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

The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

    the formula for winning a championship seems pretty consistent....and if possible would like whatever discussions take place tend to relate to the formula...

    u have to have 2 studs....2 guys that truly impact the game, in most cases, on both ends...jordan, pippen...dumars, thomas...hakeem, drexler....shaq, kobe....duncan, robinson...duncan, ginoboli....rip/r. wallace....etc. etc.

    then you have to have some very good players around them that end up being very good complements or role players whatever u like....and these guys definitely have to bring special skills to the party, usually dependent on the two studs and whats the best way to complement the two studs....any champion has this...detroit has it with billups, b. wallace, and tay-who is a stud in training as far as im concerned....they have dice off the bench....all very good players...actually, maybe a little better than what u have to have, but then their dropoff is dramatic after that, so they have quality over quantity....in their case u might be able to have a little less quality and a little more quantity-but their studs arent quite what others are, so its definitely a good mix for that team...

    jo and ron are those studs on this team....and we happen to have quite a few very good players to surround them with...maybe even more than we need at this point....however, if u take one of the two studs off, and replace them with another very good player, it wont work....then our chances are about as good as the clippers of winning the title...it just wont happen....you have to have the two...i think very highly of jt, jack and many of the other guys....but none of them are studs...and never will be....the only one that had the potential was bender, and we know what happened there, though i cant help but hope....and if u did replace artest with a dunleavy type, then bender would be our best shot at a second stud-and i really dont like the sounds of that at this point.....

    the point is u cant lose ur studs....not without getting one in return....look at what happened to the lakers...and please dont tell me odom is a stud...because hes not...

    almost without exception, any time a stud has been traded for a group of very ,very good players-but not studs-the team getting the stud gets better and the other team gets worse....

    if we wouldve been having the discussion a couple of years ago, id be saying the same things about jo that i am about artest....you just cant lose him....and in this day and age u almost always have to pay the studs the max...cause everyone wants them and someone will find a way to get them the max....jo might not be the leader he should be yet...but i believe he will be....i believe we will see him grow now that reggie is gone....but hes still young and there will be hiccups along the way

    this is what is so unique about artest...hes one of the few studs that doesnt require the max....that is potentially a huge huge plus...because it can possibly enable u to have another stud...or probably even better, a couple more very , very good players....and as a sidenote, a reason why ultimately we might be wise to consider an offense that looks to push it a little more as we could potentially maximize our better depth....

    hopefully its clear....this is probably the real reason i shudder when thinking of getting rid of ron artest....i like ron...yes....but i could live with him being gone if it makes the pacers better....but with his perceived value being what it is.....his value is far greater to us....because without a second stud we are on the outside looking in at the championship....

    i like the flexibility his contract provides from a team standpoint....i tend to be a firm believer where theres a will theres a way....id be getting all the professional help i could for him....realizing it will help as will maturing with age....id also be doing anything and everything possible to make sure the team can have the kind of chemistry required to make it work....i think jo might possibly have a bit different viewpoint now-that is to say he might realize just how important it is to have ron on the team if he wants to win a championship.....i think a great deal of jo as a person...i think he can get that...sooner or later....these guys are still young....not an excuse just a fact...i think of reggie alot and how long it was for him to mature....25 is still 25 i dont care how long u are in the league....and duncan is a freak by many differnt standards....they just dont come like him....

    you have to get jo and ron together....u have too....yea shaq and kobe won titles...but as we see it didnt last....so maybe that happens here....but i believe that unlike shaq and kobe that ron and jo are better people than the two of them...especially when it comes to kobe....i believe neither ron nor jo have the ego that kobe does....so i believe it is possible to have them come together...i truly do...it might not be easy...but i have a feeling the two of them not having each other on the court this year might adjust their thinking a bit.....

    if the other players have a problem with this....then ship em out...its that simple....they can be much more easily replaced than the studs...but if the two studs get on the same page and lead the team together, the others will almost assuredly follow....

    this team is close....if jo and ron can find a way to find a common ground....and if harrison can find a way to live up to his talent....then let me be the first to tell u....this team will win multiple titles over the next 5-10 years.....

    if one of the studs is dealt....and another one is not brought in....it will be a very very long time....at least as long as it takes to get another stud...problem is ...by that time....jo might not be the stud he is now...in which case we would need two....thus the problems that exist for most of the teams in the nba....

    we give up one of our studs for a couple good players....we give up our advantage....which in this game means ur playing against a stacked deck.....i did that for twenty years....i like being on the inside looking out.....i dont want to give it up....
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

    I think most would agree Detroit breaks away from the 2-stud model.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

      Originally posted by Hicks
      I think most would agree Detroit breaks away from the 2-stud model.
      i mentioned detroit....and i would respectfully disagree....i think the only reason people might do that is because the other 3 starters are deemed to be so good as well....therefore the drop off isnt as noticeable....

      hamilton and sheed are studs....make no mistake....tay is a stud in the making-i really believe that....hes a multi dimensional player that can make an impact on the game on both ends....

      chauncey and ben are both very good players....one is 3 time dpoy and the other is regarded as one of the best point guards in the league....

      they sacrifice a bench for star power in the starting lineup....a very big risk, because if even one player goes down for whatever reason, theyre crippled beyond repair....

      its a calculated risk....their starters play huge minutes.....they have the most talented starting 5 in the league....theyre gambling that they wont lose with lack of depth....it paid off last year....its certainly paid off this year as well....but not without note is the fact that the teams they played werent as fortunate as they have been....but thats the gamble...

