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

Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 36
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 36 template Next
  • #1

    Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    http://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/brun...-arent-all-bad

    Maybe it’s the heat.

    Maybe it’s some dizziness lingering from the recent whirlwind of activity.

    Or maybe, just maybe, I’m actually thinking clearly, and the Pacers aren’t looking as bad as the NBA world seems to think.

    If you really dig into what team president Kevin Pritchard has done in the past few weeks and sort through all the new pieces, you don’t have to squint to see the foundation of a decent team being poured. No one’s suggesting they’re going to shock the world this season and make a deep playoff run. But they just might surprise their own little corner of it by winning more than expected.

    Because, when you take a hard look at the team as it currently stands, it really doesn’t look all that bad compared to last season. In fact, it can be reasonably argued they are better off at four positions; whether that’s enough to offset the big drop at small forward remains to be seen. Here’s a comparison of the depth chart now, and the way it looked at the end of 2016-17.

    POINT GUARD

    Now: Darren Collison, Cory Joseph

    Then: Jeff Teague, Monta Ellis, Aaron Brooks

    Bottom Line: Minor Upgrade.

    Analysis: Although Teague is regarded as the better overall player than Collison, is the difference really that stark? Their career statistics are almost identical and, while Teague is a more polished offensive player, Collison is a substantial upgrade, defensively. The real difference comes off the bench, where Cory Joseph is one of the top 10 backup point guards in the league, solid at both ends of the floor, whereas Ellis and Brooks were both fading, inefficient scorers whose defensive inadequacies could no longer be masked.

    SHOOTING GUARD

    Now: Victor Oladipo, Lance Stephenson

    Then: C.J. Miles, Stephenson

    Bottom Line: Major Upgrade.

    Analysis: Maybe he isn’t an All-Star, but Oladipo is at the very least an established starter with an upward career arc. He’s a very strong defender and aggressive offensive player. While not a pure 3-point shooter, he’s better in every other category than Miles or Ellis, who opened last season as the starter but failed to hold onto the position. This season’s Stephenson should be better than the unhealthy, out of shape version that joined the Pacers late last year. It’s not unreasonable to suggest the Pacers could get a combined 30 points per game from this position.

    SMALL FORWARD

    Now: Bojan Bogdanovic, Glenn Robinson III

    Then: Paul George, Robinson.

    Bottom Line: Major Downgrade.

    Analysis: No way to sugar-coat this. George was the best scorer and defender on the roster and even though he didn’t play hard all the time, his talent was undeniable. Yes, he had his failings (passing, dribbling, decision-making), but he did so many things well he will be impossible to replace. The Pacers, in fact, didn’t even try. Bogdanovic is a floor-spacing 3-point threat with a strong floor game, but his defense leaves much to be desired. In fact, his shortcomings there have led to his departures from both Brooklyn and Washington, and may cost him the starting job if Robinson continues to improve. Robinson is at least a comparable 3-point threat, more athletic and better defensively; he may just need another year of development in his all-around floor game to emerge as the starter.

    POWER FORWARD

    Then: Thaddeus Young, Lavoy Allen, Kevin Seraphin

    Now: Domantas Sabonis, Young, T.J. Leaf

    Bottom Line: Minor Upgrade

    Analysis: If you think Young will remain the starter, think again. The combination of Young and Myles Turner didn’t work last year. Not enough defense, not enough rebounding, not nearly enough toughness inside. There’s a reason the Pacers spent both draft picks on bigs (Leaf and Ike Anigbogu) while also acquiring Sabonis from OKC with Oladipo in the George trade, and it wasn’t to maintain the status quo up front. Sabonis started 66 games as a rookie and has the size, strength and skill around the basket to stabilize things at both ends of the floor. Young will now be in his best role, the first big man off the bench to match up with stretch fours when necessary, while Leaf’s intriguing offensive game should earn a steady diet of minutes off the bench.

    CENTER

    Then: Turner, Al Jefferson, Rakeem Christmas

    Now: Turner, Jefferson, Seraphin, Anigbogu

    Bottom Line: Minor Upgrade

    Analysis: After a fast start, Turner’s batteries were quickly drained and he was unable to sustain the level of play necessary. It was a mistake throwing him to the wolves inside without an enforcer next to him, and he wound up paying the price. His improvement this season is not only the key to this position, but the key to the team. If he is able to add core strength while improving his conditioning, he could take a big step toward true stardom. If, like Jermaine O’Neal and Roy Hibbert, he proves more interested in growing big biceps than building a better basketball body, he’ll never fulfill his immense potential. Keep an eye on Anigbogu, a first-round talent who fell into the second round because of a troublesome knee. If the Pacers can get that cleaned up, he could become a force off the bench. Otherwise it’ll be more of the same with Seraphin and/or Jefferson.

