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

What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

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

  • #16
    Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    And moved.
    They moved the summer before last season started. Gnome is right.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      And moved.
      You're paranoid.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        You're paranoid.
        Well, he does have a lot of reasons to be. I can't blame him. I am sort of on the same mindset as Bill. It's not really the attendance or whatever, it's the CIB.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          And moved.
          ...and once again, you're incorrect.

          Yeah, they moved, but that is before they parked their vets. Anywho, they moved because Howard Schultz wants to pretend that he didn't know who he was selling the Sonics to. Clay Bennett moving them had absolutely nothing to do with how the fan base reacted to basketball decisions being made in the Front Office or on the Floor.
          ...Still "flying casual"
          @roaminggnome74

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            And moved.

            That had absolutely *NOTHING* to do with who was playing.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              And moved.
              I understand your paranoia, but I think Shultz desperately wanted out of the NBA for other reasons.

              You can argue that like the Pacers, the Sonics weren't making any money at the time, but I don't think any NBA team other than LAC makes money.

              Anyway, looking at attendance and support now, it doesn't appear to be any better than during the worst days of Stephen Jackson and Jamal Tinsley, everyone remaining is an absolute diehard, I don't think it could get worse, and I don't think our record would even be any worse with the young guys playing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                ...and once again, you're incorrect.

                Yeah, they moved, but that is before they parked their vets. Anywho, they moved because Howard Schultz wants to pretend that he didn't know who he was selling the Sonics to. Clay Bennett moving them had absolutely nothing to do with how the fan base reacted to basketball decisions being made in the Front Office or on the Floor.
                I have been trying to find year-by-year rosters to see who actually sat in 2008-2009 that perhaps should have played more minutes, and it would take more time than I have to analyze. At one level, you are right, they played Durant and the young guys they'd gotten by sucking in their previous city. On the other hand, they'd lost 62 games in 2007-2008, they weren't going to do worse, they had a #2 pick to play (not a #13 pick), AND they were in a new city that was so hyped up they would have sold out even if they lost 82 games. Different much from our situation?

                Yes, the sale moved the team. But if a team that basically had only a couple of losing seasons before a sale (not counting 2006-2007 since the sale was in 2006) can't find a new owner who will keep them in the same city, city, why does everyone think it is ludicrous that we'd be in worse shape after multiple losing seasons?

                I hate using OKC as the shining example of how a franchise should do business on the floor. Tank, get your city to hate you, move, and then take advantage of the fervor in the new city. Works for Las Vegas, I guess.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                  ...and once again, you're incorrect.

                  Yeah, they moved, but that is before they parked their vets. Anywho, they moved because Howard Schultz wants to pretend that he didn't know who he was selling the Sonics to. Clay Bennett moving them had absolutely nothing to do with how the fan base reacted to basketball decisions being made in the Front Office or on the Floor.
                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I have been trying to find year-by-year rosters to see who actually sat in 2008-2009 that perhaps should have played more minutes, and it would take more time than I have to analyze. At one level, you are right, they played Durant and the young guys they'd gotten by sucking in their previous city. On the other hand, they'd lost 62 games in 2007-2008, they weren't going to do worse, they had a #2 pick to play (not a #13 pick), AND they were in a new city that was so hyped up they would have sold out even if they lost 82 games. Different much from our situation?

                  Yes, the sale moved the team. But if a team that basically had only a couple of losing seasons before a sale (not counting 2006-2007 since the sale was in 2006) can't find a new owner who will keep them in the same city, city, why does everyone think it is ludicrous that we'd be in worse shape after multiple losing seasons?

                  I hate using OKC as the shining example of how a franchise should do business on the floor. Tank, get your city to hate you, move, and then take advantage of the fervor in the new city. Works for Las Vegas, I guess.
                  Well, the only vet they didn't play was Watson, who they sat for awhile. Still, he average 26 minutes a night in 67 games. In fact, the midseason banishment was actually pretty similar to what O'Brien did with Ford.