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

        Originally posted by foretaz
        i mentioned detroit....and i would respectfully disagree....i think the only reason people might do that is because the other 3 starters are deemed to be so good as well....therefore the drop off isnt as noticeable....

        hamilton and sheed are studs....make no mistake....tay is a stud in the making-i really believe that....hes a multi dimensional player that can make an impact on the game on both ends....

        chauncey and ben are both very good players....one is 3 time dpoy and the other is regarded as one of the best point guards in the league....

        they sacrifice a bench for star power in the starting lineup....a very big risk, because if even one player goes down for whatever reason, theyre crippled beyond repair....

        its a calculated risk....their starters play huge minutes.....they have the most talented starting 5 in the league....theyre gambling that they wont lose with lack of depth....it paid off last year....its certainly paid off this year as well....but not without note is the fact that the teams they played werent as fortunate as they have been....but thats the gamble...
        Sheed and Rip studs?
        Tayshaun a "stud in the making"?
        and worst yet Chauncey one of the best pgs in the league??

        Only according to Pistons fans.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

          Originally posted by Jesus Shuttlesworth
          Sheed and Rip studs?
          Tayshaun a "stud in the making"?
          and worst yet Chauncey one of the best pgs in the league??

          Only according to Pistons fans.
          ya know....i actually kinda agreed with u about ur thread that was removed...then i actually kinda agreed with u, that based on the reason that urs was moved that some others probably should be moved as well....

          but now ur really just crossing the line...and ur pretty much trolling....

          ur upset ur post got moved....ok...i grant u, u might have just reason....but at some point, will u please just get over it? at least quit disturbing every thread that comes along...please...

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

            The Pistons HAVE no "big 2." Its a 5-way tie.

            Rip was awful last night, and we won by 31. Our leading scorer was lindsey Hunter.

            Ben Wallace is a stud too. He's our most important player, if not our best.

            Oh, and if Chauncey hasn't proven himself yet as an absolute STUD point guard.....he never will. The guy is two good games away from another finals MVP.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

              Originally posted by Kstat
              The Pistons HAVE no "big 2." Its a 5-way tie.

              Rip was awful last night, and we won by 31. Our leading scorer was lindsey Hunter.

              Ben Wallace is a stud too. He's our most important player, if not our best.

              Oh, and if Chauncey hasn't proven himself yet as an absolute STUD point guard.....he never will. The guy is two good games away from another finals MVP.

              i agree with u 2 a point...all five know their roles and the approach is such that all are equally important....

              however rip and sheed are studs....they would be studs on any other team as well.....

              ben is a defensive stud and in the right system is very very impactful....

              tay is a stud in training as i said....

              i think all these things make chauncey appear to be a bit better than he really is...his history prior to that would indicate this also....however hes still a very good player....i always liked him....only since hes become a piston has that changed-for somewhat obvious reasons...

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

                He's as clutch and as tough as any player in the NBA. You can't put a price tag on that.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

                  Originally posted by Kstat
                  The Pistons HAVE no "big 2." Its a 5-way tie.
                  Agreed. I hate formulas and formulaic thinking.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

                    Point about the Pistons, Ben Wallace does impact them the most defenseively and Rip makes a huge impact for them offenseively with his constant movement although we haven't seen much from him lately.

                    While no the Pistons don't have 2 studs I think you can point out Ben as the anchor to their defense and you can do the same for Rip and their offense. Of course they are so much more team orianted than most.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

                      Originally posted by Harmonica
                      Agreed. I hate formulas and formulaic thinking.
                      All Work + No Play = Dull Boy

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The championship formula as it relates to the Pacers

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        The Pistons HAVE no "big 2." Its a 5-way tie.

                        Rip was awful last night, and we won by 31. Our leading scorer was lindsey Hunter.

                        Ben Wallace is a stud too. He's our most important player, if not our best.

                        Oh, and if Chauncey hasn't proven himself yet as an absolute STUD point guard.....he never will. The guy is two good games away from another finals MVP.


                        Until the Pistons won it all in 2004, I didn't think we'd ever see a championship team led by 5 "very good players."

                        That's not to knock the Pistons at all. They have an amazing group of players, and it obvoiusly worked. Any given player can lead them any night. I think we can all agree that none of the Pistons' players are in the top 5 overall, and if you look at any champion for as long back as you want, they were all lead by one of the top 5 players in the game. Rip is clutch, Chauncey is clutch.......anyone of those guys can take you out, even Hunter.

                        But, I don't think teams should put their hopes on a title with 5 "very good players." It works for the Pistons, yes, but those are about the 5 best you can have in that type of system. Most of the time, you HAVE to have a top player in the game to win it all.

                        The Pacers are obviously putting their hopes on one player. That's basically what a franchise is saying when they pay a guy 126 million dollars. You're counting on him and a solid supporting cast to lead you to the promise land.

                        Shaq, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan......etc, all top 5 players

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X