    OVERALL

    The intangibles should also be much better with this group because of the influx of youth, athleticism and motivation, but they’ll have to be. Last year’s team looked good on paper entering the season, but quickly turned to scrap. This team will be widely overlooked because of the lack of star power, but even that will offer the players additional edge. And keep in mind, the bar hasn’t exactly been set high the past couple of years. At least now, there is a future to anticipate, and the present won’t be as bad as you might think.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    I'm sure that I could find similar articles written about the Nets every year. I think that Conrad just came up with the team marketing slogan: Pacers Basketball, Not All That Bad!

    Just looked at the 2015-2016 Orlando Magic roster. https://www.basketball-reference.com.../ORL/2016.html. It looks a lot like ours. Talented young bigs, Vic at the 2. Our advantage is that Sabonis and Turner as a combo may be better than Vucevic and whoever (old Channing Frye), but they had Evan Fournier in the backcourt and Tobias Harris on the wing. The PG situation is similar (Payton is better than DC now, but he was still learning then). They won 35 games that year. That I think is our ceiling, unless Sabonis shows real growth and/or Leaf is better than we think. I'll watch and go to a game or two, but I'm ready to be excited about 5 game win streaks all over again.
    Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

      Is Bruno browsing PD? Didn't Peck create a thread discussing the same exact thing?
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

        Peck= Brunner lol
        Sittin on top of the world!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

          Very vague. Did he put a win total on the season? I hope they are better than I think. My question is how many of these players will be here two years from now? 2 or 3? Probably not more than 3. So maybe they win 35 games the next two years. That is what we were when JOB was coach and was anyone happy? No one I know.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

            Pacers will win 35 games and narrowly miss the playoffs in the most irrelevant season ever. We're never really bad when we need to be. We haven't had a single digit draft pick since 1989. That has to be the longest streak in the league. There's no way it couldn't be.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Pacers will win 35 games and narrowly miss the playoffs in the most irrelevant season ever. We're never really bad when we need to be. We haven't had a single digit draft pick since 1989. That has to be the longest streak in the league. There's no way it couldn't be.
              You're right. I just checked.
              Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
              http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Very vague. Did he put a win total on the season? I hope they are better than I think. My question is how many of these players will be here two years from now? 2 or 3? Probably not more than 3. So maybe they win 35 games the next two years. That is what we were when JOB was coach and was anyone happy? No one I know.
                Buck, I think the whole point of his article was not necessarily about a win total, but more on the perception (nationally) that the Pacers were going to be horrible or perhaps the worst team in the league

                His point being we will probably not be that bad and could even surprise a few people
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                  There are three NBA writers that I take their word at face value. Woj, David Aldridge & Conrad Brunner. Even when he worked directly for the Pacers he was still pretty critical of the players and even management on occasion.

                  Conrad is not known to write puff pieces so don't confuse this article with something that David Benner dictated he write.


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

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    There are three NBA writers that I take their word at face value. Woj, David Aldridge & Conrad Brunner. Even when he worked directly for the Pacers he was still pretty critical of the players and even management on occasion.

                    Conrad is not known to write puff pieces so don't confuse this article with something that David Benner dictated he write.
                    Lowe?

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                      In the way that we weren't all that bad last year, then I agree. East isn't that strong, Pacers will probably win like 40 games.

                      It's how KP spends our cap space that will ultimately decide where we go .


                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                        Call me a Pollyanna if you want but I honestly think we will be either as good or better than last year. I actually believe in this roster more than I have the past 2 seasons roster. Yes I'd rather have Paul George but that wasn't an option. I think the package we got for him is going to surprise a lot of people.

                        Even if its not though I just believe we will be a far more fun team to watch play and easier for me to root for.


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

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Lowe?
                          Nope, I trust him but he is second tier compared to the three I listed.


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

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                            I'm not so sure this is a good thing.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Nope, I trust him but he is second tier compared to the three I listed.
                              For analysis and actual breakdowns, Zach Lowe is as good as it gets imo. For local guys, Conrad is probably the best.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 36 template Next
                              Working...
                              X