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

Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

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

  • Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html

    Is Winning More Important Than Business?
    By Conrad Brunner

    Tuesday, June 13, 2006
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Q. You recently stated that the Pacers have a quality starter and quality backup at most positions. This statement bothered me just a little bit. Are the Pacers trying to build a quality team or a championship team? Do the Pacers have the players to build a championship team and if not, will they ever? Is the goal to build a championship team or to run a successful, quality, franchise? In other words, is the game or the business more important? (From Gary in Portland, Ore.)

    A. The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are thoroughly intertwined. Building a successful team while running a high-quality franchise is not only the right way to compete in the NBA, it's the right way to do business. This isn't Major League Baseball, where revenue sharing serves as a disincentive for some small-market owners to invest heavily in player salaries. That allows, for example, the Kansas City Royals to be a business success while a competitive failure.

    The NBA is different from both baseball and the NFL because of its salary structure. In addition to a salary cap, there is a payroll minimum. This prevents franchises from trying to run things on a shoestring, which essentially leaves winning as the primary avenue to business success. And don't forget that almost all player contracts in the NBA are guaranteed, which reduces the margin for error when a team is making its personnel decisions. That margin is further reduced in smaller markets like Indianapolis, which have fewer revenue streams than many of their competitors.

    Even with these realities, you should be aware the Pacers were built for a championship run last season and their payroll was one of the highest in the NBA. Things obviously didn't work out as planned, but it was obvious ownership was willing to spend to win.

    Which brings us to your question about the players. For the past three years, the overall talent level was widely perceived to be among the highest in the NBA, fully capable of competing for a championship. Because it didn't happen, management is now evaluating everything about the team, including leadership, chemistry and cohesiveness. What they don't want to do is "blow up" the team, which would mean dropping into the lottery for a few years while re-stocking the talent pool.

    Whatever else changes about the Pacers in the coming weeks, the goal has not. This is a franchise focused on hanging an NBA championship banner from the rafters of Conseco Fieldhouse.
    ---------------------------

    So much for the weird idea that the Pacers are built for the regular season.

  • #2
    Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?



    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

      Originally posted by Bball


      -Bball
      I don't see why that's BS. We've been considered a title contender for many seasons now. We're no longer one primarily because of a certain nutjob who ruined two consecutive seasons.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

        Originally posted by Shade
        I don't see why that's BS. We've been considered a title contender for many seasons now. We're no longer one primarily because of a certain nutjob who ruined two consecutive seasons.
        This is BS:

        "Whatever else changes about the Pacers in the coming weeks, the goal has not. This is a franchise focused on hanging an NBA championship banner from the rafters of Conseco Fieldhouse. "

        It might be a goal... but it is down the list.

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

          Originally posted by Shade
          I don't see why that's BS. We've been considered a title contender for many seasons now. We're no longer one primarily because of a certain nutjob who ruined two consecutive seasons.

          Uh, considered a title contender by who?

          Pacer Fanatics on this board?

          Since 2000 when we made the finals, We've had 4 first round exits, 1 second round exit, 1 ECF exit. We've had one year since 00 where we were a legit contender, that was 04.

          A title contender for many seasons now? Hardly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

            Originally posted by Will Galen
            So much for the weird idea that the Pacers are built for the regular season.
            What is weird about that? And whether it is weird or not, how does this possibly disprove it.

            They tried to build a champion. Key word is tried. What they built was a paper champion.

            This team, whether under Isiah or Rick, always peaked in the November - January time frame. That's the regular season.

            So you've got two choices, and neither of them are weird.

            They either 1) intentionally built a team that would have regular season success and keep fans interested but wasn't really a top-team in the playoffs (as implied in this letter and from PD posters from time to time)

            Or 2) they really tried to build a championship contender and failed misearably (with some good regular season records but only one ECF appearance and one second round appearance to show for all their hard work, thus "the team was built for the regular season.")

            + + + + + + + +

            I'm sorry, I don't try to turn this into a Biblical discussion. But when I think of Jesus' parable of the builders, I think the Pacers' management has perfectly illustrated the fool, building the team on a very, very shaky foundation. Injury prone players. Mentally weak players. Mentally ill players. One-trick-pony coaches. Etc.

            Matthew 7:24-27 (New King James Version)

            New King James Version (NKJV)

            24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

            26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

              Originally posted by Adam1987
              Uh, considered a title contender by who?

              Pacer Fanatics on this board?

              Since 2000 when we made the finals, We've had 4 first round exits, 1 second round exit, 1 ECF exit. We've had one year since 00 where we were a legit contender, that was 04.

              A title contender for many seasons now? Hardly.
              Apparently you haven't paid too much attention to the media. We were considered contenders in both '05 pre-brawl and '06 pre-trade request. We were also considered the overall favorites in '99. Many media people jumped on the bandwagon in '04. In '98 and '00, nobody was considered a contender because of the Bulls/Lakers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                Pacers were prime title contenders entering the 2004 and the 2005 seasons

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                  Bruno is right to point out that the organization was willing to spend. The $80 million payroll was not a profit maximizing decision, but an effort to build a winner. Nobody knew that the players and coaches wouldn't get the job done, but the owners owned like they wanted a championship.

