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

Ok, it's officially time to panic

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

  • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    One thing that is missed................Larry traded for LaVoy hoping Vogel would play him OVER Ian if Bynum's knee (or knees) started to flare up. Which it (the right one) did. But now, Vogel has decided to play Ian (CDS - Can't do S***) Mahinmi over LaVoy. Who gave us 13, 8 and 2 in his only backup of Hibbert this season. Yeah it's one game. BUT.....the fact that LaVoy can consistently knock down or has the range to knock down the 13 foot jump-shot, alone makes him superior to Ian and makes me curious. Teams cannot play off of him like they do Ian. They want Ian to shoot, LaVoy not so much. And leaving him open would be a killer. If you game Ian and LaVoy 10 attempts at a 12 footer, I'll bet LaVoy would hit atleast 7. Ian about 2 at the most. 4 if he's DAMN LUCKY.

    You have no basis for this claim. Also, no way LaVoy Allen is going to shoot 70 percent on a mid range jumper.
    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

    Comment


    • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

      When I say "did not consider all the possible ramifications" that is dependent on "I do not think Bird accurately assessed the situation". They aren't meant to be taken as independent statements, but as one statement dependent on the other. Because Bird didn't accurately assess the situation he did not consider all the possible ramifications. The problem was with Bird's assessment, not with Bird flippantly trading Granger just cause.

      On the flip side, I don't take Bird's word as the end all be all. Just because he has an opinion on something does not mean his opinion is right. In fact I think Bird is wrong about as often as your average regular Pacers Digest poster. Bird isn't some genius (few GMs are), he just happened to have connections because he was a great player. He made the move because he THOUGHT it was in the best interest, but that doesn't mean it was in the best interest of the team. There were many reasons why it wouldn't be. Granger was a well respected leader in the lockerroom that the young studs looked up to, championship teams tend to be veteran teams not teams led by 23 year olds, Granger was playing excellent defense, everyone respected Danny's ability to shoot the 3, outside of back-to-back games Granger shot nearly 40% from three, Turner's skill set is practically identical to Lance's, Turner is not a viable threat from 3, Turner was not and still is not a more efficient player than Granger this season, and Turner is not a good defender. All of this was stuff that was known prior to the trade, and is why this trade was highly risky. This is also why the trade most likely did have a negative affect on the team. The reason this team is playing like **** no, but I'm willing to bet if it was Granger in that lockerroom instead of Turner we would be in a lot better shape right now.

      I don't know what Granger's offseason work ethic (which by the way he said he worked hard, he just didn't push himself like some of the other Pacers players do) has to do with this season, or how Danny no longer needing to do his rehab workout has anything to do with anything other than an indication that Danny no longer needed to do rehab. He is doing fine in LA so I don't think there is anything meaningful to the report that he quit rehab.

      Comment


      • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

        On Granger. To think not having him couldn't have a negative affect on the team because his stats weren't great, or because he didn't play last year is just a sign of ignorance towards how people act and think. From previous comments it has been made obvious that you for some reason think making millions of dollars means these people no longer act and think like normal human beings. Like they suddenly mutated into a different species. Which simple is not the case. Right now having Granger in the lockerroom would be a good thing. He was a player that just about everyone in the lockerroom looked up to, and respected. He might not have played last year, but he was almost always with the team and was certainly a voice in the lockerroom. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't act sort of like a coach a lot of the times. To ignore the importance of a leader in the lockerroom is honestly stupid.

        I'm going to echo a bit, with some added flavor, what others have said. I do not believe in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", what I am a believer in is "if it ain't broke, don't make any rash changes". This is something I have learned from programming. You can always make it better, but you better know exactly what you are doing. If you do not take the time to work through the logic, plan properly, and test it you are bound to create a change that screws something up 10, 15, or even 100 steps down the line. Everything is interconnected, and one change can cause a cascading affect over the whole program. Multiple changes, can become exponentially more harmful. I do not think Bird accurately assessed the situation, and the players skills involved when making this decision. He looked at it from Turner and Granger in vacuum, and did not consider all the possible ramifications. If he did he would not have traded away such an important piece to the lockerroom for a young player whose skill set mimics the skill sets of players already on the team.
        Sure, Granger's veteran presence couldn't hurt in cleaning this mess up, but Bird made the trade with the hope that there would never be such mess to clean up. If Bird is guilty of anything, I guess it's that he overrated this group's current maturity. In 1985, Bird's Celtics traded away the beloved Cedric Maxwell, the 1981 Finals MVP. The Celtics went on to win the championship the next season as one of the greatest teams in NBA history. In 1999, his Pacers traded away Antonio Davis for a bust draft pick. Davis was extremely popular, but instead of moping around, the team went to the Finals the next year.

