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

Bad Decisions by the Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #31
    Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    You know what? I hadn't thought about the impact of Chuck Person as our defensive coach. I remember that it happened, but I hadn't put it together.

    I'm going to have to go think about that. Because the Pacers look very poorly coached on defense, and I've been attributing it to the players' inability to learn. Maybe the problem isn't the players, it's the coach.
    First of all, thank you imawhat for a great thread starter. I just now got around to reading this.

    Anthem, I griped about this a ways back and I don't think people are grasping just what a HUGE hole Mike Brown leaving meant to us. Matter of fact, really think about it. Chuck Person as defensive coach. Good God!! Tell me you haven't seen a drastic difference since Mike left.

    I keep praying they put Chuck back in the front office and keep his hands off the players.

    Granted, they have Lebron, but look at what Brown has gotten that team to do defensively. Look at their roster. Pretty non threatening, isn't it? (aside from Lebron, of course.) Mike has gotten them to be extremely defensive minded...liike we we heading two years ago.

    What's funny, is that there are the same grumblings in Cleveland that were were/are getting about Rick. Brown bases his team on methodical team defense, coupled with strict, methodical offense. I think we TRY to play good team defense, but I see some flawed concepts, inho. (I won't digress. I'll talk about it in another post.)

    I think we absolutely, positively MUST get a strong defensive coach.

    That and Rick needs to quit calling EVERY FREAKING PLAY ON OFFENSE.

    *ahem*

    Originally posted by imawhat
    5. The continued support of our players regarding their off-court behavior.

    I was completely sickened by what happened this offseason and more recently at 8 seconds. The damage done to our franchise's image is the most painful part, regardless of innocence or being guilty. The fact that Boston could suspend Orien Greene for speeding but we haven't suspended our guys says it all to me. I understand that our entire organization has been put in a tough position, but supporting the players is not the best way to win back the trust of the fans. Winning might do it, but their bad decision-making may have ruined that as well.

    There are more factors, and I don't have time to count them all, but I think back at our decisions this year and I'm not surprised that only 12,000 fans attended a weekend game, which we lost after playing with no effort and a bad attitude.
    Yeah, we've got a management team who have pretty much let the players know they can kick them in the nads as much as they want. I'm all for support, but there is a real doormat aspect to the management style of the Pacers. THAT has disappointed me more than anything.

    I would post the rest of your post, but I'll simply ask everyone to re-read it. Some very excellent points.

    I disagree with one a bit, though.

    4. The Golden State trade

    I don't mind the notion of addition by substraction. It's still refreshing to never see our new guys complain, and to have them play like they want to be here despite having less talent as just as much inconsistency.

    What I do mind is how much extra money we've taken on, and the extremely difficult position it puts us in for the future. Fortunately, there are people like Isiah making decisions on other clubs that would be willing to take on a big contract or two, if we could make a trade. I really think that all of those guys needed to go, but was that really the best we could do?
    I really think anything can happen anymore, large contracts or no. Seems like untradable players get moved with proper incentive from the team.

    I gotta be honest. I feel a little bit like the Dick Versace years right now.

    Remember? We had a team based around Tisdale, Stipo and Chuck. We had a decent team with promise, but not quite the coaching staff to bring them together. Rememeber the marketing campaingn back then? All those commercials for "Let's have some fun!" or something like that. TPTB figured we didn't have a great product, so they tried to sell the masses on a coming to watch theteam casue even if we lose, we're going to have some fun out there and make it exciting for you. I think they succeeded to a degree.

    Compare that with our failed "We'll behave....promise." campaign of this year.

    Both cases, they're trying to sell a flawed product and hopes the masses don't look too hard.

    Thing is, I like where this team is heading. Honest.

    BUT

    Only if we make some more moves. Let's just say, we need to clear out one more knuckehead, insert a strong defensive coach and I think we are a very valid playoff threat.

    I think defense can be taught. Troy, frex, is slow footed, but you don't think a Larry Brown or Mike Brown type couldn't teach him to compensate and get the team to cover for that? There have been a ton of defensive minded coaches who've gotten strong offensive players to become good defenders and teams to play strong team defense.

    The problem is that this team has no identity, no leaders (sorry JO, but, no) and a management style that doesn't seem to take a strong stance on anything other than back peddling.

    I'm going to be optimistic. That's why I'm basking in the sunshine right now. We're at a point similar to what we were before LB came here.

    I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that managemtn truly realizes what a crossroads they're at. This is a near breaking point for fans and real change needs to be made. I really hope thye do it.
    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

    • #32
      Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

      Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
      I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that managemtn truly realizes what a crossroads they're at. This is a near breaking point for fans and real change needs to be made. I really hope thye do it.

      But haven't they already made real change. They only have 5 players who were on the roster to start last season and one of those 5 doesn't play. JO, Jamaal, Foster, Granger and David Harrison. Everyone else is new. Isn't that real change. I remember at one of the forum parties (it was the one a year ago) I said I thought the Pacers would change (trade away) half of their roster within a year - and I turned out to be wrong. They traded away about 2/3 of their roster. But most people at the party thought I was crazy - no way the Pacers would undertake such a radical change

      And I'd be shocked if Tinsley is on the roster in October so that will entail probably 2 or 3 players leaving the roster.

