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

Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

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

  • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    CHA originally extended a qualifying RFA offer of $4.385 the first day they were able to do so. He was originally going to be traded to the Pacers (rumor) but eventually asked CHA to rescind the offer so he could become an UFA. He signed with the Pacers the next day.

    He already knew he was coming to play here, and took the contract that he was offered. We don't know how much he could have commanded, but he knew he would have to take a smaller contract to come here (this was the summer we re-signed Hill, Roy, and signed Green and traded for Ian) He took less money to leave CHA and come to a team that seemed to be on the come-up in IND. No he's not a star like talent, but he's not the scrub that we saw score 5 ppg while he was here neither.

    I'm not arguing that DJ is some great player, I'm arguing he was brought to a team and a system that didn't fit his strengths.
    This really doesn't make much sense. If DJ was going to become a Pacer, regardless, then why would CHA make him a UFA so he could go to Indy, without them getting some type of compensation back? If that's really how it went down, the CHA's FO is dumb. You don't just let a player walk away for free, when you can get something out of him.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

      Green sucks and I bet if you watched him play 82 times with the Suns you would see the same things he sucked at here on display when he plays for the Suns. No one ever suggested he isn't as athletic as anyone in the NBA or that he is a bad shooter.

      DJ was out of shape when he was here and in great shape last season - that made a huge difference. Plus he is best when he can dominate the ball. He does not fit here - not Frank's fault.

      Comment


      • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        It's just hard to give Vogel the benefit of the doubt on anything bench related after seeing the downright poor bench results over the last two seasons with talented players who have succeeded elsewhere. He has been a good coach here and I think that he deserved to comeback next year. His system has worked very well for the starting unit. That being said, the guy isn't Red Auerbach yet and he has his flaws. He clearly hasn't shown that he can adapt to the talents of his bench players. At this point, there are way too many guys who have came here and sucked.

        Vogel played Plumle, our first round draft pick, 55 total minutes in 2012-13 on a team that desperately needed bench help. Then Plumlee goes on to have a damn good season in Phoenix after we trade him. Obviously Vogel didn't think that Copeland could have helped, but that doesn't mean he is right. Regardless, I don't think that anyone was ever saying that Copeland would come in and save the team during the slump. But with Scola slumping and West being worked hard all year, we should have given him some minutes.

        Couple things bother me about Vogel and Copeland.

        1) Vogel himself recognized Copeland's talent in the Knicks series and couldn't understand why Woodson didn't play him more. Yet, Vogel won't play him at all. Why point out another coaches mistake and make the same mistake himself? That is just plain lunacy. But then we saw the same lunacy from the man who he trained under. In "someways" maybe the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

        2) I can't believe Vogel didn't have a voice in the signing of Copeland. If he was in favor of signing Copeland, then he needs to use what Herb is paying 3 mil for him to use. Otherwise, it's nothing more than wasted salary that could be useable this off season to help bring in a player/players that can help off the bench!

        If he wasn't in favor of signing Copeland, then he needs to tell TPTB he's not going to play Copeland and get him someone he will play.

        Comment


        • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Plumlee wouldn't have fixed the bench issues. He's a better hand version of Ian.

          Let's really go over this list of bench players that left and suddenly got good.

          DJ? He busted in Toronto, getting CUT, before going to a desperate Bulls that allowed him to do anything he wanted offensively.
          Tyler?
          Sam Young?
          Pendergraph?
          Ben Hans?
          OJ?

          So really the only example of a bench player leaving and turning heads is Green. DJ, eh..... I think it's pretty apparent that he needs a certain situation to have an impact and that's more on him. DJ had all the chances in the world to do something in Indy, and just couldn't get it done. It's nothing like Copeland.

          I think this whole "bench players leave and suddenly get good" argument has become more of projection than what actually happened. And I think it's perfectly valid to argue Green found the perfect role for him, and wouldn't do that many other places.

          Plumlee is only a better version of Ian b/c of hands? Did you even watch Plumlee play this year other than the 2 games the Suns played the Pacers? Plumlee can reb, play "D", and score. Score, that ability to put the ball in the basket. In Ian's case, the only time he puts anything in the basket is when he's at
          the grocery store.

          Since when does Thibs allow players do do whatever they feel like? Especially, bench players! Could it be that Thibs had the ability to bring out the player in DJ? Could it be DJ liked playing for Thibs as he was a better coach than Vogel? In another thread, CJ said he liked Thibs better than Vogel. Hmm, maybe we are on to something here.

          Green finding the best place to play like McBob did in Charlotte? The Pacers system isn't the best place for every player, but in Copeland's situation how does anyone know when he never gets to play other than in garbage time.

          Comment


          • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Plumlee is only a better version of Ian b/c of hands? Did you even watch Plumlee play this year other than the 2 games the Suns played the Pacers? Plumlee can reb, play "D", and score. Score, that ability to put the ball in the basket. In Ian's case, the only time he puts anything in the basket is when he's at
            the grocery store.
            Yes, actually I did watch more than 2 games. PHX was one of my favorite teams to watch this season. Plumlee scored off of lobs and put backs. Pacers don't have players capable of making lob plays, so it instantly cuts down his offensive production, if he was to be a Pacer. Yes, Plumlee is a better rebounder, but it's not like Ian is a bad rebounder for a backup center.

