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

1999/2000 Finals

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

  • #16
    Re: 1999/2000 Finals

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Kobe in game 4 saved the day IMO. It was inches away from going Indy's way, and people forget the Pacers had a chance to stop it from even going into OT in the first place.
    This is a huge part of why I hate Rick and Larry. I will never forgive them for letting Travis waste clock and try to shoot over Shaq. They were trying to play it safe rather than going for the win.

    I was in the stands screaming my throat raw that they could win if they just called a time out and put Mark back in.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 1999/2000 Finals

      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
      They were fun times but I think we fool ourselves when we talk about how close to a championship that team was. The more the years good by the legend grows of how great that team was.
      I agree that we had NO shot against an in-his-prime Shaq along with Kobe.

      But we were about three offensive rebounds away from knocking off MJ in that Game 7. And there's no doubt in my mind that we would have rode that high and steamrolled Stockton and Malone.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 1999/2000 Finals

        I lived (and live) in LA and saw a lot of both teams that year. The Lakers were better. As I saw it we won the game with no Kobe and caught the Lakers relaxing in game 5. (The point difference can be accounted by for game 5.) Yeah, the scores were close but they were the team with more poise, better coaching and more will to win. You can argue if this or that shot went in it would be different but of course if Travis hadn't made a three in the first round this conversation would be moot. After all is anyone going to say the Bucks were better?
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 1999/2000 Finals

          The 2000 Pacers aren't even the best NBA Pacer team of all time. The 1998 team was better. Either team would absolutely dominate today's Eastern Conference, and have a good shot at the title as well.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 1999/2000 Finals

            Originally posted by Robobtowncolt View Post
            I was at Hoosier Boy's State and didn't get to watch a single game.

            That's right. I'm a loser.
            I drove a moving van to Chicago during Game #4, and still have never seen it (and won't.)

            And lost the radio broadcast approaching Chicago on I-65 (right after Sam Perkins' three to send it to OT) only to discover that ESPN Radio in Chicago was broadcasting a WhiteSox game that night instead of the NBA Finals. All that we unpacked that first night was a mattress... I had to figure out where my nearest newstand was to find out the score the next morning.

            I did go to Games #3 and #5 (although damn tired from all the packing, unpacking and driving), and will certainly vouch for it being in the Fieldhouse.

            But my buddy that is from Cleveland has an equally bad "plans were made in April" story - he and his wife leave for Europe on Thursday morning so he'll miss the entire NBA Finals I think. Now he doesnt' have tickets, so its not "as bad..."
            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


            • #21
              Re: 1999/2000 Finals

              Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
              The 2000 Pacers aren't even the best NBA Pacer team of all time. The 1998 team was better. Either team would absolutely dominate today's Eastern Conference, and have a good shot at the title as well.
              i completely agree. that 98 team was the best. by 2000, smits was running on fumes. he was not a useful player anymore. shaq totally ruled him in 2000. not saying the 98 smits could have stopped him however, he could have minimzed shaq's scoring with more of his own (as compared to the 2000 rik)

              I'd love to see the 98 team against today's teams. not gonna happen of course but, one can dream.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                Just saw this thread.

                In game 4 of 2000, we had fouled out Shaq and basically played 5 on Kobe during the overtime. In that game, I honestly felt as though we had successfully fouled out Shaq about 2 to 2-1/2 minutes before foul #6 was ever called... and should have won it in regulation. But, all we had to do in the overtime was to stop Kobe... and we didn't.

                I believe that we could have taken that series. The Lakers were having a very hard time choosing between rebounding the ball defensively or covering our three-point shooters.

                As far as 2004 goes, I believe we did not beat Detroit and go on to win the championship for one reason and one reason only. Detroit acquired Rasheed for peanuts just prior to the trade deadline. Wallace ended up being the perfect piece that the Pistons needed to knock out the Pacers. As I recall, several Pistons stated after winning the title that they had a far more difficult time against the Pacers in the EC finals than they did in the finals.

                If the two teams played each other, both being half court teams, I believe the 2000 team would win quite handily. I just don't think the 2004 team could handle the interior men at all. Between Smits, Perkins and Croshere all hitting mid- to long-range jumpers, along with Reggie bombing away as well and MJax able to hit a wide open 3-pointer, the 2004 team would have a hell of time on the defensive boards.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                  I would like our chances even better if Bender wasn't a part of the team and we would have still had AD or had traded him for a useful player.