      So in less than a year and a half the Pacers will have traded away probably 12 or 13 of the players who were on the roster to start the 2006 season.

      Sounds like a radical change to me.


      So what do you mean by "real change"

      Comment

      • #33
        Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

        Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
        If the bitter roots can play good defense, I say sign em up

        All this talk of proper values and morality on a freakin basketball team is sickening. You'd think these guys are running for congress or something. I suppose no one here has EVER been to a strip club! All this "damage done to the franchise" that some feel is degrading the youths of indiana doesn't compare to the damage that is being caused by flooring a team of carebears...

        I mean where is the line that needs to be drawn? What expectations should one really put on a NBA team? Do they need to be rolemodels for your children? Isn't that your job as a parent? bah
        Do you really believe that?

        How many posts do we see about the problem of a player becoming a cancer? How many players are nixed for potential trades around here because they have bad attitudes?

        If by "morality" you mean disrespect to authority, rebellious attitudes in general, flagrant disdain for refs and NBA brass, and a self-centered me-oriented view of basketball, then I stand by my original comments.

        I wasn't talking about strip clubs and marijuana, a lesser issue, really, when it comes to moral problems.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment

        • #34
          Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

          If we're going to compare Chuck to the top defensive coaches in the league, of course he's not going to stack up.

          Still, I wonder how much more a defensive mastermind could do with this roster.

          We can look at Murphy and Dunleavy and cringe at their defense, and that's easily visible to us. Just remember that Harrington and SJax were just as bad at "attitude" as those guys are at defense.

          Rick just couldn't "solve" the lack of professionalism/ selfish attitudes. Perhaps there is no coach that can make this a team that plays an acceptable level of defense. So you've got two choices: continue changing the roster or emphasize offense, like the late-90's Pacers that were able to overcome Jackson, Mullin, Miller, Rose and Smits on the defensive end because the offense was very effecient.

          We shifted an invisible attitude problem for a visible defensive problem. A lateral move, but something that should help the team in the long term by getting rid of the questionable attitudes. Regardless, when we watch this team now, its easy for everyone to see its flaws. Previously, we had a lot of fun on here debating exactly where the "hidden" flaws were.
          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

          • #35
            Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

            Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
            If we're going to compare Chuck to the top defensive coaches in the league, of course he's not going to stack up.

            Still, I wonder how much more a defensive mastermind could do with this roster.

            We can look at Murphy and Dunleavy and cringe at their defense, and that's easily visible to us. Just remember that Harrington and SJax were just as bad at "attitude" as those guys are at defense.

            Rick just couldn't "solve" the lack of professionalism/ selfish attitudes. Perhaps there is no coach that can make this a team that plays an acceptable level of defense. So you've got two choices: continue changing the roster or emphasize offense, like the late-90's Pacers that were able to overcome Jackson, Mullin, Miller, Rose and Smits on the defensive end because the offense was very effecient.

            We shifted an invisible attitude problem for a visible defensive problem. A lateral move, but something that should help the team in the long term by getting rid of the questionable attitudes. Regardless, when we watch this team now, its easy for everyone to see its flaws. Previously, we had a lot of fun on here debating exactly where the "hidden" flaws were.
            Great observation.

            And it ties together the two themes of this thread.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment

            • #36
              Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              But haven't they already made real change. They only have 5 players who were on the roster to start last season and one of those 5 doesn't play. JO, Jamaal, Foster, Granger and David Harrison. Everyone else is new. Isn't that real change. I remember at one of the forum parties (it was the one a year ago) I said I thought the Pacers would change (trade away) half of their roster within a year - and I turned out to be wrong. They traded away about 2/3 of their roster. But most people at the party thought I was crazy - no way the Pacers would undertake such a radical change

              And I'd be shocked if Tinsley is on the roster in October so that will entail probably 2 or 3 players leaving the roster.

              So in less than a year and a half the Pacers will have traded away probably 12 or 13 of the players who were on the roster to start the 2006 season.

              Sounds like a radical change to me.


              So what do you mean by "real change"
              Well I was leaving it unsaid, but I thought it was understood.

              Trade JO and Tinsley.

              I think we had three mentally deficient players on the roster and Stephen Jackson made the third. Until we have this team NOT led by those three, I don't se us going anywhere. We've made change, but the team is still based on JO and Tinsley dominating the touches on O and are our team "leaders." REAL change for me is to get rid of all of the leaders of the knucklehead brigade.
              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

              • #37
                Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                And I'd be shocked if Tinsley is on the roster in October so that will entail
                I'm shocked Tinsley is on the roster now.

                -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

                • #38
                  Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I'm shocked Tinsley is on the roster now.

                  -Bball
                  What's worse is that I am pretty sure that we could probably find a bunch of posts that said that Tinsley would be gone in one of the many 2005-2006 Post-Season Threads.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    What's worse is that I am pretty sure that we could probably find a bunch of posts that said that Tinsley would be gone in one of the many 2005-2006 Post-Season Threads.
                    I was promoting it at least a year before that.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                    Working...
                    X