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

Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

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

  • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Your issue is that you somehow aren't aware of the fans I'm talking about, or for whatever reason you've decided this is some assault on you.

    I mentioned to Peck just a few posts ago that he (and Hicks, among others) were in the NEUTRAL camp to start. Except the neutral camp was being biased by the Tyler hype and the Tyler is great fandom that followed. So they leaned slightly toward "give this guy a chance" more than they normally do. Hicks admitted as much earlier in the thread, that he was a fan early on and grew to not be. The difference was I'd watched a ton of Tyler's UNC work as part of serious amateur scouting and was already at the place that Hicks ended up at a few years later.

    But the neutral people weren't the problem. The "let West walk, Tyler can start" crowd is the problem. The "it's not fair, Tyler's FG% is low because he needs at least 15 FGA per game to get in rhythm" crowd is the problem. The "his defense is great, you're just a hater" crowd is the problem, especially since I've mentioned several times recently about seeing Vogel say to Brian Shaw "What the f*** is Tyler doing?"regarding his defense during a game late in the season.


    Now if you are saying that your gut instinct right now is to tell me to shut my face and stop being such a Tyler hater because he tried hard and did a lot of good that I just don't appreciate because I'm a big pr***....well then maybe you are a part of that crowd after all. I've never thought of you as anything close to that and I'd like to think that for whatever reason you've just misread some of these postings as being directed at you.


    Personally I've always been offended by hearing Tyler cheered LOUDER than Danny, Roy or Paul. It happened every night. Early it was "My teeth got knocked out and I didn't miss 1 second of game time" Granger who took a back seat to Tyler for fan love. Then Roy who was a big bust because he wasn't a great, consistent starter as a #17 pick. Then Paul whose rookie year defense on Rose was WAY MORE critical to that Chicago series than an exciting Tyler steal and dunk.

    It took a long time for the Tyler hype and cheers to fall below the levels other far more important and JUST AS HARD WORKING players were getting. It's not just about Tyler, it's also about how those fans are thinking about and treating those other players.

    Cheering for Tyler is not the issue. Cheering for him more than those other players when they were doing far more and were just as hard working and actually a lot more outgoing is the issue.


    I've never heard that. I've heard he was quiet, kept to himself, was hard to talk to at times and definitely anything but some locker room leader. I've heard players say things like this, at least secondhand.

    West, Granger, Roy...I've heard they are what you describe.
    LOL. Seth, every once in a while youre completely over-the-top. Let West walk and Tyler start? I suppose theres probably a couple relatives of Tyler or his agent that post on here and might have said such, but other than that I dont believe anyone with half a brain was saying that.

    As for saying who should be cheered for the loudest and who should not...well...do you really wanna go there? Really? Different strokes for different folks. People pay their money and want to cheer the loudest for CJ Watson for whatever personal reason, then so be it, even if it doesnt make sense to me personally. But remember something, and like it or not it will likely always be the case. Those rough and tumble, give big effort, non-glamour hustle guys will always sell well in these parts...While I totally agree with you that from a merit standpoint there are others that likely were more deserving-I mean he was like the 6th or 7th man for christ sake-cheering is not an objective thing. Its very subjective. And as long as we are cheering for the Blue and Gold...well...whether its the backup qb syndrome that you are really referring to when you mention Tebow or not, that element will always exist. And the fact hes not the most athletic guy and one could argue an overachiever and underdog...well..again...that always sells well...especiallly in these parts.
    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

    Comment


    • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

      I guess this topic was forgotten... http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...d-T-Hans-start
      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

      ----------------- Reggie Miller

      Comment


      • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
        I agree with someone like Blair but I'm not sure even Plumlee right now couldn't give Hansbrough type production. The Pacers could afford to part ways and they did. .
        I'm not sure Plumlee could give us half of what Tyler gave us. As for the pacers could afford to part ways there is some difference of opinion here.

        Comment


        • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

          Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
          I guess this topic was forgotten... http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...d-T-Hans-start
          That thread was during an emotionally charged time right after a Playoff loss. And still the overwhelming reaction to replacing west with Tyler was "lolwut?"

          I think some of Seth's posts on Tyler bring up a lot of valid points, but the obvious negative bias is always present. Its not necessary to dump on what he does well; as a good backup/fringe sfartr he's got some holes in his game already.

          And if you're seriously confused about why guys like dahntay (who I did miss last year) don't have the same reaction as a guy we drafted and gave lots of minutes to his whole career in Tyler, I don't know what to say.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

            I think ONE of the things that gave Tyler so many fans or extra cheers around here was that when he was busting his *** the most, it seemed to stick out more than some of the others. At least, to me it did. I felt like he was trying harder than anyone to compensate for his lack of physical gifts relative to many of his peers. There is something to admire about that, at least to me. I don't think that strikes a chord with everybody, but I think it strikes a chord with a fair number of people.

            Comment


            • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

              As for Seth, I think he always made a lot of fair points. The thing that I think turned some of us off sometimes was that he tended to downplay the positives and accentuate the negatives, in my opinion. Sort of the way most people do the opposite when they're supporting their favorite guys; they would play up the positives and downplay the negatives.

