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

Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

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

  • #61
    Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
    If you believe that this is the 20th best team in Pacers history, then why are we even having this discussion? We should be lobbying for the Simons to sell the team, so we don't have to worry about a bunch of losers under a losing, stubborn coach.
    Because most people here recognize this is a losing situation with poor talent and a coach who was probably brought in to be thrown away at the end of his contract.

    Appreciate the fact that the Pacers have been a very well run team for many years, that they achieved the rare NBA feat of pretty much rebuilding a very good team on the fly and showing a high level of consistency.

    Now they've hit the point that a whole lot of NBA teams eventually do: A point where they have to rebuild. Granger is great. A very nice building block to have around. Can he take the Pacers to the promiseland? No. They need a lot more talent. History shows that you need high lottery picks to get to the promiseland (which currently don't have). Contrary to popular belief, the 2004 Pistons are just another example of that, not an exception.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      Because most people here recognize this is a losing situation with poor talent and a coach who was probably brought in to be thrown away at the end of his contract.

      Appreciate the fact that the Pacers have been a very well run team for many years, that they achieved the rare NBA feat of pretty much rebuilding a very good team on the fly and showing a high level of consistency.

      Now they've hit the point that a whole lot of NBA teams eventually do: A point where they have to rebuild. Granger is great. A very nice building block to have around. Can he take the Pacers to the promiseland? No. They need a lot more talent. History shows that you need high lottery picks to get to the promiseland (which currently don't have). Contrary to popular belief, the 2004 Pistons are just another example of that, not an exception.
      Poor talent, huh? So what percentage of this team is "poor" talent? The only thing that I'll appreiciate is when Bird holds a news conference to announce that JOB has been fired. I watched a lot of basketball in my time, and I don't remember ever being this critical of a coach as I have been about JOB.


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
        Poor talent, huh? So what percentage of this team is "poor" talent? The only thing that I'll appreiciate is when Bird holds a news conference to announce that JOB has been fired. I watched a lot of basketball in my time, and I don't remember ever being this critical of a coach as I have been about JOB.
        About 75% of this roster won't be around when the Pacers are once again competitive. I suppose you can say the Pacers have good talent, but that would be in a league where they don't play against anyone. When compared to the teams who currently hold the 8 playoff seeds in the east, the Pacers come up short. They have less talent than those teams.

        Again, if you think Bird's plan revolves around who is coaching the team, you completely miss the point of what he's trying to do. The NBA isn't a league that revolves around who the coach and the system. It's about the players and the talent, and that's what Bird is focused on fixing.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          About 75% of this roster won't be around when the Pacers are once again competitive. I suppose you can say the Pacers have good talent, but that would be in a league where they don't play against anyone. When compared to the teams who currently hold the 8 playoff seeds in the east, the Pacers come up short. They have less talent than those teams.

          Again, if you think Bird's plan revolves around who is coaching the team, you completely miss the point of what he's trying to do. The NBA isn't a league that revolves around who the coach and the system. It's about the players and the talent, and that's what Bird is focused on fixing.
          Woooooowwwww...so, a coach and his system doesn't have anything to do with a team's success? Okay.... How about we draw names out of a hat for our next coach?


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            Woooooowwwww...so, a coach and his system doesn't have anything to do with a team's success? Okay.... How about we draw names out of a hat for our next coach?
            I said players and talent matter more than coaching and systems in the NBA. It's a players' league where the players and talent come first. Always has been. Coaching matters too, but every single year Phil Jackson won one of his championships, he had the best players and the best rosters. That was the case for 10 out of 10 of his championship teams.

            Every team that is consistently a winning team in the NBA is a talented one. If you don't have talent, you don't win no matter who the coach is or what their system tries to implement.

            The best coach and the best system probably gets around a .500 record with this roster. Who cares? Certainly, the best coach in the league won't waste his time trying to prove that he can win 41 games with this roster (as opposed to the 36 games JOB won the previous two years).

            The best coach in the league wants to take over a team that previously lost in the finals or conference finals and turn them into a team that wins the finals. They don't care about turning talent poor teams like this Pacers' squad into .500 teams. If you want to attract that kind of coach, then first get a better roster.
            Last edited by d_c; 02-08-2010, 03:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I don't agree with that at all. Nothing else to say, really; I just didn't want my silence to be confused with agreement while this statement is out there.
              Billups is unquestionably better than Granger. '04 Billups was far better than '09-'10 Billups. '04 Hamilton was almost assuredly better than Granger. '04 Sheed and '04 Prince were at least as good. '04 Ben Wallace is more valuable to winning even than '08-'09 Granger. And I don't expect to see '08-'09 Granger again. So, my theory that Granger would be the worst best player on a championship team in history holds true in my opinion. Because I'd give Billups that title now. And he was far better than Granger.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                Billups is unquestionably better than Granger. '04 Billups was far better than '09-'10 Billups. '04 Hamilton was almost assuredly better than Granger. '04 Sheed and '04 Prince were at least as good. '04 Ben Wallace is more valuable to winning even than '08-'09 Granger. And I don't expect to see '08-'09 Granger again. So, my theory that Granger would be the worst best player on a championship team in history holds true in my opinion. Because I'd give Billups that title now. And he was far better than Granger.
                Well, you've declared it, so I guess it's the truth.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  I said players and talent matter more than coaching and systems in the NBA. It's a players' league where the players and talent come first. Always has been. Coaching matters too, but every single year Phil Jackson won one of his championships, he had the best players and the best rosters. That was the case for 10 out of 10 of his championship teams.