                  In any case, some of you (including management) severely underestimated what we had and severely over estimated how easily we could get back to that level. We're still trying... and farther away than at any time in the last 15 or so years.

                  -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


                  • #24
                    Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    I would like our chances even better if Bender wasn't a part of the team and we would have still had AD or had traded him for a useful player.

                    In any case, some of you (including management) severely underestimated what we had and severely over estimated how easily we could get back to that level. We're still trying... and farther away than at any time in the last 15 or so years.

                    -Bball
                    Agreed... I had forgotten about AD. I had always been of the opinion that we were missing one more big man to take the series, and that's exactly what we gave up in acquiring Bender.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                      I think having Antonio Davis instead of an infant Jonathan Bender would've helped us handle Shaq a lot better. We really had only one competent defender in Dale Davis because veteran center duo of Smits and the Big Smooth just didn't have the athleticism. I still think that the Lakers would've ultimately beat us though.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                        The 2000 Pacers were not the best version of that squad...but it would have beat any of the JO era teams. There are several reasons beyond the 2004 team's incredible lack of maturity and chemistry that would have them doomed.

                        A much younger Dale Davis would keep JO under control. You know how much JO struggles against long, physical players like Kenyon Martin.

                        Rik Smits would have too much length for the sub-7ft front line of Foster and JO. JO would have to guard Smits (or Perkins) who would take him outside...perimeter D is one of JO's weaknesses of course. Smits' defense or lack thereof would be irrelevant against Foster. Rik could go to sleep on Foster and sacrifice nothing. This would certainly keep Smits fresh and out of foul trouble...something always a problem on that team.

                        Derrick McKey's length...at least as long as Prince, would have slowed Artest down. Ron has real problems against longer defenders. He gets frustrated and loses his mind.

                        A younger Miller would have been better too.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                          Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                          I didn't see a game of it, either. Still haven't.
                          Walking home after game 5, cars and crowd going crazy, helicopters in the air, and the euphoria of a total beatdown of the Lakers remains one of my favorite Pacers memories.

                          BTW, I had the opposite moving situation. I moved to Houston before the 97-98 season so I wasn't in town for that classic series, watched game 7 in a Houston sports bar where all non-Bulls fans were on my side even if they didn't care about the Pacers otherwise.

                          But just in the nick of time I found a job back in Indy in early 2000 and moved back for that entire playoff run, including having the money (thanks bonus) to buy some good seats (box office) and really enjoy it. It sure made up for missing 1998, especially that Knicks series.


                          Of course this was totally outdone when I pulled the trigger on an AFC CG ticket and that game/post-game walk took over as my greatest Indy sporting moment.

                          I've seen a lot of painful losses, horrible play (21-0 in the 1st qtr vs the Bills, ugh) and stuff that makes you want to give up watching, but those rare moments of magic are like freaking crack. You see Smits hit a miracle jumper and it'll keep you coming back for years just hoping for another fix.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                            I also want to mention that some of the same people that proclaimed LA's greatness and Indiana having no chance against that 'dynasty'... ever... also proclaimed Detroit to have no chance against them.

                            -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


                            • #29
                              Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                              I didn't think that the 04 Lakers were unbeatable. There were chemistry issues, Malone was hurt, Payton was in decline and the rest of the team very was mediocre. Also Detriot was better than any NBA Indiana team we have floored.

                              Honestly, I don't know who was better 2000, 2004, 1998. However we overrate the 2000 team and recently it has been to take a shot at the current Pacers rather than anything else.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 1999/2000 Finals

                                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                                Honestly, I don't know who was better 2000, 2004, 1998. However we overrate the 2000 team and recently it has been to take a shot at the current Pacers rather than anything else.
                                Honestly, with all due respect, you might want to drop the "we". Some of us actually know which team was better and are capable of rating these clubs with a fair amount of accuracy.

                                But you are absolutely right that shots are being taken at the 2004 team (most who are not "current Pacers" as you describe, btw). Nevertheless, that group largely deserves it and I'm not ashamed to say that. The 2000 team literally brought years of joy, while the 2004 team has brought mostly misery. For those who did not follow the Pacers from 1993-2000, you have no idea what you missed.

                                It will be a good day when the last of them (JO and Tinsley) are gone forever. It's time to close the chapter on the JO era....and fortunately TPTB feel the same way.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X