              Comment


              • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                So the crowd was cheering louder for Tyler than Danny and that is a big deal
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  I think ONE of the things that gave Tyler so many fans or extra cheers around here was that when he was busting his *** the most, it seemed to stick out more than some of the others. At least, to me it did. I felt like he was trying harder than anyone to compensate for his lack of physical gifts relative to many of his peers. There is something to admire about that, at least to me. I don't think that strikes a chord with everybody, but I think it strikes a chord with a fair number of people.
                  He is more than just a ballplayer to some fans to be judged only on the basis of FG and rebounds. He is a unique personality and that's why he had a following. Remember-nobody wants to play against Tyler.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    As for Seth, I think he always made a lot of fair points. The thing that I think turned some of us off sometimes was that he tended to downplay the positives and accentuate the negatives, in my opinion. Sort of the way most people do the opposite when they're supporting their favorite guys; they would play up the positives and downplay the negatives.
                    The mistake is when people try to act totally data driven and objective about a stance, but most often focus on either the positives or negatives, giving the other short shrift, or even worse... misrepresenting the other vantage point.

                    There's no problem with taking a side, it's just confusing when it's guised in being objective.

                    BTW, these comments aren't directed at Naptown or anyone specifically, but I just see it as a fundamental issue with ppl getting ornery with each other on this board.

                    Hopefully he doesn't mind me calling him out, but at least Mackey is unabashed in his sentiments about Tyler... at least you know that it's gone beyond objectivity, and it's part of the fun reading what he's had to say.


                    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
                    Last edited by docpaul; 07-10-2013, 09:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                      Pacers should be making moves on their bench to counter the Heat. Hansbrough wasn't all that productive against the Heat, we could hardly play him in that series.

                      I think a split was mutually beneficial to both parties. I'll certainly miss Tyler's energy and toughness though. No, he wasn't the most talented, but he played very hard out there. Can't sell him short on that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        Pacers should be making moves on their bench to counter the Heat. Hansbrough wasn't all that productive against the Heat, we could hardly play him in that series.
                        To be honest, this is why I am a little worried about not bringing back Young.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


                          Look at the Green comments. That's for 1 season, and really only 1 terrible month. Green was the HIGHEST SCORING PACER PER MINUTE for March and April while carrying an eFG% over 50. His 3pt% returned from the grave and he actually helped out. Yet people cite him as an example of why you shouldn't sign Copeland as a "1 year wonder".

                          Tyler has never gotten that kind of consensus dismissal. Even in this thread with many people saying "I won't miss him" you have many posters rushing in to defend the unfair beating Tyler is getting.
                          I don't understand why Green being the "highest scoring Pacer per minute in March in April" is relevant. Plumlee's per-36 rebounds were 14.4 a game. Using "per minute" and "per 36" stats for scub bench players is very faulty because these guys would be getting far more minutes if they were actually good, which would drive the cartoon-ish averages down. Green wouldn't have been the highest scoring Pacer per minute if he was good enough to actually get a lot of minutes. He only played in 9 of our 16 March games. He only played in 9 of our 19 playoff games. That 34 point outing in the final game of the season really skews those March/April stats that you use.

                          Put it this way: If Green was good, then he wouldn't have been the highest per minute scorer, just like Plumlee wouldn't have been able to maintain a torrid rebounding pace when playing substantial minutes...if that makes sense. Playing more minutes would have inevitably driven that average down, even though it would have ultimately meant that he was a better player who was giving us a more complete aggregate production.

                          Trying to convince this forum that Green was anything but a bust is a losing battle. If a 3.5 mil a year player can't even play in half of the playoff games on a team with a weak bench because the coach doesn't trust him, then he is most certainly a bust. People don't think that Green is a bust because of a sloppy January. No, we think he is a bust because he was only allowed to play in 9 of our 19 playoff games. That one stat proves that he is a bust. Also, 5 of those 9 playoff games were against Atlanta. He only played in 4 of the 13 games against NY/Miami. We simply couldn't trust him against the elite competition.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-10-2013, 10:26 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            I'm not sure Plumlee could give us half of what Tyler gave us. As for the pacers could afford to part ways there is some difference of opinion here.
                            I realize that. That was just mine and obviously FO's opinion. I will be shocked if our bench isn't dramatically better next season.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                              Even when he was healthy, I felt like Green was at his best when there was absolutely no pressure on him. In other words, he typically thrives in garbage time / blowouts.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Tyler Hansbrough close to signing with the Raptors

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Even when he was healthy, I felt like Green was at his best when there was absolutely no pressure on him. In other words, he typically thrives in garbage time / blowouts.
                                Exactly. It's why his hyped 2011-12 season with the Nets was a complete mirage. The Nets were terrible that season and were out of the playoff picture early on. There was no pressure and they weren't trying super hard to win, which meant that Green was able to have fun out there without the strict pressures of playing for a great team. Then he gets to Indy and everything is different. We were competing to be one of the best teams in the league, which meant that every single error was scrutinized. He couldn't adjust.

                                In the final game of the season when Green scored 34, our starting lineup was Green, Mahinmi, Hansbrough, Lance, and Augistin. Had we rolled with that starting lineup for an entire season and tanked, then I'm sure that Green could have put up some very nice statistics. But it wouldn't have been winning basketball.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X