        Bird thought that after three years of this core being together, they were mature enough to handle losing a beloved teammate. He thought they had the mental strength of an 86 Celtics or 00 Pacers. Maybe he was wrong. I still think that the Granger thing is nowhere near at the top of relevant excuses - no more than Brian Shaw leaving.

        Comment


        • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

          I'm glad I've been out of town and unable to watch these debacles the past two games. My furniture is too. What in the name of all the holy ****s is going on?

          Comment


          • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

            After all of the panic on here, watch them go out and end the Spurs winning streak tonight. Wouldn't really surprise me though since I do think that this team plays up to its competition. The problem is that our selfish habits really kick in when we're playing a team with inferior talent. Guys think that they can win a game by playing 1 on 1 ball.

            Comment


            • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              If the Pacers do not reach the ECF, Vogel will be fired. This has the same feel as Isaiah's last team in 2002-2003. On paper, Indiana is just as talented as any other team. Coach's job to get them to win games. Simple as that. I think the players have stopped listening to Frank, so I'm not blaming Vogel, but wins are what coaches get judged on
              The Pacers should have prepared for this game with Spurs by watching that first gave over and over again. The Pacers easy out played the Spurs and looked like real champions that night. I was there in person.

              Comment


              • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic



                This the equivalent of after the GS game last year?
                There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                Comment


                • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  When I say "did not consider all the possible ramifications" that is dependent on "I do not think Bird accurately assessed the situation". They aren't meant to be taken as independent statements, but as one statement dependent on the other. Because Bird didn't accurately assess the situation he did not consider all the possible ramifications. The problem was with Bird's assessment, not with Bird flippantly trading Granger just cause.

                  On the flip side, I don't take Bird's word as the end all be all. Just because he has an opinion on something does not mean his opinion is right. In fact I think Bird is wrong about as often as your average regular Pacers Digest poster. Bird isn't some genius (few GMs are), he just happened to have connections because he was a great player. He made the move because he THOUGHT it was in the best interest, but that doesn't mean it was in the best interest of the team. There were many reasons why it wouldn't be. Granger was a well respected leader in the lockerroom that the young studs looked up to, championship teams tend to be veteran teams not teams led by 23 year olds, Granger was playing excellent defense, everyone respected Danny's ability to shoot the 3, outside of back-to-back games Granger shot nearly 40% from three, Turner's skill set is practically identical to Lance's, Turner is not a viable threat from 3, Turner was not and still is not a more efficient player than Granger this season, and Turner is not a good defender. All of this was stuff that was known prior to the trade, and is why this trade was highly risky. This is also why the trade most likely did have a negative affect on the team. The reason this team is playing like **** no, but I'm willing to bet if it was Granger in that lockerroom instead of Turner we would be in a lot better shape right now.

                  I don't know what Granger's offseason work ethic (which by the way he said he worked hard, he just didn't push himself like some of the other Pacers players do) has to do with this season, or how Danny no longer needing to do his rehab workout has anything to do with anything other than an indication that Danny no longer needed to do rehab. He is doing fine in LA so I don't think there is anything meaningful to the report that he quit rehab.
                  bottom line here is Bird built this team into a nba contender, and the franchise is selling out games which it hasn't done in years. let him run it. nobody else has got the final say. he said in the article below he did what is best for the franchise. suddenly now Bird is not a man of his word and a fast talking car salesman. maybe so.

                  this was not an easy decision either way. im sure Bird believed this team was stronger , but the immaturity now is too great and Pacers needed a 14M dollar a year chaperone for this group the remaining 50 games of the season. im sure many of us believed DWEST was that anchor,,, but lets lay all of it on Danny Granger and not BAMF.


