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

I agree with this article from Deveney

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

  • I agree with this article from Deveney

    A worthy challenger

    By Sean Deveney - SportingNews

    Larry Brown is incredulous.

    He knows the league standings, and he knows his team, Detroit, is looking up -- way up, six games up -- at the Pacers, who hold the NBA's best overall record, and the best road record. Then, Brown channels the recent past to point out that, "We have not beaten Indiana even once all year."

    Indeed, he is right: At the time -- before the Pistons won their last meeting in the regular season -- it was Indiana 3, Pistons 0. Even if you somehow discount the Pacers, Brown continues, there's still the matter of the two-time reigning East champs, the Nets. "And New Jersey swept us in the playoffs last year," Brown says. "It was not even close." Listen to Brown long enough, and you'll come away surprised the Pistons have the talent to tie their shoes before games.

    As long as the Nets and Pacers are around, Brown makes it clear that he has not penciled the Pistons into the role of Eastern Conference favorites. "It's just not an appropriate thing to say," Brown says.

    Yet, impartial observers are finding that claim to be plenty appropriate. Overall records aside, the Pistons are coming off the most dominant winning streak in league history, fueled by their February acquisition of forward Rasheed Wallace. Consider what the Pistons accomplished in March: Eight straight games won by 15 or more points, a league first; five consecutive games holding opponents below 70 points, another first; a boost in their season total of holding teams below 70 points to nine. (They've since made it 10; the old record was six.) For good measure, there was this bit of box score absurdity: In their 97-66 victory over Denver on March 6, the Pistons became the first team in the shot clock era to hold every opposing player to single-digit scoring.

    That's indicative of the Pistons' transformation. When Brown frets about stacking up against Indiana and New Jersey, he is using the old Pistons, a talented team that was sometimes soft and always streaky, for his comparisons. But since trading for Wallace, they are a consistent, ferocious bunch that is capable on offense and defends with claws and fangs bared. They allowed just 78.2 points per game in the first 21 games after Wallace arrived. There are believers, even if Brown is not one of them. After Denver's debacle, for example, Nuggets guard Jon Barry said (no doubt making Brown cringe), "I think Detroit is the favorite in the East."

    Brown might get queasy upon hearing this from an Eastern Conference scout: "They have everything now. Solid guard play, an incredible frontcourt, plus a good bench. It's hard to imagine a team, certainly any team in the East, beating them four out of seven."

    And don't let Brown hear Cavaliers coach Paul Silas. After a drubbing by the Pistons, Silas declared to reporters, "They are probably one of the top two teams in the league." Then, he added, as if to push Brown into a full-blown conniption, "Detroit is better than Indiana now, no doubt in my mind."

    That's because, though the Pacers have stud forwards Jermaine O'Neal and Ron Artest, the frontcourt the Pistons trot out is even more dominant. There's two-time Defensive Player of the Year Ben Wallace at center, Rasheed Wallace (who stands 6-11 with a 7-4 wingspan) at power forward and Tayshaun Prince (6-9, with a 7-2 wingspan) at small forward. That's a group of big men who can cover a lot of ground, a trio with size and talent equal to -- or, perhaps even exceeding -- the top teams in the West. And, let there be no doubt, it's size that wins in the postseason.

    The way the Pistons have played in the past month, says team president Joe Dumars, is almost surreal. "Whenever you are putting a team together, you envision how you'd like to see your team play," he says. "It is awfully hard to get your vision and the way you play to be the same thing. Since Rasheed has come over, that vision and the actual play have collided."

    But, eight victories in a row by at least 15 points? Five games in a row allowing fewer than 70 points? A spot among the Eastern Conference favorites -- or perhaps, the spot, alone -- no matter what Brown thinks? Must have been some vision Dumars had.

    "Even with your vision you don't think that," Dumars says, chuckling. "I did not envision that."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no second acts in American life, F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, but ol' Fitzy apparently never got a load of Rasheed Wallace. Wallace, now in his ninth year in the NBA, is somewhere around Act IV or V.

