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

Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    Well, I don't know if I disagree with him there. It depends on how you judge "best" players. Bill Walton had the best single season and probably a higher peak (in '78) but Clyde definitely had the better career.

    I think Hollinger's criterion is career. Would you be willing to say that Reggie had the single best season or peak in the Pacers' history? I wouldn't. But his body of work over an entire career is far more impressive than any other Pacer.
    This is similar to the discussion about Pierce's place in Celtics history. Regarding Reggie, I'd say McGinnis and, possibly, Roger Brown, were more talented players, but Reggie gets the nod for sustained excellence.

    I saw Walton play in college (but I was young), and most of what I can coherently remember about Walton's NBA career was after injuries had pretty much destroyed it...reducing him to a sub on that great '86 Celtic team (and one of the walking wounded on the '87 C's). So, I went back and looked at Walton's numbers. I'm going to steal tbird's friend's term and call Walton an ambidextrous *******.

    On the one hand - Walton was the best player on the best team in Portland's franchise history. He, and his teammates, brought that franchise to it's pinnacle and created a special bond with the city of Portland that lasted unharmed for over two decades (and remains the foundation upon which their current resurgence is being built).

    On the other hand - Walton only played 207 games over four seasons in Portland before leaving in Free Agency (and eventually suing the team). In his first two years, he managed only 86 games on two losing teams, and he didn't really blossom until Mo Lucas joined the team in the championship season. Lucas provided an enforcer that basically kept teams from physically manhandling Walton.

    Walton was probably the most talented Blazer ever, and his injuries may have prevented him from being involved in the Wilt-Russell-Kareem discussion. However, it's not like Hollinger is picking some yutz over Walton simply because that yutz played there longer. Clyde Drexler is a Hall of Famer who scored over 22,000 points in his career. In 12 seasons with Portland, he scored over 18,000 points, made 8 All-Star appearances, was named All-NBA four times (including one 1st Team), and led the team to the finals twice.

    Walton was a great player whose career was sadly damaged by chronic injuries. The closest I can come to equating him to another player is Bo Jackson. Those two guys will always be the first ones I think of in any "What Could Have Been" list.

    Drexler was a great player who actually fulfilled his promise. I think there's a pretty strong case for him being the right guy to choose here.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

      Were our ABA teams really scruffy? That seems to me to be a bit of a back handed compliment. I'd say they were pretty damn talented.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        #9 is good.
        Damned good considering who the top 8 NBA teams are on Hollinger's list and given the fact that the Pacers are among 3 teams on that list that has never won an NBA Finals championship. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

        Of course, we are talking about one man's opinion...

        I think Hollinger's wrong on listing the Lakers as the best team ever. Clearly, the Celtics' 17 NBA titles (Lakers has 14) not to mention their 8 consecutive championships - a feat no other NBA (or ABA) team has ever come close to matching (Lakers only have 3 consecutive titles) - there's no question who the best NBA franchise is. But there is something to that Lakers' (super)star power. But best all-time...Celtics by far.
        Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-12-2009, 12:25 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

          Originally posted by Indy View Post
          Were our ABA teams really scruffy? That seems to me to be a bit of a back handed compliment. I'd say they were pretty damn talented.
          Yeah, but the entire ABA gets cast as a collection of misfits generally. I think the Pacers were NBA-level talent...but you have to remember how they got some of their players:

          Roger Brown was working at an Auto Plant in Dayton (IIRC), and signed him for about $17k and the use of a car for a year.

          Freddie Lewis was grabbed off of the Cincinnati Royal's bench and given a used refrigerator as a bonus.

          Mel Daniels was bought from Minnesota for $150,000 because the Minnesota owners were short on the ABA performance bond...the deal was written out and agreed to, literally, on a napkin.

          Billy Keller was signed solely to be bait to sign Rick Mount a year later.

          The Pacers asked the ABA to have a special draft, but wouldn't tell the league why. The league called the draft, and the Pacers (who were the defending champs at the time) got the first pick in the draft (because they were the ones that asked for it) and selected Rick Mount.

          After that, an argument broke out because several teams wanted the rights to Pete Maravich. The Pacers FO left (because they had what the wanted), and according to Dick Tinkham, this was always referred to as the "Rick Mount Draft" because nobody else ended up making a draft pick.

          Again, they had NBA talent, but "scruffy" seems like a not unreasonable adjective for the ABA and the Pacers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            Interesting. If Larry Brown and Donnie Walsh "usher[ed] in two decades of respectability", that will end in five more years. But we've not been respectable over the past five seasons. Maybe one decade. Or maybe it had less to do with Larry Brown as he took a frustrating playoff team that Donnie had already made and then made them EC contenders.

            Hollinger should stick with numbers, because when he puts words with the numbers, he just screws it up.

            Slick > Brownie.
            Agreed on all counts. Freaking Bob Hill took that squad to 5 games vs the Bird era Celtics. Thank god Brown was able to "save the day".

            Argh. Over and over I have to say it. Go look at his great turnaround seasons and find the ones where his team doesn't add a significant piece to the squad. People don't respect Carlisle IMO, but GD facts are facts. He took a team that LOST AN ALL-STAR center to 61 wins and the ECF.

            Larry Brown has NEVER, EVER done that. Never. He adds guys like Admiral or Sheed or Byron Scott and suddenly the team is better, and sometimes they really aren't that much better. I mean DET went ONE STEP further after adding Sheed and didn't impact their regular season W-L at all. Sans Sheed Carlisle had them at the ECF already with the same basic W-L two years in a row.

