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

Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

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

  • #31
    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Penny didn't start getting injured until after Shaq left. In Shaq's last Orlando year, Penny played all 82 games. With Shaq, Penny's games played were 82, 77, 82.

    At the time, from a pure basketball standpoint, Orlando clearly offered Shaq the better chance of winning. He had no way of knowing that Penny would get perpetually injured or that Kobe would turn into Michael Jordan lite. In reality, all Shaq ever wanted from day 1 was to be starting center of the Los Angeles Lakers.

    The funny thing about the 1993 draft was that the 41-41 Magic had the lowest odds to win the lottery, yet they somehow won it for the second straight year and got the pick that they used on Webber and ultimately traded for Penny.
    Thank you for the correction, I thought I remembered that Penny started getting ouchy with Shaq still around, but I guess I remembered wrong.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

      Solomon Hill and George Hill to be the focal point of our offense and getting defensive reps against a 1st seed team and the 14th pick >>>>>>>>> No experience and the 10th pick.

      Proof: Paul George guarding Derek Rose in the 2011 playoffs. Such growth happened there. Growth that we overlooked now, and scorned then.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

        One of the problems with this argument is that people use different criteria to decide what is or is not success. As an example the people who are adamant about not tanking only consider tanking to have worked if you win a title, yet they are perfectly happy with their method if their team is competitive.

        But what about a team that tanks and has several years of being an elite team/contender status? Do they give that team credit for their tanking job or is only a title the answer?

        Seattle for certain tanked for 2 years and did it again for another 2-3 years in OKC, so the fact that the Thunder have been an elite team/title contender for the past 4 years or so, is that considered a failure or a success?

        The Wizards have now gone from annual jokes to being considered one of the top teams in the East are they still considered failures because they aren't the top team and not guaranteed to win a title?

        Please understand I am with you guys for the most part, I'm just trying to point out that there is another point of view on this and those who advocate doing this are not spawns of the devil.

        If there ever was a year where I would have said that it would make sense it was this year, however Solomon Hill has all by himself now made me take that thought back. I will admit as the year began I thought only Lavoy Allen was a young player that we could develop to see what he can be when Paul is ready and I foolishly had written off Hill as a giant cream puff flop. I was completely and 100% wrong about Hill and now I am convinced that he is a player that can be developed into something that can help when Paul returns.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

          We had 4 years of making the playoffs, and by the fourth year there were people convinced we were on the dreaded "Treadmill of mediocrity" where we couldn't make that next step. Time to blow it up and start fresh, with only Paul George and Lance cause the rest were real losers. So, if you don't win a title, you're treading water.

          Of course, this is just me putting words in others' mouths and my tongue in my cheek. So there's that.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            One of the problems with this argument is that people use different criteria to decide what is or is not success. As an example the people who are adamant about not tanking only consider tanking to have worked if you win a title, yet they are perfectly happy with their method if their team is competitive.

            But what about a team that tanks and has several years of being an elite team/contender status? Do they give that team credit for their tanking job or is only a title the answer?

            Seattle for certain tanked for 2 years and did it again for another 2-3 years in OKC, so the fact that the Thunder have been an elite team/title contender for the past 4 years or so, is that considered a failure or a success?

            The Wizards have now gone from annual jokes to being considered one of the top teams in the East are they still considered failures because they aren't the top team and not guaranteed to win a title?

            Please understand I am with you guys for the most part, I'm just trying to point out that there is another point of view on this and those who advocate doing this are not spawns of the devil.

            If there ever was a year where I would have said that it would make sense it was this year, however Solomon Hill has all by himself now made me take that thought back. I will admit as the year began I thought only Lavoy Allen was a young player that we could develop to see what he can be when Paul is ready and I foolishly had written off Hill as a giant cream puff flop. I was completely and 100% wrong about Hill and now I am convinced that he is a player that can be developed into something that can help when Paul returns.
            Haven't we seen the argument that anything other than a championship is mediocrity, though? I don't see too many people arguing that we need to tank to have a team that makes it to the ECF - we already HAVE a team that makes it to the ECF and has done so over and over since 1994. Even the "gap years" without getting a top-5 pick didn't keep it from coming back around.

            For my part, since we absolutely know that we can field a team that is in the 2nd round or better on a constant basis WITHOUT tanking, then doing the exact same thing by tanking doesn't make much sense. I think it is a lesser path because of the effects losing has on your team culture and fan base.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              One of the problems with this argument is that people use different criteria to decide what is or is not success. As an example the people who are adamant about not tanking only consider tanking to have worked if you win a title, yet they are perfectly happy with their method if their team is competitive.

              But what about a team that tanks and has several years of being an elite team/contender status? Do they give that team credit for their tanking job or is only a title the answer?

              Seattle for certain tanked for 2 years and did it again for another 2-3 years in OKC, so the fact that the Thunder have been an elite team/title contender for the past 4 years or so, is that considered a failure or a success?

              The Wizards have now gone from annual jokes to being considered one of the top teams in the East are they still considered failures because they aren't the top team and not guaranteed to win a title?

              Please understand I am with you guys for the most part, I'm just trying to point out that there is another point of view on this and those who advocate doing this are not spawns of the devil.

