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

Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

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

  • #16
    Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

    #1 picks since 1990 with titles where they were close to a significant member of the team
    Duncan and Shaq

    #1 picks that were critical to teams that made the Finals
    Howard, James, Kenyon Martin, Iverson, Larry Johnson...only KMart has more than one Finals appearance at this point

    The guys that haven't made it or weren't critical if the team did:
    Rose
    Oden
    Bargnani
    Bogut
    Ming
    Kwame Brown
    Brand
    Kandi (claim to fame, Kandi-tazered in Indy)
    Joe Smith
    Big Dog
    Webber
    Coleman

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

      Let's say you trade your pick at, say, 5th to the Bobcats for Henderson and their pick, say 9th.

      Then you flip the 9th and Dun to Minny for the rights to Rubio and a deal longer than Duns by 1-2 years, not crazy if Flynn continues to make them happy. Not sure who you take back to improve their cap, but not critical on our end.

      Rubio, Henderson, Granger, Tyler, Roy with Price, Rush, McBob, DJones at backup. There you go, not that big a stretch. Rubio takes a year so you go empty one more season, but then that's part of the reason Minny is giving him to you. Is Rubio better to have than Wall?


      There are ways to trade into things that you would have had to tank to get previously. To me tanking is one of the most short-sighted strategies out there.

      I do advocate player development. I want Price and Roy and Rush and McBob to play because I want to improve my product, the overall team talent. Frankly I think that gets you more wins now, but even if it doesn't you aren't tanking you are trying to improve the talent you already have.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        #1 picks since 1990 with titles where they were close to a significant member of the team
        Duncan and Shaq

        #1 picks that were critical to teams that made the Finals
        Howard, James, Kenyon Martin, Iverson, Larry Johnson...only KMart has more than one Finals appearance at this point

        The guys that haven't made it or weren't critical if the team did:
        Rose
        Oden
        Bargnani
        Bogut
        Ming
        Kwame Brown
        Brand
        Kandi (claim to fame, Kandi-tazered in Indy)
        Joe Smith
        Big Dog
        Webber
        Coleman
        you guys are missing the point here, the guys who advocate for this team to "tank" or lose while developing your young players are talking about getting a top 10pick, maybe a top 5 and if we are lucky enough a number one pick.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          you guys are missing the point here, the guys who advocate for this team to "tank" or lose while developing your young players are talking about getting a top 10pick, maybe a top 5 and if we are lucky enough a number one pick.
          I think this ambiguation of the word "tank" does mean rock bottom.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

            You can't go wrong with either one. At least if you make the playoffs, you know you're getting somewhere and you know who's effecting the team. You make a statement to the rest of the team that you have what it takes to matchup with the league's best.

            If you decide to settle on a draft selection, then you're taking your chances. The reason is because you aren't too sure on how the newly drafted player will do on your team.

            I am for Bird's decision on making the playoffs and I'm sure many others would agree. It shows that the whole season/previous offseason didn't go to waste and the key players on the team aren't a waste.

            I hope this made sense.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              I think this ambiguation of the word "tank" does mean rock bottom.
              ok so what word should we use? tank could mean many things(I think)
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                Seems like we're starting to right the ship a bit. If Larry wants us to have a legit shot a John Wall, he has the ability to kick the legs out from underneath the team by doing some salary shedding moves, such as trading Murphy for Z. He can claim it's a cost cutting move, which it would be, while simultaneously making us a worse basketball team.

                Whether he'll exercise that option or not, or even if he does for the purpose of tanking, is another matter entirely.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  ok so what word should we use? tank could mean many things(I think)
                  "Strategic Lottery Placement"?

                  By all means I wasn't trying to be sarcastic while explaining what tanking meant. I think that's what it means, because everyone is talking about #1.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                    I can see why the Cavs tanked to get Lebron. He is a franchise player that can single handedly get a team to the championship.

                    John Wall is good, but I'm still not completely sold that he is a legit franchise worth tanking games for.

