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

SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

    Sean Deveney's SportingBlog
    http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...c.php?t=113454

    Pacers don't fit in new NBA
    August 1, 2006

    For the past 15 years, the problem for the Pacers has been one of a very good team unable to be great. They've been to the playoffs 16 times since 1990 but played in only one Finals. Heading into last season -- and the season before -- it seemed the Pacers had the talent and the motivation to break that good-but-not-great voodoo. Until, at least, the antics of Ron Artest squashed the hopes of each of the last two Pacers teams before the Christmas shopping season got rolling.

    It could be the curse of Zan Tabak. You may remember, Tabak was a little-used center on the Pacers' Finals team in 2000. I remember during a media session after a practice at Conseco Fieldhouse, Biff Henderson, a producer for David Letterman's show, was filming a bit for that night. The Henderson film crew approached Tabak, and Henderson said, on the air, "You know, you're the third seven-foot Croatian named Zan I met today." Now, Tabak played 18 games all season for the Pacers and was not accustomed to interviews. Poor guy. The first one he gets is Biff Henderson. I swear, at that moment, Tabak gave Henderson a look that not only cursed him, but cursed the Pacers, the NBA and the entire sport of basketball. Perhaps that curse on the Pacers stuck.

    Entering this year, it looks again like the Pacers will break the good-but-not-great jinx. But that's because this year, I'm not sure this team even qualifies as good.

    Thanks to the NBA's new rules interpretation, there's no question that the league is turning to increasingly smaller lineups featuring more versatile players. And, looking at the Pacers' roster, it seems the franchise is stocking up on that type of player. The awaited return of Al Harrington gives them small forward capable of playing power forward. Second-year man Danny Granger will be a solid NBA wing man. Rookies Shawne Williams and James White were high-value picks in this year's draft. Marquis Daniels, acquired in a trade from Dallas, can play three positions.

    OK, so the Pacers want to pick up the tempo, and they're building a Phoenix-ish roster. But Indiana is still coached by Rick Carlisle, a guy who prefers the Chinese water torture pace -- you know, drip, drip, drip till you submit. Carlisle is good at coaching that way. He twice won 50 games in Detroit with that method and won 60 games in his first season with Indiana. What makes the Pacers think Carlisle will suddenly morph into Mike D'Antoni? Or that he should?

    Perhaps, if you're wondering why Carlisle does not have a contract extension yet, the answer is that Pacers brass can't foresee Carlisle adapting to the new NBA. Maybe the new rules have rendered Carlisle a dinosaur at age 46. I have a hard time imagining Larry Bird firing his friend and protege, but then, once it becomes clear that the Pacers are not so good, Bird is going to need to cover his own rear.

    That's because, though the Pacers have added eight players, the changes have been cosmetic and the real work has not been done. This team did not need to trade Austin Croshere or Anthony Johnson or Peja Stojakovic. They were not the problem. Indiana needed to dump Jamaal Tinsley and Stephen Jackson. Or at least one of them. Tinsley has done plenty of damage for the Pacers -- in the locker room. He pouts. He does not practice. He milks injuries. But instead of trading him, the Pacers moved backup Johnson, solidifying Tinsley's spot as the starting point guard. Tinsley missed at least 30 games for the third straight year and, effectively, got a promotion. That sends some kind of locker-room message, eh?

    Oh, and, has anyone else wondered how the Pacers plan to run more with Gimps-ley as the starting point guard?

    Part of the problem is Bird himself. One of the advantages of having him in the front office was supposed to be his ability to work with players and keep guys in the locker room in line. But two agents I spoke with said Bird is standoffish with his players, and that players don't like playing for him. If there is a solution to the Pacers' locker room troubles, it sure is not coming from Bird. He has always been the tight-lipped type and has a well-earned disdain for the pampering that the modern player requires. But apparently, players feel it would be good for the team if there was a sense that Bird is engaged. "He is very condescending," one agent says.

    Even if Bird turns into St. Larry, that won't solve the Pacers' woes. Behind Tinsley are Sarunas Jasikevicius, Darrell Armstrong and Orien Greene. Assuming Tinsley sits out his customary 40 games this year, which of those players would you want to be your starting point guard? I'm going with Armstrong, 38 years old and still ticking.

    And if Jermaine O'Neal gets hurt, forget it. Harrington would play the four-spot with, um, Maceo Baston behind him. But that is indicative of where this roster is now. Too many wings, no point guard, no depth up front. At least Pacers fans won't have their high hopes dashed. The best they can hope for this year is so-so.
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

    Wow! Denevey would fit right in on this board. I have read 90+% of his comments from many members of PD. Didn't really get his attempt at Tabak humor. Oh well, not everyone can write like the Sports Guy.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

      We are like phoenix: just without the great shooters, a brillant PG, the chemistry, and quality leader. Oh and a coach that runs an up-tempo O. lol Phoenix is rare, their shooters are absolutely amazing. They would shoot 60% from the field (90% jump shots) and I would be saying at halftime no way they are going to do that 2nd half. Sure enough, there they were shooting 62%. We don't have the right shooters for a phoenix type team. This article is sad but very true. We are so low on quality players, we are depending on the rookies to be major factors in the rotation next year. We need to grab a shooter and a true center before the season starts.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

        Originally posted by blanket
        It could be the curse of Zan Tabak. You may remember, Tabak was a little-used center on the Pacers' Finals team in 2000. I remember during a media session after a practice at Conseco Fieldhouse, Biff Henderson, a producer for David Letterman's show, was filming a bit for that night. The Henderson film crew approached Tabak, and Henderson said, on the air, "You know, you're the third seven-foot Croatian named Zan I met today." Now, Tabak played 18 games all season for the Pacers and was not accustomed to interviews. Poor guy. The first one he gets is Biff Henderson. I swear, at that moment, Tabak gave Henderson a look that not only cursed him, but cursed the Pacers, the NBA and the entire sport of basketball. Perhaps that curse on the Pacers stuck.
        Wait a sec....you mean the blame for all this is becuase of Biff Henderson?

