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

A question for those old enough to remember....

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

  • A question for those old enough to remember....

    This may seem like an odd question but for some reason I've been thinking about this lately.

    Have the 90's Pacers become nothing more than the 80's Hawks, Cavs & Bucks?

    I mean here in Indiana those 90's teams, to some of us, were a thrill to watch & some of us feel as though we were true title contenders.

    But around the NBA are those teams now nothing more than just memory's of a team that never made it.

    The reason I use the above three teams is because each of them had several 50 win seasons & were always at the top of the Central division during the 80's & even early 90's but never made it over the top.

    Oh sure I could find some old Bucks fan who would still remenice about Sidney Moncrief & Terry Cummings or even a Cavs. fan who will go on & on about Brad Daugherty & Mark Price, but does the rest of the NBA even care? I don't think so.

    So now I wonder if we aren't in the same boat. Since our team never made it to the top does that take away from their standings in the ranks of teams in history?

    I mean yes, Reggie had some big playoff moments but Nique also went mano a mano with Bird on several occasions but does anybody even remember the Hawks?

    I don't know why I wonder or even why I care but I just do.


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

  • #2
    Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

    well, most people don't really care about anything other than a championship. therefore, they don't look any further than that when thinking about great teams.
    it's a bit unfortunate but, that's the way most fans are.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

      well, those teams never made the finals (unless you want to include the 2000 pacers), so I guess so.

      If it makes you feel any better, the 80's bucks were worse off than the 90's pacers. They had so much talent it was sick. They simply had the misfortune of needing to play teams stacked with hall of famers (sixers, Celtics). And even when they beat one, the other would knock them off.

      The Cavs I don't feel sorry for, because they HAD the superior talent. They were just weak-minded. The Bucks were just as talented, but they were never better than the 2nd best team in their own conference, despite making the central division their ***** for like 8 straight seasons.

      I remember when the Bucks FINALLY got past the Celtics in 1983. Swept them in 4 straight. You got the feeling they were ready to throw a parade. Amazing accomplishment.

      Then the SIxers swept the Bucks in the ECF.

      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


      • #4
        Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

        Originally posted by Peck
        Have the 90's Pacers become nothing more than the 80's Hawks, Cavs & Bucks?
        I think Rosen's comment on Stockton in the "Top PGs of all-time" thread best sums up the 90s Pacers as well: "Too bad the prime of Stockton's career coincided with the Bulls' Jordanian dynasty."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

          I think those teams will be remembered, Reggie's performances against New York in the postseason were so big, and headliners. When people think of the Pacers they think now, the brawl , then after that Reggie's playoff games in the early 90's.
          Super Bowl XLI Champions
          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

            Yes, that is how those Pacer teams will be remembered by the NBA. That's what happens when you don't win a championship--unless you are Houston...they seem to be already forgotten.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

              from what i can remember, those teams rarely reached even the ECF....for the most part i seem to remember them being eliminated in the first or second round....now i havent looked it up, but i have a feeling that would be a point of difference.....the pacers had a fair amount of playoff success, while never winning a title....and while advancing to the ECF is not the ultimate goal, it does beat the hell out of one and done-not unlike our zeke years....

              thats the way i remember those teams.....talented teams that did very little in the playoffs....like i said...i didnt look it up...and im sure there were exceptions, but i have a feeling the pacers made it to the ECF quite a few more times than the teams mentioned....

              now, if winning a title is ur only barometer, then the teams are quite similar....but i seem to remember the pacers having more playoff success than the others...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                Originally posted by foretaz
                from what i can remember, those teams rarely reached even the ECF....for the most part i seem to remember them being eliminated in the first or second round....now i havent looked it up, but i have a feeling that would be a point of difference.....the pacers had a fair amount of playoff success, while never winning a title....and while advancing to the ECF is not the ultimate goal, it does beat the hell out of one and done-not unlike our zeke years....

                thats the way i remember those teams.....talented teams that did very little in the playoffs....like i said...i didnt look it up...and im sure there were exceptions, but i have a feeling the pacers made it to the ECF quite a few more times than the teams mentioned....

                now, if winning a title is ur only barometer, then the teams are quite similar....but i seem to remember the pacers having more playoff success than the others...
                You had better success because you only had ONE great team to go through, not two like Milwaukee. Milwaukee had it a lot worse, because even if they got past great team #1, great team #2 would eliminate them in the next round.

