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

How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

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

  • #31
    Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

    Interesting tidbit re his brother. But that scenario still doesn't seem any more realistic.

    If he was healthy, then maybe he'd have extreme confidence in his body and be willing to take that risk.
    But even then, it's a big risk. Just look at Jeff Green.
    But with all the injuries, I doubt Gordon is that reckless. After so many injuries, it's just much smarter to get something like 40 mil / 4 years than 13.5 mil / 1 year.

    IMO, SnT is the only realistic route, if we really want to get him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

      Kevin Durant played PF too in the finals... San Antonio utilized the stretch 4 with Diaw and Bonner... The Celtics had Pietrus at PF at times trying to match up with the Heat. Playing 1 in and 4 out is getting common in the league these days. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it can work.
      green? i thought we were done with JOB.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

        Looking forward to when Eric Gordon signs his contract on July 1st, so we can stop with these countless threads.


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
          Looking forward to when Eric Gordon signs his contract on July 1st, so we can stop with these countless threads.
          Sadly then it will just turn into "Lets trade for Eric Gordon!" threads.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            Looking forward to when Eric Gordon signs his contract on July 1st, so we can stop with these countless threads.
            it seems silly to be upset if a guy like eric gordon wants to come here and is willing to do the things he needs to get here. Then, like Tbird said, sign him, stick him in a salary slot and go from there.

            This is not trading for him, it's signing him for free. or just the salary.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Gordon has some talent but if you the there is any other fanbase in the NBA (including new Orleans) that cares this much about getting him, you're wrong.

              If Gordon isn't a hometown guy, nobody cares. That's just reality.
              Im tired of this kind of reply. This is nothing more than a scapegoat. You ever think that with a full season he COULD put up superstar numbers? Just maybe? Or what about the fact that we have a guy who could possibly be an All Star talent, and he wants to play here. How many times can you say that about a player that caliber. What do you have to losw if you can get him when he becomes a UFA. You sound just as bad as the people who supposedly only want him bc hes from Indiana. You sure do a lot of speaking for other people on here. This isnt the first or im sure the last, that youll lump everyone else in your own opinion.
              I Bleed Blue

              Comment


              • #37
                Eric Gordon is not a superstar.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

                  I think the most important observation in this thread is that this team doesn't move forward with Granger, George, and Gordon: from both a financial and a team play concept. If Gordon does in fact come on board, it means that Granger and/or George goes. I would suspect if the FO is hell bent on getting Gordon here, they're going to move Granger.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

                    Maybe some people just need to reevaluate what superstar means to them.

                    LeBron is a superstar. Durant is a superstar. Kobe is a superstar.

                    Saying a player isn't one of those guys isn't even remotely a slight.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

                      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                      it seems silly to be upset if a guy like eric gordon wants to come here and is willing to do the things he needs to get here. Then, like Tbird said, sign him, stick him in a salary slot and go from there.

                      This is not trading for him, it's signing him for free. or just the salary.
                      Then we should be talking about this when he's a UNRESTRICTED free agent. How many times does Bird has to say that they don't go after RESTRICTED free agents before some of you finally get it?


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        If you want to play it that way, Kevin Durant did not play PF. Thabo Sefolosha did. In case you didn't notice, Durant was matched up with Mario Chalmers or Shane Battier most of the finals.
                        What's the difference? They're both SFs. I listed the top 4 teams this year and everyone of them utilized the stretch 4 for long stretches during the playoffs.

                        And BTW, even though I think Jason Maxiell is a mediocre PF, he'd beat up Danny Granger on the low block. There's a solid chance Greg Monroe is playing the 4 for us next season, and then it becomes a massacre. This is an absurd idea.
                        Granger would drop 30 on both Monroe and Maxiell... it works both ways.

                        For as much crap as I give Danny on here, he can defend bigger players in the post and play help defense very well. He's a lot stronger than most SFs pretending to be PFs.

                        Miami is the one, and THE ONLY TEAM in the NBA that can get away with such an absurdly small lineup. replace LeBron James with any other small forward on earth and that team does not make it out of the second round with that bunch of midgets.
                        Well, they're the team to beat.

                        I already listed this years top 4 teams and I can keep going... Sixers, Hawks, Magic, Nuggets and Knicks are all playoff teams that played small during the season and in the playoffs.
                        I agree that Granger defends other post up small forwards pretty well. That does not mean he can hold his ground against guys 260+ that can simply overpower him.
                        How many of those guys are left in the league? Monroe, who I believe will soon be one of the best bigs in the game, is a skilled guy that's not going to overpower anyone. Blake is a brute, but he has no back to the basket game. I can't see our slow footed D. West defending him any better than Danny. Gasol, Randolph, Aldridge are all all stars that would kill Danny in the post, but not one of those guys can defend him either.

                        Originally posted by adamscb View Post
                        green? i thought we were done with JOB.
                        I don't consider having a front court with two 6'9 guys and 7'2" guy who can all block shots playing JOB ball or even small ball for that matter.

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Eric Gordon is not a superstar.
                        Now we're arguing semantics? A potential perennial all star then, how about that? Either way he'd be the best player on our team right now and the go to scorer we desperately need.

                        Obviously it's out of the box thinking, but with the lack of big strong PFs in the league with any kind of post game I think the scenario the op laid out could work at least as well as what we have now. And again, it would be temporary if it didn't work out.

                        I didn't expect this go well, but hey, I didn't bring it up. A guy that knows a lot more about this game than me did. I just happen to agree with him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

                          Originally posted by ballism View Post
                          Interesting tidbit re his brother. But that scenario still doesn't seem any more realistic.

                          If he was healthy, then maybe he'd have extreme confidence in his body and be willing to take that risk.
                          But even then, it's a big risk. Just look at Jeff Green.
                          But with all the injuries, I doubt Gordon is that reckless. After so many injuries, it's just much smarter to get something like 40 mil / 4 years than 13.5 mil / 1 year.

                          IMO, SnT is the only realistic route, if we really want to get him.
                          I expect that his agent would throw in a Player option in his 3rd ( or more than likely ) his 4th year.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: How Eric Gordon can realistically eventually become a Pacer: long term plan

                            Not convinced EG is necessarily a perennial all star. Potential (IF HEALTHY) to be more often than our one-timers currently, but not sure perennial.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X