                  Every team that is consistently a winning team in the NBA is a talented one. If you don't have talent, you don't win no matter who the coach is or what their system tries to implement.

                  The best coach and the best system probably gets around a .500 record with this roster. Who cares? Certainly, the best coach in the league won't waste his time trying to prove that he can win 41 games with this roster (as opposed to the 36 games JOB won the previous two years).

                  The best coach in the league wants to take over a team that previously lost in the finals or conference finals and turn them into a team that wins the finals. They don't care about turning talent poor teams like this Pacers' squad into .500 teams. If you want to attract that kind of coach, then first get a better roster.
                  Riddle me this Batman...at what point do Indiana says it has "good enough talent" to have a "good" coach? Also, how is it that a good team can't be coached to be a great team?


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think this is one of the better rosters in the past 20 years


                    Either you're young, and have no idea what this team has been like in the last 20 years, or you just have a bad memory. Something.

                    We have the lowest winning percentage right now this franchise has seen since 88-89 season. Working on having the worst record in the last 20 years, but one of the better rosters? Sure. That's crazy.

                    We might not even make the win total (33 wins) of the 98-99 team that only played 50 games.

                    -- Steve --
                    Last edited by Pacersfan46; 02-08-2010, 08:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                      Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post


                      Either you're young, and have no idea what this team has been like in the last 20 years, or you just have a bad memory. Something.

                      We have the lowest winning percentage right now this franchise has seen since 88-89 season. Working on having the worst record in the last 20 years, but one of the better rosters? Sure. That's crazy.

                      We might not even make the win total (33 wins) of the 98-99 team that only played 50 games.

                      -- Steve --
                      Am I only one who looks BEYOND the W/L record and looks at the players? Am I only one who believes that the team is being improperly used, and we do have the right components to be better than our record indicates? I've been watching the Pacers (and basketball) for a little over 20 years, so my memory is perfectly fine. When I look at this team, I see a team that SHOULDN'T be losing as much as they do. The team that I see should be playing for the 7th/8th seed, and a competitive 1st round matchup. Of course, most people are brainwashed to think if you're losing, then you suck before analyzing WHY they're losing. As MANY threads that are created complaining about how JOB coaches and should be fired, yet I'm the crazy one when for believing that this team has enough talent to compete better than they are now.


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                        Am I only one who looks BEYOND the W/L record and looks at the players? Am I only one who believes that the team is being improperly used, and we do have the right components to be better than our record indicates? I've been watching the Pacers (and basketball) for a little over 20 years, so my memory is perfectly fine. When I look at this team, I see a team that SHOULDN'T be losing as much as they do. The team that I see should be playing for the 7th/8th seed, and a competitive 1st round matchup. Of course, most people are brainwashed to think if you're losing, then you suck before analyzing WHY they're losing. As MANY threads that are created complaining about how JOB coaches and should be fired, yet I'm the crazy one when for believing that this team has enough talent to compete better than they are now.
                        Playing for the 7th/8th seed is not one of our best teams of the past 20 years. Even so, I highly doubt this team coached by Larry Brown could do that well...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                          Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                          Playing for the 7th/8th seed is not one of our best teams of the past 20 years. Even so, I highly doubt this team coached by Larry Brown could do that well...
                          Well, we're not going to be playing for the 3rd - 6th seed overnight. Most championship teams slowly make their ways into the playoffs as an uphill battle. You make the playoffs and lose...make minor player adjustments. Make playoffs and lose again...make another adjustment. Eventually, you'll tweak the team into championship contention. The Boston Celtics are the only team of recent memories that jumped from a non-playoff team to winning it all.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                            Riddle me this Batman...at what point do Indiana says it has "good enough talent" to have a "good" coach? Also, how is it that a good team can't be coached to be a great team?
                            I dunno how you want to exactly quantify it, but a team with Murphy as the 2nd best player isn't good enough talent.

                            What do you define to be a good team that can be coached into a great team? You mean a coach that can make a team that normally wins 45 games (under an average coach) into a 55 win team? There aren't many coaches who can do that.

                            But that doesn't even apply here because this isn't a good team. It's a bad team that a really good coach might be able to coach into a an average team, but what really good coach who is established is going to want to waste his time with that?
                            Last edited by d_c; 02-09-2010, 01:47 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Could Danny take this team to the promise land?

                              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                              Well, we're not going to be playing for the 3rd - 6th seed overnight. Most championship teams slowly make their ways into the playoffs as an uphill battle. You make the playoffs and lose...make minor player adjustments. Make playoffs and lose again...make another adjustment. Eventually, you'll tweak the team into championship contention. The Boston Celtics are the only team of recent memories that jumped from a non-playoff team to winning it all.
                              Most championship teams first collect the necessary talent and then slowly make their way into the playoffs in some kind of uphill battle. The Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Heat. They all got the talent first and then developed it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X