              If there ever was a year where I would have said that it would make sense it was this year, however Solomon Hill has all by himself now made me take that thought back. I will admit as the year began I thought only Lavoy Allen was a young player that we could develop to see what he can be when Paul is ready and I foolishly had written off Hill as a giant cream puff flop. I was completely and 100% wrong about Hill and now I am convinced that he is a player that can be developed into something that can help when Paul returns.


              We are still missing that superstar player that we can put next to Paul George and take that next step. Paul like KD, needs a Westbrook to go along with him. I think with the pieces we have, we can get that via a trade.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                For my part, since we absolutely know that we can field a team that is in the 2nd round or better on a constant basis WITHOUT tanking, then doing the exact same thing by tanking doesn't make much sense. I think it is a lesser path because of the effects losing has on your team culture and fan base.
                I wouldn't go as far as to say that we can field a Team that can make the 2nd round of the Playoffs.....but more closer to a Team that can be a Playoff Bubble to 1st round Team ( but slightly leaning more towards the 1st round Playoff Team ).

                I want to believe that this Team will be significantly better based on the assumption that by adding West/GH/Stuckey back into a scrappy "Never Quit, Never Surrender" lineup it will automatically translate into a WAY BETTER Team, but I have no idea what results that the "West/GH/Stuckey + the Never Quit, Never Surrender Squad" equation will generate

                At most, I think that we are a likely 1st round Playoff Team...anything beyond that is beyond what my Magic 8 Ball is capable of telling me .
                Last edited by CableKC; 11-18-2014, 07:03 PM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  I think with the pieces we have, we can get that via a trade.
                  Really ?? Do you have any ideas ??

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                    Really ?? Do you have any ideas ??
                    Uhhh...go visit the Trade Proposal thread....his ideas are all plastered on the walls there.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Really ?? Do you have any ideas ??
                      I always have ideas........

                      I thought the closest thing Paul had to that was Lance. But Lance left, and it seems that the team functions more smoothly now without him. So he might've been "a piece"? But it looks like he might've been the wrong one for "this team." In terms of finding a Robin to Paul's Batman.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                        Have already told my opinion...

                        I don't agree with tanking (as Philly does it or even watered-down version of, say, Orlando last yeat. IMO, Milwaukee didn't really tank - they just s***ed).
                        What you may gain in draft position you lose in letting your guys learn a losing culture and play selfish brand of basketball.

                        However, I fully agree and even would encourage "forfeiting" a season or two in some situation. With "forfeiting" I mean having other primary goals for a season than maximizing wins.
                        In a season decimated by injuries, I would concentrate in helping younger players to develop, save key guys from too large a workload, divide minuted widely to find out who can help you in future etc.
                        I would also look for trades where veterans are shipped to serious contenders for cheaper, younger, longer-term assets - even if those assets come with an asterick or question mark.

                        Whether that strategy earns you a play-off spot or leaves you some way short is not a big thing either way. As long as team has played hard nightly and we enter next season with 1-2 new, developed, quality rotation players out of previous scrap heap - for me that would be a good season in retrospective.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Haven't we seen the argument that anything other than a championship is mediocrity, though? I don't see too many people arguing that we need to tank to have a team that makes it to the ECF - we already HAVE a team that makes it to the ECF and has done so over and over since 1994. Even the "gap years" without getting a top-5 pick didn't keep it from coming back around.

                          For my part, since we absolutely know that we can field a team that is in the 2nd round or better on a constant basis WITHOUT tanking, then doing the exact same thing by tanking doesn't make much sense. I think it is a lesser path because of the effects losing has on your team culture and fan base.
                          Maybe you have but I certainly can't think of anyone who said that anything but a championship was mediocre?

                          As to your ECF criteria of year after year. In the last 20 years we have been to the ECF 8 times and the NBA finals once, so a total of 9 times in the top 4. Out of those 9 times 6 were from 94-00 now here is where it gets tricky. Do you consider Rik Smits to have been a vital part of that team? You know the guy who was the starting center, in an era superstar big men, for all 6 of those teams. Guess what, Rik Smits was chosen 2nd in his draft. So it's not like the Pacers have always built winners based on 15-20 draft picks.

                          Even our current team which has had 2 of the 9 E.C.F. slots has been based on a player taken in the top 10, so it's not like we built the team around mid round draft picks either.

                          As to fans, we've been over this before but I'll go over it again. We've already seen the bottom, Satan's 3rd year here was the epicenter of it and honestly I don't think it would be any worse. The only thing I'll caveat that by saying is if the Pacers ever chose to do what Philly is doing then you would see tickets sales go lower, but short of that? No, we have a very strong core group of fans, we just have a very weak casual fan base and always will. There are to many other sports around here to jump onto for this market size. BTW, let's not pretend that Philly fans are flocking to see that dumpster fire either, that arena is a ghost town as it should be.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Uhhh...go visit the Trade Proposal thread....his ideas are all plastered on the walls there.
                            You might have missed that this was in green.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                              try your best and let the results take care of themselves

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                You might have missed that this was in green.
                                D'oh....missed that.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X