            I mean Bird had never coached before and he took Brown's squad much farther than the prior 2 seasons. You think Rick and Harter didn't have a big impact there?


            I'll take Slick by a mile here, and obviously I'd take Rick over Brown too (given the Bird era aspects). I've got a good mind to vote Versace over Brown just out of spite at this point.




            *Brown has one impressive season - mid-season change with the Clippers. Every other situation he continued to lose at the same rate, or he got a significant boost to his roster prior to winning more.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              Yeah, but the entire ABA gets cast as a collection of misfits generally. I think the Pacers were NBA-level talent...but you have to remember how they got some of their players:

              Roger Brown was working at an Auto Plant in Dayton (IIRC), and signed him for about $17k and the use of a car for a year.

              Freddie Lewis was grabbed off of the Cincinnati Royal's bench and given a used refrigerator as a bonus.

              Mel Daniels was bought from Minnesota for $150,000 because the Minnesota owners were short on the ABA performance bond...the deal was written out and agreed to, literally, on a napkin.

              Billy Keller was signed solely to be bait to sign Rick Mount a year later.

              The Pacers asked the ABA to have a special draft, but wouldn't tell the league why. The league called the draft, and the Pacers (who were the defending champs at the time) got the first pick in the draft (because they were the ones that asked for it) and selected Rick Mount.

              After that, an argument broke out because several teams wanted the rights to Pete Maravich. The Pacers FO left (because they had what the wanted), and according to Dick Tinkham, this was always referred to as the "Rick Mount Draft" because nobody else ended up making a draft pick.

              Again, they had NBA talent, but "scruffy" seems like a not unreasonable adjective for the ABA and the Pacers.
              Saying they had NBA talent is kind of an understatement IMO. Didn't the Pacers smoke that championship Bucks team with Robertson and Kareem?


              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                This is similar to the discussion about Pierce's place in Celtics history. Regarding Reggie, I'd say McGinnis and, possibly, Roger Brown, were more talented players, but Reggie gets the nod for sustained excellence.
                I'll raise the bar on this one and say right now Danny Granger is a better player than Reggie ever was. I love Reggie, got teary-eyed his last game, and it would be amazing if Granger ever makes the impact that Reggie did. But, I really think Danny Granger is the more talented player.

                I mean already, Danny Granger's best season statistically trumps Reggie's and that doesn't even really include defense. Like I said, it will take a miracle for Granger to make the impact Reggie did, but in terms of who is more talented? I think Granger is.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

                  Originally posted by Indy View Post
                  Saying they had NBA talent is kind of an understatement IMO. Didn't the Pacers smoke that championship Bucks team with Robertson and Kareem?
                  They never played that team.

                  The Pacers' success in ABA/NBA exhibition games is kind of an urban legend. Over the five seasons that the two leagues staged these games, the Pacers were only 7-15. Some of the beatings were pretty sound:



                  Of course, they're exhibition games, so it's hard to tell how serious they were. The one that Pacer old timers (specifically, Slick) point to is that 1971 game against the Knicks...word is that was played for blood.

                  Originally posted by Franchise55 View Post
                  I'll raise the bar on this one and say right now Danny Granger is a better player than Reggie ever was. I love Reggie, got teary-eyed his last game, and it would be amazing if Granger ever makes the impact that Reggie did. But, I really think Danny Granger is the more talented player.

                  I mean already, Danny Granger's best season statistically trumps Reggie's and that doesn't even really include defense. Like I said, it will take a miracle for Granger to make the impact Reggie did, but in terms of who is more talented? I think Granger is.
                  Danny has proven he can be the best player on a 36-win team, and he's shown an almost unparalleled ability to improve. Until he can prove that he can be the focal point on a contender, as Reggie did, then he still does not deserve consideration in this discussion.

                  He had a great season, but I still don't consider him even in the top 5 Pacers, and probably not the top 10...yet.

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  I want to have Rick Carlisle's love child.
                  Yeah, we know.
                  Last edited by count55; 06-13-2009, 08:48 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

                    Originally posted by Franchise55 View Post
                    I'll raise the bar on this one and say right now Danny Granger is a better player than Reggie ever was. I love Reggie, got teary-eyed his last game, and it would be amazing if Granger ever makes the impact that Reggie did. But, I really think Danny Granger is the more talented player.

                    I mean already, Danny Granger's best season statistically trumps Reggie's and that doesn't even really include defense. Like I said, it will take a miracle for Granger to make the impact Reggie did, but in terms of who is more talented? I think Granger is.
                    Careful there, bud. I'd like to jump on that train with you but I'm going to have to wait another 13 seasons or so for it to come around again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

                      No one can go wrong between Brown and Leonard being the best Pacers head coach.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

                        Originally posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
                        No one can go wrong between Brown and Leonard being the best Pacers head coach.
                        At the same time, Seth - in spite of his unhealthy almost Jay/Manu level of a man crush on Rick - makes two great points that I don't think anybody has addressed. This team improved when Brown became head coach but also had some significant personnel upgrades. Additionally, you can argue that our teams near the end of decade and possibly even '04 were better than Brown's teams and came closer to championships.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers #9 in Hollinger's franchise rankings

                          Slick > Brown > Bird seems pretty clear to me.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X