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

[Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

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

  • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Yeah that team started hot and then it went to **** fast, also beating SA during the regular season is good but knowing Pop he probably benched some people or limited their minutes, regular season Spurs and playoffs Spurs is not the same thing not even close.
    Duncan - Leonard -Parker all played. It was a hyped regular season game between two teams with great records. I agree that the Spurs ramped it up in the playoffs, but they still won 62 games that year. They were on a mission all year long after the tragic 7 game loss to Miami the prior year.

    Comment


    • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Duncan - Leonard -Parker all played. It was a hyped regular season game between two teams with great records. I agree that the Spurs ramped it up in the playoffs, but they still won 62 games that year. They were on a mission all year long after the tragic 7 game loss to Miami the prior year.
      Pacers were one KL shot away from beating SA this year and lost the other game by 4 so this years team was also a great team?



      Highlights of that game (it also shows one of those missed last second shots by PG)


      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        We should follow the Seattle model. All the way to losing the team just as that top draft pick finally hits the floor. It would be worth it if we could have all the championships OKC has now.

        Or, if we're lucky, we could follow the Chicago model and get through 6-7 years of rebuilding and win the long shot lottery without the team moving, then bank all the championships they've gotten since then. Woot!

        Or Philadelphia - those 76ers fans are selling out the arena and merch is selling nationwide because of the success they've had building a team through perennial lottery picks. And those trophies...
        Yet when giving a reason the Pacers have never won it all vs the Colts who have you said

        One got a #1 draft pick. One has never had a #1 draft pick, in a league where that makes a lot more impact.
        Sadly you are contradicting yourself not even one page apart.

        Tanking as a strategy does not work, until it does, then whoever gets lucky to draft that once in a generational player looks like a genius. But for every Cleveland (LeBron James) there is Milwaukee (Andrew Bogut) or Washington (John Wall). Good players but by no means did either bring their respective clubs out of the slums based on their play.


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

        Comment


        • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

          The Colts are just lucky, that's it.

          Irsay has had 2 amazing quarterbacks fall into his lap and has one chip to show for it.

          Comment


          • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Yet when giving a reason the Pacers have never won it all vs the Colts who have you said



            Sadly you are contradicting yourself not even one page apart.

            Tanking as a strategy does not work, until it does, then whoever gets lucky to draft that once in a generational player looks like a genius. But for every Cleveland (LeBron James) there is Milwaukee (Andrew Bogut) or Washington (John Wall). Good players but by no means did either bring their respective clubs out of the slums based on their play.
            It's not a contradiction because you can't guarantee yourself a #1 pick in the NBA. The "models" listed above were multi-year attempts to get a #1 pick. The Colts were able to predict their #1 picks very specifically and target a particular player.

            I still would not want to do a "trash the team and rebuild from greatest possible suckage" even if we COULD target the year and the pick, because I'm not built that way. But at least the argument about it being POSSIBLE to create a better team from that kind of rebuild would be better.
            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


            • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Duncan - Leonard -Parker all played. It was a hyped regular season game between two teams with great records. I agree that the Spurs ramped it up in the playoffs, but they still won 62 games that year. They were on a mission all year long after the tragic 7 game loss to Miami the prior year.
              Don't you get it, the Pacers have never been good enough to ever compete for a championship. The 2000 final series? That was a total fluke. If we made the finals in 2013, it would have clearly been a massacre.

              Comment


              • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                Don't you get it, the Pacers have never been good enough to ever compete for a championship. The 2000 final series? That was a total fluke. If we made the finals in 2013, it would have clearly been a massacre.
                Yep. We know from Pacers history that every time they've looked competitive it is due to luck, not being taken seriously, or their opponents failing to live up to their potential. Every other NBA playoff team got there through absolute perfection of their players, coaching, and style. The Pacers have been awful for 40 years and got pity positioning from time to time.
                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


                • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                  I would have been thrilled to have the Pacers end Lebron/Wade's super team run even if they lost to the Spurs. It'd be bigger than a Central Division or Eastern Conference banner in my mind.

                  The real "what if" for Larry Bird built Pacers teams is what if Joe Dumars doesn't trade for Rasheed/what if Ron Artest gets his brain in gear years earlier.

                  Comment


                  • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                    I would have been thrilled to have the Pacers end Lebron/Wade's super team run even if they lost to the Spurs. It'd be bigger than a Central Division or Eastern Conference banner in my mind.

