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

Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

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

  • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I don't think it's that hard of a thing to reconcile. Like I said, Bird has the best overall resume in league history (player, coach, executive) and doesn't quit. I get that. Doesn't mean that he wouldn't hit a super high pick out of the park - an opportunity that he's never had here.

    We're just giving him a compliment as a GM. He's been a good drafter with lower picks, so it stands to reason that he could have done something special with a high pick.
    I'm not saying he wouldn't knock a high draft pick out of the park, I think he would too. I'm saying if you have that much trust in the guy, have trust in the decisions that he makes you disagree with, not just when he makes ones you do agree with.

    It's not really trust, or faith, or whatever, if it you only have it when Larry is making decisions you agree with.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      No. I think it turns into a short term business decision that is about filling seats, adding some playoff games at the end of the year, and PR versus what is really best for team building which is a longer term strategy.

      Wasted opportunity is all I see.
      So basically the same exact argument we used to read when posters mocked Larry's 3yr plan, and wanted to tank instead?
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I'm not saying he wouldn't knock a high draft pick out of the park, I think he would too. I'm saying if you have that much trust in the guy, have trust in the decisions that he makes you disagree with, not just when he makes ones you do agree with.

        It's not really trust, or faith, or whatever, if it you only have it when Larry is making decisions you agree with.
        Like I said earlier, not even that upset about it. Understand that it was a long shot with Vogel's strengths as a coach. Just would have liked to have seen what Bird could have done with a high pick for once. I do think that we made a mistake in not trading West for 50 or 75 cents on the dollar. It would be very hard for me to believe that there were no deals out there for him given the impact that West had here from 2012-14.

        Comment


        • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Like I said earlier, not even that upset about it. Understand that it was a long shot with Vogel's strengths as a coach. Just would have liked to have seen what Bird could have done with a high pick for once. I do think that we made a mistake in not trading West for 50 or 75 cents on the dollar. It would be very hard for me to believe that there were no deals out there for him given the impact that West had here from 2012-14.
          I know you're not, I wasn't aiming the question back at you, just re-asking Heis.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

            It's just crazy to read through this thread and read posters try and argue that going to 8 ECF's is a bad thing, simply because none turned into championship rings. You have to get to an ECF before you win a ring, so while you can say you're disappointed in the fact they didn't win, it's hard to justify saying that ECF's are failures.

            It reads like you're saying you'd rather not go to ECF's, if you don't win a ring, and would rather sit in the lottery for the chance at a ring. Um, ECF's mean you're hell of a lot closer to a ring than a lottery pick.

            It's like wanting your kid to run, but thinking crawling is a failure. Just keep them on their tummies, they'll magically get up and challenge Usain Bolt.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Like I asked Sollozzo previously, don't you find it odd to put so much faith in the FO in their ability to make the right selection with a lotto pick, but not enough faith in them to make the right choice on whether or not to tank?
              I find it odd that they didn't seem to see the forest for the trees, yes. I have a good bit of faith in them picking good players. I have continually dwindling faith that Bird's adaptable to what the league's become and is becoming.

              I honestly think Bird's a dinosaur. An immensely basketball savvy one but a dinosaur.

              Comment


              • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                I find it odd that they didn't seem to see the forest for the trees, yes. I have a good bit of faith in them picking good players. I have continually dwindling faith that Bird's adaptable to what the league's become and is becoming.

                I honestly think Bird's a dinosaur. An immensely basketball savvy one but a dinosaur.
                So if he's a dinosaur, why do you think he would make the right draft pick and not make the wrong one
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  It's just crazy to read through this thread and read posters try and argue that going to 8 ECF's is a bad thing, simply because none turned into championship rings. You have to get to an ECF before you win a ring, so while you can say you're disappointed in the fact they didn't win, it's hard to justify saying that ECF's are failures.

                  It reads like you're saying you'd rather not go to ECF's, if you don't win a ring, and would rather sit in the lottery for the chance at a ring. Um, ECF's mean you're hell of a lot closer to a ring than a lottery pick.