                  the ramifications im sure Bird considered and I don't believe Legend walks on water one bit. ive made it known his failure to find this team a true point guard has been a setback on his behalf. Hansbrough over Lawson was clearly a bad selection. Bird saved about 4M for this franchise trading Danny which I don't believe should be overlooked in the Granger equation when all possible "ramifications" are considered. its as if there is only one side of the ledger and that is this young immature team needed a 4M a year chaperone to escort them to the Big Dance. Lets not also consider that Lance is all but gone if he wants anything near 10M or more per year. Which many on this board was willing to do yet financially it never lines up unless we can deal GHILL or Mahinmi etc.

                  granger right now is out for 3 games with a "calf hamstring" injury of some kind. many of us deep down had to at least be a bit concerned about danny staying healthy. have to go back and read the "Danny Granger 2013-14" thread. its been discussed to death on here,,, many believed it would take Danny a full year to get back to full strength.

                  there are two sides and I see the sentimental aspect of it... its unfortunate these guys are too soft and need Granger to chaperone them all the way. Even if that meant granger pulled another calf musle. I mean were not talking about Danny from the heat 2012 east semis as many evidenced by the play.

                  those are the "ramifications" meant and in that regard I will agree. Bird underestimated this teams will, maturity, and resolve and should probably begin considering the core of this team and what needs to change.

                  HIBB is now entering the prime of his career and beginning to call out teammates when his play has not backed up his mouth. he shoud try to stay on his own two feet these days instead of calling out teammates.


                  there are multiple issues right now with this team and im sure Dannys is one of many components. just to summarize there may be a major overhaul coming this offeason. this teams softness and immmatruity has got to change. either the head coach or the players. this team with this talent should have already eclipsed 60 wins.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Sure, Granger's veteran presence couldn't hurt in cleaning this mess up, but Bird made the trade with the hope that there would never be such mess to clean up. If Bird is guilty of anything, I guess it's that he overrated this group's current maturity. In 1985, Bird's Celtics traded away the beloved Cedric Maxwell, the 1981 Finals MVP. The Celtics went on to win the championship the next season as one of the greatest teams in NBA history. In 1999, his Pacers traded away Antonio Davis for a bust draft pick. Davis was extremely popular, but instead of moping around, the team went to the Finals the next year.

                    Bird thought that after three years of this core being together, they were mature enough to handle losing a beloved teammate. He thought they had the mental strength of an 86 Celtics or 00 Pacers. Maybe he was wrong. I still think that the Granger thing is nowhere near at the top of relevant excuses - no more than Brian Shaw leaving.

                    Thank you. one of the best written responses yet. I mentioned it in the game thread as well. Brian Shaw and Vogel worked exceptionally well yet that so far has been significantly overlooked.

                    Great ******* post man.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                      Posting this in multiple threads to see if I'll get banned for general Pollyannism.

                      This could really be a blood bath, home crowd booing the team tied for the best record in the East off the court. I will say this, the regular season will be over soon, this much is true. They get a do over in two weeks. So as bad as it might get and yes it can get worse, I'll still hold out hope. UConn got destroyed by Louisville n the regular season, Kentucky lost 3 of their last 5, now both have a chance at the ring (fact ck please, I'm really close to correct on these two things . Just know it all starts over in 2 weeks.

                      As Blutarski said, It ain't over til its over.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        After all of the panic on here, watch them go out and end the Spurs winning streak tonight. Wouldn't really surprise me though since I do think that this team plays up to its competition. The problem is that our selfish habits really kick in when we're playing a team with inferior talent. Guys think that they can win a game by playing 1 on 1 ball.
                        I prob wont panic even if we do lose 1 seed. hell if brook/chi town go 4/5 let the heat have it. I echo what others have stated this team "if dialed in" can beat anyone anywhere.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                          lance does gotta move to the bench though. if lance is on you keep him in the game at the end of the 4th. its seems to be the easiest fix available if there is one.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Granger thing is nowhere near at the top of relevant excuses
                            No one is saying it is anywhere near the top of the reasons why this team is playing like ****.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                              those are the "ramifications" meant and in that regard I will agree. Bird underestimated this teams will, maturity, and resolve and should probably begin considering the core of this team and what needs to change.

                              Wait so you do agree with me? Then why are you arguing against me?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Ok, it's officially time to panic

                                Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post


                                This the equivalent of after the GS game last year?
                                What the hell am I looking at?
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X