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. for 8/3/06

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

  • Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

    Reading the sportingnews.com article on how he feels the Pacers will basically fall down this season it made me wonder about how I honestly thought the team would do.

    I know we've already done this once or twice this summer but I want to do it again.

    As of right now, and that means no Al Harrington, what are your honest expectations for this team this up coming season?

    I'll go ahead & list mine up front.

    Again, this is without Al.

    I'm going to go with 40 wins 42 losses and a first round exit as the 8th seed.

    Now what I have to ask myself is "Would I be dissapointed with that"?

    I don't think I can answer that till I see how they play. Win/loss record is what it is, however the style of play and the way you win or lose games means something to me as well.

    I think this year will be hard on people like Uncle Buck & myself because I don't think we will see the defense that we have grown used to over the years here.

    Again, this is without Al or any other major moves. This is all off if that happens & I will rethink my whole totalls then.

    What do you guys think?


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

  • #2
    Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

    Try as I sometimes might, I can't bring myself to assume and expect all of the injuries and other crap of the last two years to come back in full force again this year. I just can't. So with that in mind, I honestly could see us winning 50+ games.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm expect injuries and other crap, but closer to the amounts we saw in 2004, not the past two seasons. I would not be surprised at all to be 100% wrong on this, but I can't bring myself to dive into such depths of pessimism. I refuse. And if that changes, I don't think I'd even consider myself interested in, let alone a fan of, the Indiana Pacers. If I have nothing to do but sit around and *****, moan, and predict disaster and despair, I am wasting my life on this, and I refuse to do so.

    It all comes down to consistency. What I am expecting to happen still falls reasonably in line with the word, ESPECIALLY from the POV of our returning people. I think in the long term that would-- that WILL do wonders for this team, side-show crap be damned.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

      Hulk / Foster
      Jermaine / Powell
      Granger / White
      Jack / Williams
      Tinsley / Saras

      That's no championship squad, but if they get a chance to play together develop some chemistry without getting bit by the injury bug again, I could see them winning 50 games.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

        Foster/ Hulk
        Jermaine / Powell/ Baston
        Granger / Williams
        Jack / Daniels/ White
        Tinsley / Saras/ Armstong/ Green

        I'll guess JO goes 65+, Tins goes 60+, Granger takes the same progress that Pippen did into year 2 (good, but not star), Foster is good for 55+

        Lots of good perimeter defense to bring in when needed, decent scoring inside the arc with Tinsley running the offense. SarJas a little better for the long haul works great with Harrison, perhaps White or Williams impacts the season in year 1. Armstrong leadership.

        Maybe 45 wins is reasonable.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

          Originally posted by Peck
          Reading the sportingnews.com article on how he feels the Pacers will basically fall down this season it made me wonder about how I honestly thought the team would do.

          I know we've already done this once or twice this summer but I want to do it again.

          As of right now, and that means no Al Harrington, what are your honest expectations for this team this up coming season?

          I'll go ahead & list mine up front.

          Again, this is without Al.

          I'm going to go with 40 wins 42 losses and a first round exit as the 8th seed.

          Now what I have to ask myself is "Would I be dissapointed with that"?

          I don't think I can answer that till I see how they play. Win/loss record is what it is, however the style of play and the way you win or lose games means something to me as well.

          I think this year will be hard on people like Uncle Buck & myself because I don't think we will see the defense that we have grown used to over the years here.

          Again, this is without Al or any other major moves. This is all off if that happens & I will rethink my whole totalls then.

          What do you guys think?
          This has always been a good team with a good coach. Barring major injuries, I look for 50 plus wins. That means no rotation player missing more than ten games.

          Suspensions got them on the wrong track and injuries did the rest. A healthy Pacer team will be a good team!

          As far as what I bolded above, I agree, the defense is going to be better because the Pacers are picking up players that can really get after it. (grin)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

            Originally posted by Peck
            Win/loss record is what it is, however the style of play and the way you win or lose games means something to me as well.
            I agree. If they are competiyive and hungry I will watch every game if they win 32 or 64. W/o Harrinton I'd say they could win 47. But we know they will make moves w or w/o Harrington on the roster. The Pacer players are going like hot cakes in places like Dallas and Toronto these days. The main reason I have Larry and Donnie place-mats in my dining room is that they keep us a mid level to elite team every year. After two seasons of BS "It has to change and it will change." With a Larry aproved, Rick tested, line up I say we win 56.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

              I would say currently that a reasonable guess is #7 or 8 in the east. probably 40 wins.