    This time, Wallace has been incarnated as the Pistons' savior, the exact piece the team needed in terms of on-floor ability and overall attitude. Wallace always has been fiery, but it was during coach Mike Dunleavy's tenure in Portland that Wallace cemented his reputation as combustible to the point of hurting his team. Wallace's 41 technical fouls in 2000-01 shattered the league record, frustrated Dunleavy and began a downward trend in which both Wallace and the Blazers became league pariahs. Yet Dunleavy, now coaching the Clippers, says that when he heard the Pistons were trading for Wallace, "I thought it was a terrific, terrific move. I am not surprised by the way he fits in.

    "He gives them what they need both offensively and defensively. He can give them a low-post game offensively, a guy to go against anybody in the league in the post. He's 6-11 and has an outside game, a pick-and-roll game that goes all the way to the 3-point line, and that is quite an asset. Defensively, he is so long and quick, you can do whatever you want with him. He can get out and press, blocks shots, defends the pick-and-roll."

    The Pistons had talent before acquiring Wallace. Most of the offense came from Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton on the perimeter, with post men such as Mehmet Okur and Corliss Williamson providing help. The defense funneled toward Ben Wallace, who erased mistakes with his shot-blocking. But there were problems. Perimeter scoring is unreliable, and when Billups and Hamilton shot poorly, the Pistons slumped. And Detroit missed the defense of Clifford Robinson, traded to Golden State in the offseason. Robinson could shut down big men in the post and was athletic enough to pop out for trapping help on pick-and-rolls. Okur is a center and does not move well enough to help in the high post -- but moving Ben Wallace out there would limit his shot-blocking.

    With one trade, the Pistons addressed needs on both ends. They got scoring help for Hamilton and Billups (who averaged 5.1 assists before Rasheed Wallace arrived but 7.2 since). Plus, Rasheed Wallace's athleticism and length allows Ben Wallace to focus on help defense under the basket. Rasheed also adds grit to what was a mild-mannered team of good guys. Billups points out that, when Wallace is on the floor, the Pistons take on his aggressive personality. "It trickles to everyone," he says. Center Elden Campbell points out that Wallace might have been a "knucklehead," in the past, but, "We need that."

    Dumars has known Wallace for a long time. He says he knew Wallace was not "the monster he sometimes is portrayed as." But even if he were, the Pistons have one of the most positive locker rooms in the league, and Dumars says he trusted the environment in Detroit to assuage problems with Wallace. Besides, he liked Wallace's edge, his knuckleheadedness.

    "I knew he was not a terrible guy," Dumars says. "I also knew the warts. I knew this guy could blow up; I knew he could have a short fuse, but in a weird kind of way, I thought that could be an attribute for us. Because we have such good guys, who rarely let their fuses blow."

    Now, the Pistons have some devilish swagger (when Wallace is on the floor, at least -- he spent most of last week resting a sore back). They're leaving some teams ticked off, such as the Nets, who were crunched by the Pistons in New Jersey but pathetically used last-minute fouls to score 71 points and end Detroit's sub-70 streak. The Pistons had Hamilton, a starter, on the floor in the waning minutes, which the Nets found "insulting," according to New Jersey forward Kenyon Martin.

    "That is up to them," guard Lindsey Hunter says. "We play the way we play. If other teams get mad at us, that's not our problem. If people take offense to that, I hope we keep offending people."

    So does Dumars -- not just this season, but well beyond. Trading for Wallace was a gamble not only because of his temperament, but because of his impending free-agent status. Wallace reportedly would like to go to New York this summer and would accept the midlevel exception (a contract starting around $5 million). But Dumars, who will have nearly $10 million in cap space this summer, has other plans.