                  The disappointing results came about because plans broke down -- not because anyone planned for mediocrity.



                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  Pacers were prime title contenders entering the 2004 and the 2005 seasons
                  There is an important distinction: The Pacers were "title contenders entering the 04 and 05 seasons." But when those seasons were over and the Finals came and the titles were actually being contended for, the Pacers were not there.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                    [QUOTE=Putnam]Bruno is right to point out that the organization was willing to spend. The $80 million payroll was not a profit maximizing decision, but an effort to build a winner. Nobody knew that the players and coaches wouldn't get the job done, but the owners owned like they wanted a championship.

                    The disappointing results came about because plans broke down -- not because anyone planned for mediocrity.





                    There is an important distinction: The Pacers were "title contenders entering the 04 and 05 seasons." But when those seasons were over and the Finals came and the titles were actually being contended for, the Pacers were not there.[/QUOTE]

                    Yea, that pretty much say's it all.


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck
                      Pacers were prime title contenders entering the 2004 and the 2005 seasons
                      Actually, they were considered contenders entering the '05 and '06 seasons. Most people didn't expect us to do as well in '04 as we did, but they jumped on the bandwagon afterwards.
                      --- Edited Follow-Up ---
                      Originally posted by Putnam
                      Bruno is right to point out that the organization was willing to spend. The $80 million payroll was not a profit maximizing decision, but an effort to build a winner. Nobody knew that the players and coaches wouldn't get the job done, but the owners owned like they wanted a championship.

                      The disappointing results came about because plans broke down -- not because anyone planned for mediocrity.





                      There is an important distinction: The Pacers were "title contenders entering the 04 and 05 seasons." But when those seasons were over and the Finals came and the titles were actually being contended for, the Pacers were not there.
                      Had the Sheed trade not happened, we would have probably been there in '04.

                      Had the brawl not happened, we would have probably been there in '05.

                      There are plenty of contenders who never come to fruition. But they were considered contenders nonetheless.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                        Well, if the Sam Smith article can be taken at its face then one could extrapolate Bird didn't consider us contenders heading into the season in question.

                        And Reggie, a person with a tie or two to the Pacer lockerroom, also downplayed the Pacers' chances this past season at the start.

                        So not everyone close to the organization was sizing up a spot for a new NBA Finals banner in Conseco.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                          Going by some of the logic in this thread, the Spurs and Pistons were not contenders for the title this year. Right.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                            Originally posted by Shade
                            Apparently you haven't paid too much attention to the media. We were considered contenders in both '05 pre-brawl and '06 pre-trade request. We were also considered the overall favorites in '99. Many media people jumped on the bandwagon in '04. In '98 and '00, nobody was considered a contender because of the Bulls/Lakers.


                            You seem to be going on being a contender in October before the season starts. Anyone can be a contender in October. October is a magic month for Pacers fans. All of the players are usually healthy for the moment. If you're still playing great ball in March, that's when you're a true title contender.

                            So the Pacers were a contender all for 10 games in the 04-05 season. I don't think many neutral minds had the Pacers going far in 05-06. There was a lot of over the top hype on this board. How people thought that the Pacers could put something as devasting as the brawl behind them while inserting the main cause of the event back into the lineup and magically make the finals is beyond me. Not to mention they lost Reggie Miller, who rode the team on his back the previous season and played his *** off against Detroit.

                            Most neutral parties knew it would come down to Detroit and Miami in the East again.

                            The Pacers were legit contenders on and off from 1994-2000, no doubt about it. But since they went to the finals in 00, there is only one time, 04, where they were playing great ball in March/April and deserved to be taken seriously. 01, 02, 03, 05, 06 THe Pacers weren't anywhere close to being considered a contender by the time March rolled around.

                            Serious contenders year after year? Not even close.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Conrad Brunner's QOTD, Is Winning More Important Than Business?

                              Originally posted by Adam1987
                              Uh, considered a title contender by who?

                              Pacer Fanatics on this board?

                              Since 2000 when we made the finals, We've had 4 first round exits, 1 second round exit, 1 ECF exit. We've had one year since 00 where we were a legit contender, that was 04.

                              A title contender for many seasons now? Hardly.
                              Let your negativity cease for a couple seconds. We've been considered contenders before the last two seasons began.

                              Two years ago after the 61 win season that everyone on this board seems to hate, we had that same core of players minus a traded Al, whom we thought we got a decent "shooter", which is what we needed. We started out well that season then it was ****ed over by the brawl.

                              This season we were considered contenders, since it was basically the same group of the 61 win team, still. With the steal of the draft, Danny and a high-profile PG from Europe in Sarunas.

                              We've been considered title contenders for the past two years now, and just havn't done anything much after the 61 win ECF team.

                              I will say most of the reasons we've been considered title contenders is because each of the last couple of years we've had that same '03-04 team except a few players.
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X