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

Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

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

  • #46
    Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

    Will, I understand your point but at 15 you have to hope that the guys before you are picking the misses. At 7 you get to choose from that group, not just take what is left over.

    While the talent at that point seems closer to being even, I don't think it will turn out that way. Right now if Love and Augustin went off the board and the Pacers were left with Budinger I'd feel pretty horrible about it.

    I'm getting tired of the notion that anyone who wants us to get a high draft pick is just praying for a savior. It's not just about hoping for a franchise player. You can still get a very talented piece and they don't have to be a franchise player. We. Need. Talent.
    I agree completely. I will not root for a tank. Play to win, that's the lesson you learn. As players you gain nothing from playing to lose. Fight the adversity and do what you can to the end.

    But from a fan/GM view a higher pick is like getting more cash. MAYBE it doesn't buy you much more as Will suggests, but it might. At the very least if you think 7=15 then TRADE DOWN, still get the same caliber talent and add perhaps a decent 2nd rounder or the future right to swap draft spots, etc.

    What really fuels my feeling on it this year is the jump between East 8th seed and missing the playoffs due to the East/West disparity.

    Also keep in mind that you are improving your SECOND round pick position too, and in that spot you could see a couple of gems go off the board in that difference of 6-7 spots.

    Losing begets losing.
    I agree with Goldfoot and Anthem, et al on the "set a winning tone" and "get playoff experience and HUNGER". Getting swept sucks. Players don't like that feeling, more so than just missing the playoffs. They will have tasted that 2nd season and will certainly want more.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-11-2008, 12:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
      I think some of you are grossly under-rating the importance of playoff experience. I would imagine there are a few players on the current roster that will be part of the future. I want them to get playoff experience. Losing begets losing.
      I'm starting to swing back in this direction. I want Danny to get as much experience as possible, and I doubt he's the only player on this team who will be here when things start getting good again. I'm resigned to having about the 16th pick and being done with it. Let's go for the extra time played.

      If I felt we were destined to land, say, the 8th pick I'd probably stick with the "go get the talent!" I've been posting and talking about lately. But the more I've thought it over tonight and the more I've talked about it with a couple of people tonight, the more convinced I am that that's just not where this team is headed. If they do dive, then that's good in regards to talent. But I think we're going to see a small comeback that will land us in the 8th or 7th (God, more of that) seed. In that scenario, failure to make the playoffs is probably at best a 5 pick jump up the draft, and at that point I'd probably encourage them to go for the playoffs above all else. In fact, I'm not worried about it one way or the other because they will not tank, nor should they.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

        And it's not just playoffs, it's also winning in the race to the playoffs. As bad as the East is, the Pacers are now positioned where they can't afford to keep losing at the pace they have the last month or so if they want to make the playoffs.

        So either they are going to dial in or at least start beating up on weaker teams in a few weeks, either way they would be gaining confidence and hopefully some casual fan interest.

        Right now they could go .500 the rest of the way and still be well under .500 overall. What that means is they wouldn't be backing in to the playoffs. Their chances to beat a team like Boston or Detroit might still feel slim, but at least they would have gotten turned in the right direction.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

          My guess is that JO and Tinsley come back within a week or so of the all-star break, the team bats about .500 or slightly above (by a game or 3), and then ends the season on a 5-2 or 6-1 surge to bring them into 8th seed territory.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

            Furthermore, it took Reggie six seasons before he led the Pacers past the first round. The first two he saw no post season and then four straight first round exits.


            The Pacers are only 3.5 games out of the sixth seed.
            I'm in these bands
            The Humans
            Dr. Goldfoot
            The Bar Brawlers
            ME

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

              To tell you the truth... These past couple of wins has got people just a little too up. I don't think we have to worry too much about 6th seeds and the like.

              Keep Jim Mora in mind here...

              Playoffs? Playoffs? PLAYOFFS?

              -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


              • #52
                Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                I'm starting to swing back in this direction. I want Danny to get as much experience as possible, and I doubt he's the only player on this team who will be here when things start getting good again. I'm resigned to having about the 16th pick and being done with it. Let's go for the extra time played.

                If I felt we were destined to land, say, the 8th pick I'd probably stick with the "go get the talent!" I've been posting and talking about lately. But the more I've thought it over tonight and the more I've talked about it with a couple of people tonight, the more convinced I am that that's just not where this team is headed. If they do dive, then that's good in regards to talent. But I think we're going to see a small comeback that will land us in the 8th or 7th (God, more of that) seed. In that scenario, failure to make the playoffs is probably at best a 5 pick jump up the draft, and at that point I'd probably encourage them to go for the playoffs above all else. In fact, I'm not worried about it one way or the other because they will not tank, nor should they.
                The whole point of my post and one that most posters missed badly!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                  Ok this is really a tough question for me.

                  Like Bball I too believe that there will be to much satisfaction in the front office of just making the 8th seed of the playoffs. There will be articles about the accomplishment of this season because we are back in the the playoffs.

                  So on that level, no I have no desire to see the playoffs.

                  However I also am vastly differant from many of you. I do not see a far reaching lack of talent that all of you see.

                  That's right I said it, I don't see this team lacking in talent.