    "We are going to do everything possible for him to stay here," Dumars says. "We are going to offer him a long-term contract. It will be much, much more than the midlevel. Not only that, you have a great core group of players, arguably the best coach in the NBA, and you are a contender. When you are a player looking for a situation, that's what you want. Do they have good players? Do they have good coaching? Are they contenders? Can they pay me? The answer to all four of those questions is, yes, yes, yes, yes."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But those worries can wait. There is the issue of this season, and postseason, first (though the two matters might be tied together, because a long playoff run could entice Wallace to stick around). Detroit has cast its lot with Wallace, and in the short term, he makes the Pistons the best team in the East, though the Pacers, Nets and Brown would argue. At the very least, Detroit's road through the playoffs (possibly New Jersey in Round 2; Indiana in the conference finals) promises to be entertaining.

    Beyond the East, the Pistons just might have the ingredients to challenge the West in The Finals. The East, remember, has not won a championship since 1998 and has a paltry 6-20 record in Finals games over that span. But no East team in the past five Finals had the Pistons' combination of size and intensity.

    "The West wins because they have the big guys," says Pistons forward Darvin Ham. "They have Tim Duncan and Shaq and Kevin Garnett. The West has all the glamour players. But we have just as much size as any of them, and they don't get down and dirty. We do. We know what we are capable of, and it does not matter if it is an East team or a West team."

    Someone alert Larry Brown. Not only an East front-runner, but perhaps a championship front-runner? He must be in convulsions by now.

    Sean Deveney is a staff writer for Sporting News. Email him at sdeveney@sportingnews.com.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...=tsn&type=lgns
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

  • #2
    Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

    That was a good article, if you are a Piston's fan.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

      That was a good article, if you are a Piston's fan.
      As a Pacers fan who agrees with alot that is said in this one, it scares me. Detroit is on a serious roll and despite missing a starter and poor play from nearly everyone else on Sunday, I'm still very concerned about meeting Detroit in the playoffs. Not to be a chicken little, but without considering yesterday's game I'm worried.

      One of the main things is: I believe Brown is a better coach than Carlisle. I hope if things are going poorly then Carlisle doesn't fall into the "playoff" trap that Pistons fans have been warning us about all season.

      On a positive note, it looks like if the Pacers and Pistons played it wouldn't be until the EC finals. Making the EC finals this year would make the season a success regardless of what happens once there.
      Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

        [.

        One of the main things is: I believe Brown is a better coach than Carlisle. I hope if things are going poorly then Carlisle doesn't fall into the "playoff" trap that Pistons fans have been warning us about all season.

        I don't think Brown is better than Carlisle.

        I don't think Carlisle is better than Brown.

        They are just different.

        Keep in mind Carlisle's team beat Brown's team last year.

        I realize I am making too much of this, but why not, you could argue that Carlisle's team also beat Brown's team in 1999 and 2000 also.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

          That's a reasonable enough view on things. Maybe I'm just being a worry-wart about stuff.

          At this point I'm just hoping for a healthy team and a postive direction in attitude going into the playoffs.
          Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

            Yeah, I know everybody wants a championship.

            But I would not mind losing in game 7 of the ECF.

            I WOULD mind losing to the PISTONS!
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

              If the Pacers make the ECF and lose to the Pistons then I would think it pretty much says a roster change of some sort has to be made to get over the hump. I would still consider it a very successful season if the Pacers make the ECF and lose to whoever it is.
              Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

                Yeah, I know everybody wants a championship.

                But I would not mind losing in game 7 of the ECF.

                I WOULD mind losing to the PISTONS!
                .....so who WOULDNT you mind losing to 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


                • #9
                  Re: I agree with this article from Deveney

                  Yeah, I know everybody wants a championship.

                  But I would not mind losing in game 7 of the ECF.

                  I WOULD mind losing to the PISTONS!
                  .....so who WOULDNT you mind losing to in the ECF?
                  i can't imagine pacers losing to anyone else other than the pistons in the ecf...

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X