                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: A question for those old enough to remember....

                  Originally posted by Kstat
                  You had better success because you only had ONE great team to go through, not two like Milwaukee. Milwaukee had it a lot worse, because even if they got past great team #1, great team #2 would eliminate them in the next round.
                  ..

                  yea...or we were just better....we were great team number 1 or 2....instead of having to face great team number 1 or 2...

                  so u basically make the point for me....those teams were always 3rd best....we were always 1 or 2...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                    sorry, but compare the Bucks of the 80's to the Pacers of the 90's, the Bucks had as much talent, arguably more. Lanier, Moncrief, Sikma, Johnson, Pressey, and depending which part of the decade, Pierce or Dandridge?

                    That team was LOADED. They just didnt have a megastar to lead them past Dr J and Larry.

                    And The Pacers of the 90's dont qualify as great team #2 because they are not a GREAT team. To be a GREAT team, you kinda have to win these things called championships.

                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                      but then again....that wasnt the question, now was it???

                      the question was how did we compare to those teams....and since those teams rarely got to the ECF because often the 2 best teams do....and since the pacers got to the ECF quite often....it would only stand to reason....oh wait...

                      im dealing with u...i forgot...forget i used that word reason..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                        Put the 90's pacers in the same conference as larry bird and Dr. J, and then tell me how many times the pacers reach the conference finals. The Bucks managed to make the conference finals THREE TIMES in that HOF minefield. Don't begin to tell me the 90's pacers could have done any better.

                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                          Originally posted by Kstat
                          Put the 90's pacers in the same conference as larry bird and Dr. J, and then tell me how many times the pacers reach the conference finals. The Bucks managed to make the conference finals THREE TIMES in that HOF minefield. Don't begin to tell me the 90's pacers could have done any better.
                          and put those bucks teams in the same division as michael and the bulls and what happens????

                          results are results....

                          did the pacers win championships...nope...in that way they are similar....

                          did the pacers reach the ECF more often than the teams mentioned? yes

                          did the pacers reach the finals? yes

                          did the bucks?

                          did the hawks?

                          did the cavs?

                          im guessing...and i could be wrong...but i would guess the pacers made the ECF more than the other three combined....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                            From my memory the Hawks never even made the ECF (the legendary game 7 vs Boston was as close as they got).

                            The Cavs made it once and got destroyed by the Bulls.

                            The Bucks were a remarkable team at that time; it's like playing in the AL against the Red Sox and Yankees. You might be able to beat one but the other is probably going to beat you.

                            From my memory though, the Sixers faded after they won the title in 83. They lost in the 1st round to the Nets in 84, and never were the same as Dr. J retired.

                            The Celitcs after that won the title in 84, lost in the finals in 85, won the title in 86, lost in the finals in 87, lost in the ECF in 88.

                            1987 had to be the biggest nightmare making year for the Bucks. They beat Philly in the 1st round 3-2, then lost to Boston in 7 games in the next round. I think they would have beaten Detroit that year as they were still a slight bit away from the elite level (I know I'll get *****ed about cause of the Isiah pass to Bird)
                            "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                            ----------------- Reggie Miller

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A question for those old enough to remember....

                              http://www.nba.com/bucks/history/00400459.html#10

                              Man, reading this (from about 1980 on) gives you appreciation that the Pacers actually made the Finals.
                              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                              ----------------- Reggie Miller

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X