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

Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

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

  • Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

    They made a boo boo properly linking to todays QOD. Here it is the correct link for those that want to read it.

    Q. I'm a little confused as to how the Pacers can improve cohesively when they have multiple players that can play multiple positions. I understand that it allows more versatility with matchups. However, I watched the Pistons keep the same lineup, with the same people, playing the same positions become very successful. They had a very cohesive group. There has been a lot of discussion the last two years on how the Pacers couldn't compete because of all the lineup changes, and people playing lots of different positions, and the lack of cohesion. So, how does a new team that seems to be designed to do what we have been trying to avoid help people get comfortable out on the floor with each other? (From Chris in Indianapolis)

    A. There's no question the events of the past two seasons disrupted the Pacers' team chemistry in a major way. But it wasn't so much that the lineup had to change or players found themselves in unusual positions it was the circumstances that forced those changes. When a team goes through a seemingly never-ending series of traumatic events, as the Pacers have, the mental strain of constantly coping with adversity wears on the players. In 2004-05, they were able to maintain a defiant spirit that bonded the players and produced an inspiring result. In 2005-06, when injury after injury brought about the same muddled mixture of lineups and roles, that bond disintegrated under the weight of frustration.

    Team chemistry is built in a number of ways, and a very important one is the clear definition, understanding and acceptance of roles. Does that mean the starting lineup has to remain inviolate? Not necessarily. It would make things easier if the lineup was able to remain relatively intact (for a change) because that would allow consistent roles to be established in terms of who's in the rotation and what the primary combinations will be. That doesn't depend on guys playing the same position every time, but it does require different groups to be established – big lineup, small lineup, fast lineup, etc.

    Given the changes that already have transpired, and the likelihood that more are on the way, it will take some time for the players to learn their teammates' strengths, weaknesses and tendencies. Newcomers and holdovers will be in much the same boat, though, as all will be learning what promises to be a different style of play than was necessary the past couple of years. You raise a very important point, one that has gone largely overlooked by dopes like me who've focused almost solely on talent, and it is one that will merit study throughout the season. I wouldn't expect this team to mesh immediately but, given time and good health, it should happen.


    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_060717.html

  • #2
    Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

    Given time and health they will mesh. I'm warm and fuzzy now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

      Dunno somehow i think it will turn out as a problem in the end. This reminds me of that quote from last season about how talents is the most important thing and chemistry will come later. Now they dump it all on injuries and ronron i guess, we will see how it will turn out. Im positive it will be much better than the last season though .

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

        How can one not lay a fair amount of the blame on Ron? Any time a player that is so integral to everything you are trying to do on both sides of the floor completely melts down it is going to effect everything you are trying to do.

        Injuries.... well no team can compete when decimated by injuries, but injuries are a part of the game. You just have to deal with that aspect of it as best you can. Two years ago the guys really played their hearts out during the injuries and suspensions, last year they played uninspired at best when dealing with the adversity of Ron and injuries.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

          What flavor Kool-Aide is this?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

            I think Reggie said last season we will have chemistry issues before injuries. And im not saying Ron is not to blame, he screwed up everything here quite badly. However i dont think he was the only issue here. Not having to deal with ron this season is a big positive but if we wont deal with the issues we still have chemistry problems will arise again. But there is still quite a lot of time for making changes and thats the reason im quite happy. What im afraid is the same talent > chemistry thing and that "they will mesh" if they play consistent roles which i believe is not allways the case, especially if players are played not in theyr natural postions too often.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

              Originally posted by ssmall
              I think Reggie said last season we will have chemistry issues before injuries.
              Er . . . I don't think you said what you meant, because that doesn't quite make sense for the simple reason injuries aren't a given. For instant, look at Detroit's starting five the last two years.

              One thing he did say when broadcasting his first Pacer game was Ron wasn't the problem. This was before Ron made himself the problem. Now he didn't say who the the problem was and I don't think it was Croshere so the problem he was referring to has to still be on the Pacers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                Originally posted by Jose Slaughter
                What flavor Kool-Aide is this?
                Blue Kool-Aid is OK, but don't drink it if it's gold.

                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                  Originally posted by Will Galen
                  Er . . . I don't think you said what you meant, because that doesn't quite make sense for the simple reason injuries aren't a given. For instant, look at Detroit's starting five the last two years.

                  One thing he did say when broadcasting his first Pacer game was Ron wasn't the problem. This was before Ron made himself the problem. Now he didn't say who the the problem was and I don't think it was Croshere so the problem he was referring to has to still be on the Pacers.
                  He meant that Reggie said it before the injuries took place, he just dropped a word. At least that's how I took his post to read.


                  Anyway, who says it was something as obvious as Tins vs Rick, or Jack acting up, or any of that. Maybe it was Kevin O'Neil making guys uncomfortable? Maybe it was just that the team as a whole didn't seem to mesh, but without being able to cite one specific change that would solve it.

                  I don't recall Reggie ever making it an either/or situation in his comments, as in "they have issues, but Ron isn't part of that". I think his comments about chemistry remained exclusive from his comments about Ron. He took up for Ron, just as DW, RC and Bird all did, but that doesn't mean that Reggie didn't see the team's interaction with Ron as perhaps tenuous. He just didn't see it as all Ron's fault.

                  That's true without a doubt. Seems like they are making changes directly aimed at appeasing JO (get one of his boys here) and Tinsley (move out K'ON, take a look at his former ast. coach from Iowa St). And Davis clearly comes in to be a players sounding board ala Mike Brown's role.


                  Forget all that, let's say these guys become bestest buddies like a sequel to Stand By Me. That still won't make the first month or so of basketball not look really rough. It's going to take a lot of PT for these guys to learn to play together, especially if there is still a Harrington trade to come.

                  Our hope as fans should be less on the first month and more on the final 2 months, in that it would be nice if they were a lot more stable by that point this season than they were last. I can't take another 17 starting lineups or whatever it was.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                    Originally posted by ssmall
                    This reminds me of that quote from last season about how talents is the most important thing and chemistry will come later.
                    Nice recall. How did I forget that quote?

                    I remember going ballistic when that hit the papers.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                      Chemistry develops over time. It almost never happens instantly. It is closely tied to trust. Without one you cant have the other. You can't draft it, you cant trade for it and you cant sign it on the free agent market. It only happens once players start to get familiar with one another and start trusting one another.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                        Originally posted by naptown
                        Chemistry develops over time. It almost never happens instantly. It is closely tied to trust. Without one you cant have the other. You can't draft it, you cant trade for it and you cant sign it on the free agent market. It only happens once players start to get familiar with one another and start trusting one another.
                        Thank you, I was just going to say this. You can't really trade for good chemsitry, BUT there are ways that you can avoid trading for bad chemistry by generally avoiding known cancers. Sometimes it can work but I think eventually they wear out their welcome.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                          Chemistry is a funny thing. Yes, you establish it over time, but only if you are succesful. If you aren't succesful, people get canned or traded and then people say, "But we had no chemistry." On the other hand, if you have succes, then that in itself encourages stability. Basically, talent MUST come first.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Q.O.D. 7/17..... correct link

                            He meant that Reggie said it before the injuries took place
                            Yep thats what i ment. English is not my motherlanguage so sorry if its hard to understand some things i write, im trying my best.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X