                  What I see is that this team lacks a couple of big guns and in fact I think the talent around the big guns would be better than most. I said a couple of weeks ago and I'll say it again. Replace the names O'neal & Tinsley with Duncan & Parker and you are talking a 50 win team. But if you are going to say that "Of course Duncan and Parker will get you there" then change the names O'Neal & Tinsley with Boozer & Williams and you are still looking at about a 50 win team.

                  Our problem is not the Dunleavy's, Foster's & Granger's of the world. Our proble is that our franchise has hitched it's saddle to two lame horses and has for years.

                  The best way out of this for everybody would be for the Pacers to trade either (both preferably) and get a high draft pick and young players in return. Not going to happen, but hey it would be nice.

                  Anyway back on point.

                  Also in my "I don't care to see the playoffs" thought is this. I will say this emphatically.

                  I do NOT want O'Neal or Tinsley back the rest of the season.

                  Now if they do not come back and we make the playoffs, great.

                  However to me the absolute worst thing that could happen would be for us to get O'Neal back just in time for the playoffs to where we once again will change our style of play and nobody will gain any experiance at being more than a third banana behind the Jermaine & Jamaal show.

                  But we will have to hear how if we could just get the two of them healthy for a full season we could be a factor.

                  However I don't want this to be left out either. For those of you that are so fascinated with high lottery picks I won't go very far to look at something.

                  I present you the current Indiana Pacers. Mike Dunleavey # 3 in the draft. Ike Diagu # 9 in the draft.

                  Please spare me the, they were bad picks speech. While neither was a concensus player, neither were rated much lower than where they went either. Now Mike by far and away is not a flop, however does anybody here consider him to be the franchise player a team would build around?

                  Ike anyone?

                  Also some of you guys are young and believe me I know this is going to come off sounding like some old man talk, which it is, but believe me guys I've lived through lottery pick after lottery pick.

                  Waymond Tisdale, Steve Stepanovich, Rik Smits, Clark Kellogg, Herb Williams, Chuck Person. Each and every one of them fine players in their own rights but none of which would you consider franchise players. However each of them were good professionals.

                  Waymond, Steve & Rik were all seleceted # 2 in the draft btw.

                  I'm rambling, let me see if I can clear this up.

                  My official position is this. If the team that is present on the floor right now plays out the rest of the year and we don't have to keep jumping our star players in & out of our lineup then I would not mind being the sacrificial lamb just so Danny, Mike, Troy, Shawne, Travis & Kareem can get some playoff experiance.

                  However if J.O. & Jamaal do come back my preferance would be to still try and win games but I would not be upset at all if we don't make it because there will be no growth, no learning and there will be to much self satisfaction.


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

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    That's right I said it, I don't see this team lacking in talent.

                    What I see is that this team lacks a couple of big guns and in fact I think the talent around the big guns would be better than most.
                    Every team in the league would love to add a big gun, even those teams that already have one (or 2). Adding Duncan and Parker would make contenders out of just about every team in the league that doesn't already have them.

                    Everybody is looking for that dominant player.

                    Hey, that's why the Pacers committed to Jermaine to begin with. When he was 22-24, he seemed to have all the tools of being the prototype bigman that every team in the league craves. If a 20 year old prospect enters the draft with the type of size, skill and athleticism Jermaine had when he was that young, every team in the league would be foaming at the mouth at the sight of him.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                      playoffs....i bet we beat boston.
                      "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                        I agree with Peck on this issue, but maybe with a twist.

                        If the Pacers deserve to make the playoffs, I want them in the playoffs. And I say in order to make the playoffs an NBA team should have at least a .500 record. So if the Pacers win 41 games, then yes I want them in the playoffs.

                        Draft picks don't really excite me, but then I don't follow college at all, so I have no idea about any of the players and I don't even think about the draft until a couple of days before the actual draft in late June.

                        But one thing I never will do is root for the Pacers to lose, I just can't.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                          Two points.

                          1. I always root for my team (Pacers) to win every game.
                          2. High draft choices do not always work out.....how many top 5 draft picks end up being all stars????...I don't have the figures but I'm pretty sure it's less than half.
                          Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                            I'm still not convinced at all that hiring Bird as GM was a wise move.
                            But I do know one thing about him. The collective FO may be satisfied
                            at grabbing the 7th or 8th seed and making the playoffs. But Bird sure
                            as heck won't be.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                              Last time I checked, Big guns were talented players! We still need talent. The ways to get big guns:

                              Free Agency (no way)
                              Draft (highly unlikely unless a low pick surprises)
                              Trade (ding ding ding)

                              Now, how does one trade for a big gun? JO won't get you that. Tinsley sure won't get you that. The only way to maybe get a big gun is to have enough supplemental talent (Dunleavy/Foster/Granger [who is on that bubble between this and a big gun right now]) that you can trade it for a team looking to move a big gun you want. Think Boston this summer. Especially the Ray Allen deal (we don't have an Al Jefferson to offer).

                              But my bigger overall point: A lack of big guns is a lack in talent!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                                Also, can we please stop with this argument that "Well, the draft may not work out, so don't even consider it a good option if we get there!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X