                  It's like wanting your kid to run, but thinking crawling is a failure. Just keep them on their tummies, they'll magically get up and challenge Usain Bolt.
                  If we keep going to the ECF's, sooner or later we will get the breaks necessary to win a Championship.

                  It's kind of like in racing. You keep finishing in the top 10, then you get to where you are consistently finishing in the top 5 and finally you start getting the necessary breaks and start winning some races.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    It's just crazy to read through this thread and read posters try and argue that going to 8 ECF's is a bad thing, simply because none turned into championship rings. You have to get to an ECF before you win a ring, so while you can say you're disappointed in the fact they didn't win, it's hard to justify saying that ECF's are failures.

                    It reads like you're saying you'd rather not go to ECF's, if you don't win a ring, and would rather sit in the lottery for the chance at a ring. Um, ECF's mean you're hell of a lot closer to a ring than a lottery pick.

                    It's like wanting your kid to run, but thinking crawling is a failure. Just keep them on their tummies, they'll magically get up and challenge Usain Bolt.

                    This I agree with. The Pacers have had a ton of success for a small market team. I think that this current incarnation of the team would have made the Finals at least once if their peak didn't unfortunately coincide with an unprecedented gathering of three superstars who wanted to team up and have pillow fights together. I was proud of how the Pacers fought against them when the deck was so stacked against them and everyone else.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-17-2015, 10:02 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      So if he's a dinosaur, why do you think he would make the right draft pick and not make the wrong one
                      Because I can't fire him so you argue with what you have.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                        I don't know where to put this, but this is my first time back on here since getting back from Memphis yesterday evening. I don't have much to say other than, the Pacers were 23-13 with George Hill in the starting lineup this year. That would have been good for the 3rd seed in the East based on winning % and just BARELY behind Cleveland's winning % that got them the 2 seed.

                        Nothing to worry about, we'll be fine.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                          I look at drafting like shooting a basket, where draft position equals distance from the basket (in feet). You could still miss, but it's a hell of a lot easier to make a basket from 3 feet than it is from 25 feet.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                            I really don't see what all the doom and gloom is about. We would have been well above .500 and probably the 5-6th seed this year had he had a healthy GHill for most the season. We didn't, he missed the first 30 something games. Once Hill was back this team was playing much more to its potential. What a difference a good player makes. Add back a health PG13 and this team is once again in the top 4, probably battling Cleveland the Central title all season long.

                            Do we have some age problems? YES, West is old and slowing down. We'll fix that in the draft and get either a very skilled or very athletic PF/C.

                            This season for me has put a lot of the team's problems from the last several years in perspective. It becomes quite clear what type of players you have when you lose an elite level star player for the season.

                            1. With Frank Vogel at the helm we will always be a strong defensive team. He managed to make both Stuckey and Miles look solid on D.
                            2. With Roy Hibbert in the starting unit we will always be a team that struggles to score. More or less the same with David West too. Through credit West for upping his assists the 2nd half of the season.
                            3. PG13 makes everyone better.
                            4. A lot of us have criticized Frank Vogel for the offense over the past few seasons....see #2. We simply don't have the personnel to be a high scoring, fluid passing team aka the Spurs or Hawks.

                            I actually think we are in real good position going forward. This truly was a season ruined by injuries.
                            Last edited by graphic-er; 04-17-2015, 10:09 AM.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                              Our 2 best players, one who is a sure fire perennial all star in all likelihood when he is healthy and another a guy who could very likely challenge for the all star team next year, missed a combined ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN GAMES.

                              I don't want to hear about how Mike Conley was a little dinged up for Memphis the last 10 days of the season. Give me a freakin' break.

                              I'm not saying PG and GHill are Durant and Westbrook, but imagine what the OKC record would look like if the two of them missed that many combined games.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Missing the playoffs was probably the best thing for this team

                                Originally posted by sav View Post
                                If we keep going to the ECF's, sooner or later we will get the breaks necessary to win a Championship.

                                It's kind of like in racing. You keep finishing in the top 10, then you get to where you are consistently finishing in the top 5 and finally you start getting the necessary breaks and start winning some races.
                                Maybe that break was a lost season to injury to the star player that could be used to garner a high draft pick as an asset to finally get the team over the hump...
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X