              We're not terrible, for as much as people harp on JO and Jack and Jamaal... if they play, they'll be a decent team. Tinsley has lead the league in assists when he plays and is capable of scoring. Jack has some fairly good shooting nights when he takes high quality shows. JO obviously can score when he shows up and isn't injured. Danny wasn't a rookie of the year candidate, but was definitely a top 10 candidate. And he's going to show a lot of improvement. Jeff Foster has always been solid, not a premiere player but he contributes on both ends of the floor especially rebounding. Marquis Daniels has displayed brilliance on the floor in the past, hopefully he can bring that with some of the consistancy he lacked in Dallas. Harrison made some improvements last year, hopefully more will arrive this season. And we can hope there will be more consistancy and improvement shown from Sarunas.

              Obviously thats the overly optimistic outlook. The attitudes haven't been addressed (well, apart from Ron), we don't have a solid #2 scoring option to drag defense off of JO. Foster/JO/Tinsely are likely to spend quite a bit of time injured.

              Some people don't have any faith in Rick Carlisle as a coach. I honestly believe that he is a great coach and that he deserves a lot of the credit for us even making the playoffs the last two years (although the same credit for 2005 playoffs needs to go to Reggie and his amazing feb/march carrying the team on his ridiculously weak knees). He got the most out of our team when the players with significant salaries were either injured (reggie) or suspended (everyone else) after the Detroit brawl and beyond. Look at how many starting lineups we've had the last two years... its ridiculous. And unlike Larry Brown in NY it wasn't because of his being fickle with players. Can you imagine if the last two years had happened with Larry Brown as a coach? While he's a great coach, he constantly self-destructs (like in 05 in the finals)... with everything that happened Nov 04 I can see Brown having a complete breakdown. So I think Rick has gone through injuries/events and attitudes that many coaches never do. They may deal with these events individually but not so many over the course of two seasons... Rick got a large combo plate of the #91 special.

              Anyway, all that being said, I think the Pacers will only do as well as this past year. I can't remember a geniunely bad Pacer team. Inconsistant teams, most definitely (basically post Bird coaching retirement). I don't think this lineup helps break that cycle but I also don't think its going to seriously damage the team. Only if we trade for a 07 Portland pick first round pick are we going to get close to Oden.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                Well I expect strangely enough perhaps, that the impact of Al is of locker and friendship quality only, in other words it might improve some things, but I still remember AL and JO playing upfront together and 8 out of 10 it wasn't that pretty.

                I fully expect Daniels to have a break out year, he's definitely a possibility for a JO repeat as a player not fitting in with his current team and getting a fresh start (eagerness) with another team.
                I almost expect him to start, unless a better SG is signed, and I don't expect Jax back on the team, unless in a very diminshed role, please register here that talk from TPTB has been about almost all players, except Jax, they have clearly addressed from the end of season till now, what they wanted to do with Tins, they considered trading Sara, but made it AJ in the end, and I personally think that it was for "locker" reasons, the sense of "entitlement" that AJ carried might have made the locker a less pleasurable surrounding if he had to move to (IF Sara works out better this year, something I alas doubt) 3rd string again, and there is no way he beats a healthy Tins to the starting job.
                Greene has a lot of upside and can for now fill that 3rd string spot at the 1 & 2 easily, there must be more there then we think and who knows what we are going to see from him.
                Granger at the 3, I can certainly live with that, White can back up that spot to, as can Daniels, also should Jax stay he can backup that position as well as the 2.
                JO at the 4, Powell and Baston to backup, not the strongest of backups by the look of it, and the unknown factor Williams, will still be solid enough, after all we are only talking 10 -13 minutes available there anyway.
                the 5 looks to be our glaring weakness at the moment, though we have Foster still there, and who knows maybe he can stay healthy this year (or BE healthy for a change) and certainly we are allowed to expect something out of David, and I still expect us to re-sign Polly, but I am also assuming that we are still looking there, though I could live with Jeff, David and Scott there for now.