        Everything is beginning to make sense now.......
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

          One more example of the media underestimating the Pacers. In 5 months it will be..."I knew the Pacers would be good this year all along." It's like Bill Walton announcing a Pacers game when the Pacers are the undergog. He will say how we just don't have what it takes. By the time we've taken an 8 point lead into the half he will be saying we should go deep in the playoffs. The Pacers are the Rodney Dangerfields of the NBA every year.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

            Not a big fan of Deveney or this article. I agree with him that either Jack or Tinsley should be gone, but again, that is easier said than done. I think he is grossly underrating Granger, Harrington, Daniels, and Sarunas. Actually, throw Baston in there as well. And no mention of Foster or Harrison? Has he ever seen the Pacers play? I've said this tons of times, but Rick is a smart guy that will adapt to his personel. People said the same thing about Flip Saunders last year and Brian Billeck when he went to the Ravens. They also said similar things about Dungy when he went to the Colts. It's not like these guys come out of the womb and say, "I'm a defensive-minded coach that can only coach halfcourt teams." I tend to think some of the best coaching jobs happen when a coach balances out his personel.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

              I guess we'll see when the season starts. Not saying he's right or wrong, but I do know that reading that pile of feces made me want to stick rusted nails into my eyes. Only thing I agree with was the part about trading away AJ.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                Originally posted by redwillow
                One more example of the media underestimating the Pacers. In 5 months it will be..."I knew the Pacers would be good this year all along." It's like Bill Walton announcing a Pacers game when the Pacers are the undergog. He will say how we just don't have what it takes. By the time we've taken an 8 point lead into the half he will be saying we should go deep in the playoffs. The Pacers are the Rodney Dangerfields of the NBA every year.
                well yeah, but bill walton is a douchebag.

                i know that appears to be a personal attack, but it has actually been medically proven. just ask Dr. Jack Ramsey.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                  He couldn't even get how many wins we had right. Pathetic. Although he like people on this board claim Jackson has to be traded failed to give reasons. But of course he didn't list stupid ones.

                  Hes an Idiot. He may be right about us being mediocre but he deduced it incorrectly

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                    You would think if Tinsley could read at all he would get the idea he needs to clean up his act. He can read right?
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                      Originally posted by redwillow
                      One more example of the media underestimating the Pacers. In 5 months it will be..."I knew the Pacers would be good this year all along." It's like Bill Walton announcing a Pacers game when the Pacers are the undergog. He will say how we just don't have what it takes. By the time we've taken an 8 point lead into the half he will be saying we should go deep in the playoffs. The Pacers are the Rodney Dangerfields of the NBA every year.
                      I don't know why everyone always says that. The last couple years we were picked to go much farther than we actually did. Although, it's true this "the media is out to get us" complex isn't limited to Pacers fans - everyone loves to be the underdog, after all.

                      IndyToad
                      Neutral fingers

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                        shrug, now we know who bball is, or that he is blatanly into plagiarism, or finally closely related. so what else is new ?
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                          Originally posted by blanket
                          Part of the problem is Bird himself. One of the advantages of having him in the front office was supposed to be his ability to work with players and keep guys in the locker room in line. But two agents I spoke with said Bird is standoffish with his players, and that players don't like playing for him. If there is a solution to the Pacers' locker room troubles, it sure is not coming from Bird. He has always been the tight-lipped type and has a well-earned disdain for the pampering that the modern player requires. But apparently, players feel it would be good for the team if there was a sense that Bird is engaged. "He is very condescending," one agent says.
                          As much as I don't like Bird I can't picture him being condescending to anyone.

                          And while we're on the subject of agents here's hoping Arn Tellem isn't one of the two agents the guy is talking about. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                            Yea I believe his point in writing this article was to say that we have been good but not great for a long time, but now, we won't even be good. That just isn't true. Assuming we get Al, that will give us at least 3 guys who will average double figures in JO, Al, and Marquis. That isn't even counting Danny or Tins, who are both very capable scorers. I hate to say it, and even more I hate the fact that Larry put us in this position, but I think our season will hinge on how healthy Tins stays.

                            My point in this rebuttal is that we have enough constants to at least make the playoffs, especially in the East. With Rick coaching and JO staying healthy, put us down for at least 40 wins. Having said all of that, it really isn't very logical right now to suspect that the Pacers will win the championsip next year. I think, at best, we could make, but not win, the Conf Finals. But in order for that to happen, we'd have to get Al, Tins and JO and everyone else would have to stay healthy, Danny would have to have a break out year, and we would have to get some kind of offensive and defensive production from our rookies. But with our lack of shooting, we would have to be really, really good at defense.
                            This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: SportingNews.com: Pacers don't fit in new NBA

                              I don't think it's a problem with the Pacers not fitting the new NBA. Or Larry Bird not fitting.

                              It's that the game of basketball doesn't fit in the new NBA.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X