                    Granted, I don't think the Pacers should focus on winning but rather focus on a combination of things like trades to improve the team either through some young players or preferably picks, focus on getting and remaining healthy (hopefully not playing Granger 40 minutes a night) and continuing to work on chemistry.

                    I don't understand why the Pacers have blinders on and are so focused on winning when they need to focus on putting together a competitive team that will do something in the playoffs. Remaining in constant mediocrity isn't going to bring fans back.
                    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                      I don't understand why the Pacers have blinders on and are so focused on winning when they need to focus on putting together a competitive team that will do something in the playoffs. Remaining in constant mediocrity isn't going to bring fans back.
                      It's the same reason why the Nets' players are still dressing for every game. They want to play to win as much as possible, even if the realm of success is dim.

                      Fans aside, getting a high draft pick now or winning and breaking into the last playoff spot is not going to peak much more interest. Right now let's just worry about the state of the players.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                        I would have to say part of the reason that I am a Pacers fan is because no matter what the odds are we always and I do mean always try to win it all. Always set our sights high. Yes we could do the "stratigic lottery placement" but why. First off we dont even know for a fact that Wall will enter the draft. Second what if we totally get screwed in the lottery and we think we get a great pick, get a great player and end up with a injured non playing Greg Oden.

                        I say we trade and devolop our players to get the team we all want and need to win a championship......oh and a new coach would be nice...
                        I CANT SPELL!

                        THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                          To tank or not to tank ....................

                          What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.

                          1) Get rid of Murphy. Be sure to get a pick/prospect in the package. Troy simply isn't going to be a part of the Pacers future, so why not get something while the getting is good ??

                          2) Get rid of Foster. There's interest out there. Again - pick/prospect in return.

                          3) Get rid of Ford. Sorry - I got carried away. Nobody wants him.

                          4) Play Roy, Rush, AJ, McBob, Solo ............ play the young kids. See what they've got. There might be some good things that happen, there might not be. There's only one way to find out.

                          If by doing that, the Pacers wind up with a bad enough record to get in the lottery, the so be it. If they produce and make the playoffs, well, good.

                          Make the future now. If you want to call that tanking, then go right ahead. This charade of trying to make something out of this current group when we all know it's not the future of the team fools nobody. Well, maybe a few.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                            To tank or not to tank ....................

                            What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.
                            I don't see any problem in the burn our guys are getting right now. AJ is getting ample minutes, Roy and Brandon are either starting or getting good minutes, Solo is backing up Roy on most occasions and Tyler is getting back into the swing of things. The odd man out is Josh.

                            That is a very good ratio of young players getting time. Even with Murphy on the roster!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                              "Strategic Lottery Placement"?

                              By all means I wasn't trying to be sarcastic while explaining what tanking meant. I think that's what it means, because everyone is talking about #1.

                              I'm not "everyone"!! The odds of the Pacers getting John Wall is extremely slim, but getting a 4-8 pick that can be a really good player to put with Granger in order to move forward is realistic.

                              I have hit bottom with this teams performance the 1st 36 games, and since they have been loosing anyway my feeling is just let it continue. They weren't tanking the 1st 36 games, so just allow JOS to continue his madness. To me if the team turns around and starts winning, like I wish the had to begin with, thus ending up short of the playoffs AGAIN with a 13-19 pick what good is it? They didn't make the playoffs as many want, no playoff experience for the younger players as many want, limited development of some of the younger players, and they end up with a mediocre 1st pick. What has that really accomplished?

                              Stop and think, this is exactly what happened last season. Start slowly, and win last part of the season. No playoffs, no playoff experience for players, and mediocre pick. I don't want a 07-08 and 08-09 redeux. Been there done it, for what? Are the Pacers sold out each game? Are the Pacers one of the leading teams in attendance this season? What is the "big benefit" of winning only to fall short AGAIN?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                                [QUOTE=duke dynamite;945606]

                                It's the same reason why the Nets' players are still dressing for every game. /QUOTE]


                                They do it the for the same reason you go to work everyday, they get paid to do it! If they weren't getting paid, do you think they'd be doing it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X