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

Miller not wowed by old team

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

  • Miller not wowed by old team

    Ex-Pacers star stresses his former teammates' recent surge has come against lottery clubs

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS04/604200459

    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com
    The Indiana Pacers have won five of the past six games, including Wednesday night's regular-season finale against the Orlando Magic, but Reggie Miller still isn't sold on his former team.

    Miller said during a playoff preview conference call Wednesday afternoon that he doesn't put too much stock in the Pacers beating New York, Boston, Minnesota and Toronto, all lottery-bound teams. Orlando, too, failed to make the playoffs.
    "I'm not huge on what Indiana's doing, even though everyone says they are rounding into playoff shape," Miller said. "They haven't played anyone, and in April no one plays, especially the teams with bad records, because they're just trying to figure out where they're going on vacation when the season's over."
    Miller, who spent his entire 18-year career with the Pacers, raised eyebrows among his former teammates the day before the regular season when he said he thought Detroit was the team to beat.
    "Until Indiana shows me they've solved their chemistry problems, you have to go with a team that doesn't argue, that gets the job done at the end of the day," Miller said at the time. "Any little thing can set Indiana off."
    The Pacers did little to prove Miller wrong this season.
    Miller said Wednesday the Pacers aren't as good defensively, but he didn't rule out a potential upset over New Jersey in the first round of the playoffs.
    "In years past, Indiana has been a strong defensive team, but they haven't shown that consistently this year," Miller said. "To slow anyone down, that's a tall order for Indiana. It's not a light switch where you can turn it on and off. . . .
    "I wouldn't be shocked at all (if they upset the Nets). You have a premier player down low in Jermaine O'Neal. Peja Stojakovic is on the outside."

    No contact for Wittman
    Former Indiana University standout Randy Wittman said he's not taking it personally that he wasn't contacted by his alma mater about its head coaching position.
    "I had no control over that," the Magic assistant said before Wednesday's game. "They chose to go the direction they went.
    "Kelvin (Sampson) is completely qualified and a good person for the job. IU is still going to be IU. That's my school and I'm going to be rooting for them like I always have.
    "You don't have any control over what direction they want to head in. I don't have a feeling one way or another."
    Wittman, a two-time academic All-American at IU, was on the 1981 NCAA championship team.

    All five in the playoffs
    The Central is the first division since 1985-86 to send all five teams to the playoffs.
    The Bucks (40-42) made the playoffs despite finishing with a losing record.
    "It shows the strength of the division from top to bottom," Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said. "We knew Milwaukee was going to be improved and Chicago would be a team that fought hard. The other teams were predicted to be playoff teams."
    The former Midwest Division was the last division to send every team to the playoffs.

    Call Star reporter Mike Wells at (317) 444-6053.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  • #2
    Re: Miller not wowed by old team

    Not surprised Reggie said that. I was just mentioning yesterday about how Reggie took us to task after we lost to the Nets a few years ago, citing the immaturity and composure of this team and as the years have gone by he's maintained that stance.

    Of course, some of you will say that Reggie's comments will be locker room material to post as motivation. I'll pre-emptively say that if it takes Reggie's comments to get you motivated for the playoffs, then you shouldn't be playing in them.
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Miller not wowed by old team

      These comments pretty much mirror what he stated about the team at the beginning of the year, which some people dismissed then as him just trying to fire then up.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Miller not wowed by old team

        Pretty much sums up how I feel about them now. It's feasible they could beat NJ (although I wouldn't bet on it), but they are no match for the other 3 teams in the top half of the bracket in my view.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Miller not wowed by old team

          Reggie knows the truth and is just letting it out. We got by Minnesota without Garnett and Toronto without Bosh. We beat the stinking Knicks finally. We lost to Charlotte. This is fools gold.

          IMO, this will be the last time you see this group play together.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Miller not wowed by old team

            At least Sir Charles likes the Pacers......
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Miller not wowed by old team

              Originally posted by Rick Springfield
              All five in the playoffs
              The Central is the first division since 1985-86 to send all five teams to the playoffs.
              The Bucks (40-42) made the playoffs despite finishing with a losing record.
              "It shows the strength of the division from top to bottom," Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said. "We knew Milwaukee was going to be improved and Chicago would be a team that fought hard. The other teams were predicted to be playoff teams."
              The former Midwest Division was the last division to send every team to the playoffs.
              I'm really sick of hearing about a losing team making the playoffs. If the records and schedules of the 30 teams are relatively balanced, then 15 teams will have winning records and 15 teams will have losing records. 16 teams go to the playoffs and 14 teams go home. At least one team with a losing record invariably goes to the playoffs, so what's the big deal?
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                But our records against lottery teams is worst then it is vs .500 + teams..I don't understand peoples logic here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                  Originally posted by Moses
                  But our records against lottery teams is worst then it is vs .500 + teams..I don't understand peoples logic here.
                  Yeah, because of that I feel it means more than it would normally mean, but still not that much...

                  I guess we'll just have to see on sunday...
                  Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                  Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                    the voice of reason...we miss you, buddy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                      Originally posted by Raskolnikov
                      Yeah, because of that I feel it means more than it would normally mean, but still not that much...

                      I guess we'll just have to see on sunday...
                      It's just annoying to see people discount the wins we've had in the past week because they are lottery teams when they were saying earlier this season they would celebrate if we beat lottery teams. I just hope this is locker room fuel for the players.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                        I honestly don't care what he has to say.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                          Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                          I honestly don't care what he has to say.
                          I do. He played with virtually the same team that's played like crap most of this year, and he would know better than anybody what's wrong with them internally.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                            Originally posted by Hicks
                            I do. He played with virtually the same team that's played like crap most of this year, and he would know better than anybody what's wrong with them internally.
                            True, but I've just had a hard time connecting with Reggie the journalist/reporter. For instance, I want to enjoy his stuff more when he's on TNT or something... but I just don't. I dunno, maybe I still want him playing.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Miller not wowed by old team

                              Considering his comments at the beginning of the season, I think he's proven himself pretty reliable/knowledgeable when it comes to this team.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X