                    The real "what if" for Larry Bird built Pacers teams is what if Joe Dumars doesn't trade for Rasheed/what if Ron Artest gets his brain in gear years earlier.
                    See, this is why I'm always on the "be patient with Larry" bandwagon. He's built two separate teams that had legit shots at titles. Of course, the JO/Artest group was a powder keg, and there's fair criticism there. The teams with DWest might've been destroyed by the Granger trade, so I get that criticism too. I think there's plenty that could've gone better. But in a small market, without ever getting that Jordan/Kobe/LeBron/KD/super elite guy here, we've had 3 separate title contenders in the past 20 years, each with a 2-3 year window. It's a slow process, and there have been PLENTY of mistakes and bad contracts and trades. I get it. And, honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to a younger money-ball style guy coming in and trying something new. But I'm with Bird until he retires, and I think his future is heavily dependent on PG's. Which is why I believe he's going to be aggressive this off-season. He wants to keep Paul and make another serious run before calling it quits.
                    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                    Comment


                    • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                      Originally posted by immortality View Post
                      Don't you get it, the Pacers have never been good enough to ever compete for a championship. The 2000 final series? That was a total fluke. If we made the finals in 2013, it would have clearly been a massacre.
                      I'm thanking this because I believe it's brilliant sarcasm.
                      The other day (at another site) I had a really great laugh at a sarcastic post. I even said to myself "I wish I would've posted that!". Sadly, I learned later it was a serious post.
                      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


                      • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Of course I wasn't. I can assure you I know exactly where I stand with them and you don't know what you're talking about. The offer was fair. But Simon made it clear it was a "take it or leave it offer" right after signing CJ Miles.

                        Here is the timeline for those who may not be paying enough attention:

                        Pacers sign CJ Miles on 7/11/2014:
                        http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/pacer...ayer-signings/
                        Source: NBA.Com

                        On 7/15/2014, Simon expressed that the deal was on the table and "it's a simple situation". IOW, take it or get out!

                        On Tuesday in Las Vegas, Pacers owner Herb Simon spoke briefly about Stephenson and the process with the team which seemed to be staggering to an end."We made him a wonderful offer and they didn't think it was enough," Simon said. "So it's a simple situation."
                        The next day, Hornets sign Lance Stephenson on 7/16/2014

                        https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ract/12728197/
                        Source: USA Today

                        Nearly 3 years later on March 30th, Lance makes his triumphant return, outplays ever Pacer except Paul George after sitting on the couch for a year. SMH.
                        So real kicker about this situation is that Lance Stevenson should have been the guy they sign to go over the cap. For some reason Bird wanted Lance's deal done under the cap. Thats a Simon decision right there. if they wanted to go over the cap to keep Lance they could, you just structure his signing to happen after the Pacers sign other Free Agents. But that is the reason why Bird could only offer him around 8.5 Million a year.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                          So real kicker about this situation is that Lance Stevenson should have been the guy they sign to go over the cap. For some reason Bird wanted Lance's deal done under the cap. Thats a Simon decision right there. if they wanted to go over the cap to keep Lance they could, you just structure his signing to happen after the Pacers sign other Free Agents. But that is the reason why Bird could only offer him around 8.5 Million a year.
                          I was fine with them setting a max offer...and I was fine with the offer itself. The issue I had was how Simon handled the situation. Also, never did like the CJ Miles acquisition and the timing that preceded Simon's comments most definitely drove Lance away. It had nothing to do with the money and I think there is a quote from Lance's "agent" on that point.

                          What happened is that the Pacers wined and dined Lance. They made him a good offer. When he balked they shifted, signed CJ and basically told him to sign or just go away. Perhaps it was his first lesson that the NBA is a business. But the Pacers still didn't handle it right. The communication was not there. They should have known that Lance's agent didn't have a clue. They should have told Lance that CJ wasn't his replacement. See, that's what Lance thought. He thought CJ Miles and his deadly perimeter shot was brought in as a sufficient replacement....and the reason Simon stopped stroking and started playing hard ball is because they didn't think Lance was that important. It was the way the franchise turned on a dime that turned off Lance. That right there is on Simon IMO.

                          Comment


                          • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                            With Simon's financial concerns - not a sure thing Indy offers George the full designated player exemption even in he makes the All-NBA team. That alone is the ultimate sign of disrespect for NBA players.

                            George is gone.

                            Comment


                            • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Yep. We know from Pacers history that every time they've looked competitive it is due to luck, not being taken seriously, or their opponents failing to live up to their potential. Every other NBA playoff team got there through absolute perfection of their players, coaching, and style. The Pacers have been awful for 40 years and got pity positioning from time to time.
                              This is classic. Just dripping with sarcasm. You should have this put on a plaque and mounted somewhere in your house.

                              Comment


                              • Re: [Kravitz] In Defense of Pacers President Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                This is classic. Just dripping with sarcasm. You should have this put on a plaque and mounted somewhere in your house.
                                This is masterful but he can spontaniously equal or surpass this routinely.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X