            Even Sollozzo admits he doesn't think swapping out Ian for Miles would have fixed anything. Do you think it would have? If nothing is fixed by swapping out players, then it's a lateral move. The difference in their rebounding is minimal, when you figure in that the Pacers were a very good rebounding team in general. There's only so many rebounds available, so if you're dividing those up among good rebounders, everyone is bound to get less.



            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Since when does Thibs allow players do do whatever they feel like? Especially, bench players! Could it be that Thibs had the ability to bring out the player in DJ? Could it be DJ liked playing for Thibs as he was a better coach than Vogel? In another thread, CJ said he liked Thibs better than Vogel. Hmm, maybe we are on to something here.
            DJ was given lots of offensive freedom under Thibs, because they didn't have anything else. He had a 22.5% usage rate last season. That's higher than what Lance's was this past season.

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Green finding the best place to play like McBob did in Charlotte? The Pacers system isn't the best place for every player, but in Copeland's situation how does anyone know when he never gets to play other than in garbage time.
            How about McBob's stop in LA?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              This really doesn't make much sense. If DJ was going to become a Pacer, regardless, then why would CHA make him a UFA so he could go to Indy, without them getting some type of compensation back?


              If that's really how it went down, the CHA's FO is dumb. You don't just let a player walk away for free, when you can get something out of him.

              No one has ever accused Charlotte's FO of being genius. Just look at some of their of draft choices.

              Comment


              • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                No one has ever accused Charlotte's FO of being genius. Just look at some of their of draft choices.
                It doesn't make sense for DJ, not just the CHA FO. DJ was a UFA, meaning he didn't have to sign with the Pacers for that small of a contract. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he signed with Indy, because no one thought he was worth more.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  It doesn't make sense for DJ, not just the CHA FO. DJ was a UFA, meaning he didn't have to sign with the Pacers for that small of a contract. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he signed with Indy, because no one thought he was worth more.
                  He signed here the NEXT day after he got the Bobcats to release his RFA. He signed the day he became a FA.

                  He had at least one team (CHA) that was going to pay him more than the Pacers, so SOMEBODY thought he was worth more.

                  If you look at this quote from Rod Higgins (then CHA GM) he admits it: “I’m not going to go into specifics, but we offered him more than he signed for in Indiana,’’ Higgins told the Observer at Friday shootaround.

                  http://blogs.charlotte.com/inside_th...-comments.html

                  Comment


                  • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                    It still doesn't make much sense. Why would a player sign that small of a contract, before testing the waters? CHA might have offered him more, but they removed the tender RFA tender on him in favor of signing Ramon Sessions.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                      ^^ Maybe he saw the Pacers as a good situation to get his career back on track and/or just wanted to get out of Charlotte - money be damned.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                        It doesn't make sense, but all the stories I've read demonstrates that CHA wanted DJ - but he wanted to leave. So he took less money to go to a playoff team that lacked a pure PG (something he probably felt he could bring to the team) Walsh was handing out long term deals left and right (Roy, Hill, Green, Mahinmi) so part of me thinks maybe Walsh offered a multi-year deal - but DJ just wanted to come in and contribute to a playoff team - and then sign elsewhere in the off-season. (obviously speculation)

                        Obviously in retrospect, it was a terrible decision on both DJ and Walsh's front.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                          Theres no doubt we would be a better team right now with Leonard, but its not like Bird can look into a glass ball and tell the future in 3 years.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            How do you know are you at practice? There is more than one way to earn playing time.
                            I will agree with that. I have no way of knowing what's going on in practice and that's definitely important. If Copeland wasn't performing well in practice and thus didn't earn playing time there then fair enough.

                            All I'm trying to say is that he helped us most of the times that he actually got the chance to play. That's all.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Coaches use players they trust, coaches use players they believe will help them win. Obviously Frank didn't trust Cope and didn't believe he could help the team win as miuch as the players who did get regular minutes. I realize what I am posting here is obvious. But I read post after post about how Copeland can help us if only the **** coach would play him. You know about any player can help a team if they get playing time - that has been proven again and again. They are all NBA players for a reason they all have skills.

                              So I don't think suggesting that so and so can help a team if he gets playing time is saying anything really.
                              UB, you know that I have never referred to Frank with an expletive. I believe that he is the perfect coach for our team and I appreciate what he has done for us. The only complain that I have ever had about him was the Copeland and Fesenko situations. I do understand that there were some conditioning concerns with Fesenko and thus I'm not going to complain about it a lot.

                              The Copeland situation was different, though. I understand why Frank used Scola over him. Scola is a much more established player with a bigger offensive arsenal. I'd play Scola over Cope as well. The only thing that I ever asked was to use Cope if and when Scola was underperforming. That's all. Frank did that a couple of times (to his credit) but he didn't do it as often as I think that he should.

                              Of course, this is simply my personal opinion that is based upon the matches I saw. Frank obviously knows more about his team than I do. As I said in my response to p4e I have no way of knowing what's going on in practice.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X