesome! I've also been a fan of Sessions since he's been in the league, but I expect him to stay in LA. I have no clue who the Pacers can get to start at the point if they don't get Nash. Goran Dragic maybe, I'm just not very familiar with him. Wouldn't mind kicking the tires on Arenas. He's only 30 and has had plenty of time to rest his legs. Low risk, potential med/high reward.

                  SG:
                  Unless Gorden can be had for around $7M, then I wouldn't want any part of him. Too injury prone. Plus, I think Lance will shine next year. McGrady would be a nice vet and teacher for PG.

                  SF:
                  This is a big need. When Granger goes out, there is no one that can take his place. DJ has been serviceable, but he's a SG. Not liking the FA other than Gerald Wallace. Can AK47 still play ball at a high level?

                  PF:
                  Regardless if the Pacers move Hans or not, this is an area of need. Hans has not provided anything, not scoring, not rebounding, not defense. West can't play as many minutes as he has in the past, so Hans being a bust has really hurt. Our bench was supposed to be deep, but his lack of scoring has made our bench one of the weakest in the league. If Hans can't score, he's a pretty useless player. Maybe the Pacers haven't done a good enough job in developing players, I don't know, but he's been a huge disappointment. I think it sucks more when most people wanted the Pacers to draft one of the many talented point guards that were still on the board (I wanted Jrue Holiday). Luckily, there are a lot of PF in the draft and FA, so I think the Pacers should easily find a quality backup for a good price. Jason Thompson (RFA), JJ Hickson(RFA), Elton Brand (his contract should be terminated making him a FA I think), Antoine Jamison (another solid vet off the bench). Jordan Hill and Earl Clark could be cheaper alternatives who offer most D, not offense.

                  C:
                  A backup center behind Roy is the 2nd most needed player behind a starting point. Someone needs to spell Roy. Roy fades in the second half cause he's just been playing too many minutes and the Pacers don't have a decent backup. Chris Kaman would be nice if he's willing to take a serious paycut. Robin Lopez is #1 on my wish list, but he's a RFA. Suns do need a backup PF. Sign and trade for Hans?

                  Draft is loaded this year. I hope the Pacers try to get another late first/early second.
                  -Arnette Moultrie might still be there, or the Pacers can try to trade up a couple of spots to take him. Could be our solution for a long time PF.
                  -Royce White has game and could be the backup SF that the Pacers need.
                  -Jeff Tayler could also be the pick at SF. Read really good things about this kid. Seems like he has elite athleticism and can defend. Only problem is that he disappears in games. Something the Pacers don't need though. They need players to step up.
                  -Quincy Miller - I'm sure he'll fly up draft boards, but his knee could scare teams away sorta like what happened to Granger.
                  -Doron Lamb - Could be our Reddick. Almost a 50% shooter from 3! That's insane. I'm sure he'll move up draft boards as well.
                  -Darius Miller - a jack of all trades type SG/SF
                  -Jae Crowder - If he can transition to SG/SF, he'd be a steal in the 2nd. A very high BBIQ and efficient scorer. Also averaged 2.5 steals and 1 block, so the guy can play some D.
                  First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                    Instead of resigning George Hill at upwards of 7 million (as we were reportedly willing to do at the deadline), I think a better option would be signing Nicolas Batum to a similar contract and drafting Marquis Teague (even if this requires moving up a couple spots). In my opinion, Batum is a better defender and scorer than George Hill and would be the perfect 6th man. He'd basically get all the minutes that PG and Danny don't. Moreover, I think he has the potential to get even better as he is only 23 years old. He is reportedly on the outs with Portland and is interested in signing the first good contract that comes his way - and I think it would be hard to pass up a decent salary from a great team like ours.

                    Of course, that would leave us with a hole at point guard. Everybody already knows that I see DC as an equal with GH at the starting spot, but we'd definitely need a backup other than A.J. Price. I think Marquis Teague fits the bill. He's more of a tweener guard than a pure point, but from an energy and scoring stand-point we could do a lot worse. He also has the added benefit of being an Indy native. Thoughts?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                      ^I don't see anything wrong with signing someone in place of George Hill's salary, but I think Batum is very similar to Paul George. We already have that glue guy/defender, a less seasoned but more gifted version, and I think we need a scorer instead. And honestly, I think a scorer would come cheaper. Ray Allen, Lou Williams, Shannon Brown, and OJ Mayo are all available (Though I don't think OJ is any good). Even cheaper players being Jamal Crawford, Michael Redd, and Barbosa.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                        Man I hope we get an starting point guard, I don't think I can deal with another year of DC if we don't re-sign Hill
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Man I hope we get an starting point guard, I don't think I can deal with another year of DC if we don't re-sign Hill
                          I don't think I can deal with another year of you if DC starts next year.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Man I hope we get an starting point guard, I don't think I can deal with another year of DC if we don't re-sign Hill
                            you won't be able to deal with a year of george hill as the starting PG either. hill is lot's of things, but not a PG. my guess is he is resigned, but for the backup SG spot instead of leandro.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                              Instead of resigning George Hill at upwards of 7 million (as we were reportedly willing to do at the deadline), I think a better option would be signing Nicolas Batum to a similar contract and drafting Marquis Teague (even if this requires moving up a couple spots). In my opinion, Batum is a better defender and scorer than George Hill and would be the perfect 6th man. He'd basically get all the minutes that PG and Danny don't. Moreover, I think he has the potential to get even better as he is only 23 years old. He is reportedly on the outs with Portland and is interested in signing the first good contract that comes his way - and I think it would be hard to pass up a decent salary from a great team like ours.
                              I think Batum is getting an offer north of $10m. I would be shocked if Hill gets anything close to Batum money. Batum is viewed as a legit starting SF, while Hill is generally regarded as a super sub/spot starter type. In fact, Pacers might be the only team willing to give Hill a starting PG job, and none of us would be shocked if we sign another PG to play ahead of him.

                              In general, I think this is a bad year to draft a PG. This batch is weak on PG talent, and the few decent guys are sure to be drafted earlier than they should. This draft is rich in PF's though, and it's likely that we could nab a decent prospect even at 26.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The Official Off-season 2012 Thread

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                I think Batum is getting an offer north of $10m. I would be shocked if Hill gets anything close to Batum money. Batum is viewed as a legit starting SF, while Hill is generally regarded as a super sub/spot starter type. In fact, Pacers might be the only team willing to give Hill a starting PG job, and none of us would be shocked if we sign another PG to play ahead of him.
                                You're probably right. Truth is, I'm a Batum fanboy. I dream of getting him for 8-9 million, but our primary goal this offseason shouldn't be to get another SF. I'm also probably projecting a little bit of Jeff on younger brother Marquis. The last couple Calipari point guards turned out pretty well though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X