                Now as far as defense goes, it seems we have more perimiter defenders then we had, certain players are specifically known as good defenders, and I think we will probably be in the top 5 of defending teams, most new players and even a pick are "known" for defensive prowess, something we outside of Artest rarely had, face it; Granger, JO, Daniels, White, Baston and Greene at the very least are known to be "good" defenders, so no worries there from me.

                in that line-up I have some expectations, and that should result in around 50 wins, with depending on the matchup perhaps a decent fight in the second round, though once you are in the playoffs, all predictions and stats go out of the window, being there is having a chance.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                  The Sunshine side of me says Bird has gotten into Jax, Tins, and Harrison's face enough to force his will upon them and they get thier **** together. That's the case..........55 wins. 2nd round exit.

                  The dark side says if we lose a few, the wheels will fall off, RC's Dr. Frankenstein side returns, and we end up with 35-38 wins.

                  WITH Al, I see JO getting beaten down and missing 1/3 of the season and we longing for results as good as my dark side prediction.


                  Now...my real feeling is that at the start we will do well...then we'll falter....RC will tinker pissing everybody off....we'll lose a ton....there will be talk of RC firing and deadline trades involving the TE and every Pacer player and draft pick.

                  Have I mentioned I have NO faith in RC's, Jax, Tinsley's, or Harrison's ability to change their ways. One of them maybe, the others for a little while, but certainly not all of them and certainly not for an entire season.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                    IMO about 45 wins - +/- 3 or so. But that assumes Tinsley stays healthy.

                    If Tinsley gets hurt, replace a .55 winning percentage with about .2 for however long he's out. Frex, he misses 30 games, knock off about 10 wins from that.

                    If JO's out, replace a .55 winning percentage with about .35 for however long he's out.

                    If BOTH Tinsley and JO are out - well, nobody wants to go there.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                      I've taken a weird position, right now. I'm not looking for much from this squad as it stands. My anticipation for the season stems from focusing on watching individual players I like and watching to see if they grow (Saras, Maceo, Granger, Marquis, Williams), but on the whole, I'm not expecting too much.

                      I don't mean to sound redundant, but as long as we have the same core of starters and the samne coach, I'm not looking for much. I'll content myself with individual performances/growth and bide my time.
                      Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                        Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                        I've taken a weird position, right now. I'm not looking for much from this squad as it stands. My anticipation for the season stems from focusing on watching individual players I like and watching to see if they grow (Saras, Maceo, Granger, Marquis, Williams), but on the whole, I'm not expecting too much.

                        I don't mean to sound redundant, but as long as we have the same core of starters and the samne coach, I'm not looking for much. I'll content myself with individual performances/growth and bide my time.
                        I agree with this. Even with Al, nobody is expecting us to contend. I just want to see us progress. JO is still young and he seems more committed than ever to leading this team to victory. I think with some years of steady progression we could be contending in two years and that isn't bad.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                          37-40 wins

                          Injuries could make it even uglier
                          Heywoode says... work hard man.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                            Well I always hope for the best but if Jax, Tinsley and Harrison are are on the roster this season I can only assume the Pacers could not get what they wanted for those players, so instead of making all the changes needed this summer, I'll look at it as a two year reshaping project. We may just have to face the fact that this upcoming season will be a transition year in many ways.

                            If the Pacers can't get what they want for who they want to get rid of, then I can understand them hoping this season turns out as good as it can, but also a season for TPTB to learn what they have in some of their new young players, and then next summer trade DH, Jax, Tins and maybe JO.

                            As far as number of wins, I have no idea right now.


                            Peck, I still expect the Pacers to be a good defensive team, they won't be the Bulls or Spurs, but hopefully they can be somewhere between 5th and 10th best

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Q.O.D. for 8/3/06

                              Again, I just want to see us starting the process. Frankly, if we win 20 games but have great chemistry, JT and JO play injury free years, and Danny and Marquis come along real nicely (as well as Hulk, Flight, and Shawne) then that would make me extremely happy.

                              As long as we don't trade away that pick.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X