                  Also, he was moved out of the lineup looks like around March 11th or so, after they lost to the Nuggets to drop to 18-47. The last team to make the playoffs last year in the West won 48 games, so they'd been out of any realistic playoff hunt for weeks, if not months, by the time they benched Watson.

                  Also, Westbrook's minutes didn't go up any (actually lower per game in March than Feb), so it looks like a big chunk of the minutes went to Chucky Atkins.

                  (Edit - they had 21 players on their roster last year. I can't quite tell who was there when. Their core young players: Durant, Green, and Westbrook, all were playing heavy minutes from the time they came in the league. Of course, you're talking about the 2nd, 5th, and 4th picks in the draft, respectively.)
                  Last edited by count55; 02-26-2010, 01:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I have been trying to find year-by-year rosters to see who actually sat in 2008-2009 that perhaps should have played more minutes, and it would take more time than I have to analyze. At one level, you are right, they played Durant and the young guys they'd gotten by sucking in their previous city. On the other hand, they'd lost 62 games in 2007-2008, they weren't going to do worse, they had a #2 pick to play (not a #13 pick), AND they were in a new city that was so hyped up they would have sold out even if they lost 82 games. Different much from our situation?

                    Yes, the sale moved the team. But if a team that basically had only a couple of losing seasons before a sale (not counting 2006-2007 since the sale was in 2006) can't find a new owner who will keep them in the same city, city, why does everyone think it is ludicrous that we'd be in worse shape after multiple losing seasons?

                    I hate using OKC as the shining example of how a franchise should do business on the floor. Tank, get your city to hate you, move, and then take advantage of the fervor in the new city. Works for Las Vegas, I guess.
                    Do you have any evidence to suggest that the reason no one saved the day in Seattle was the result of losing seasons?

                    Because everything I've read or watched on the subject said it all had to do with money, not the culture of the team (winning, losing, liked, unliked).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      I have been trying to find year-by-year rosters to see who actually sat in 2008-2009 that perhaps should have played more minutes, and it would take more time than I have to analyze. At one level, you are right, they played Durant and the young guys they'd gotten by sucking in their previous city. On the other hand, they'd lost 62 games in 2007-2008, they weren't going to do worse, they had a #2 pick to play (not a #13 pick), AND they were in a new city that was so hyped up they would have sold out even if they lost 82 games. Different much from our situation?

                      Yes, the sale moved the team. But if a team that basically had only a couple of losing seasons before a sale (not counting 2006-2007 since the sale was in 2006) can't find a new owner who will keep them in the same city, city, why does everyone think it is ludicrous that we'd be in worse shape after multiple losing seasons?

                      I hate using OKC as the shining example of how a franchise should do business on the floor. Tank, get your city to hate you, move, and then take advantage of the fervor in the new city. Works for Las Vegas, I guess.

                      Thing is Bill... Once the team was sold to an OKC business group, it didn't matter if the place was 100% capacity every night.... They were going to be moving unless a new building was built. It didn't matter if Seattle had the 72-10 Bulls with droves of fans... The Sonics were not long for Seattle under that ownership group.

                      Before you even suggest it, Schultz selling had NOTHING to do with the fan base or decisions that had to do with how or what players were on the floor. As Hicks just pointed out, all the move had to do with was money, in the form of a new arena to keep them in Seattle, or a guy bringing his hometown someone else's team which would generate him.... $$Money$$

                      Wrong straw man for this argument, I'm gonna light him on fire every time you post him up here!
                      Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-26-2010, 01:34 PM.
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                        I was going to interject that didn't the city of Seattle vote to not build a new arena and wasn't that the final nail in the coffin?

                        I mean I know the new owner was going to move them if he could anyway but at the end of the day wasn't it the city population itself that voted against the new facility a large reason why they moved?


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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          I was going to interject that didn't the city of Seattle vote to not build a new arena and wasn't that the final nail in the coffin?

                          I mean I know the new owner was going to move them if he could anyway but at the end of the day wasn't it the city population itself that voted against the new facility a large reason why they moved?
                          I don't believe that the issue ever got to a vote, but after the construction of Qwest Stadium and Safeco Field (built at the same time) it was all but assured that a vote to replace a 12 year old facility was all but doomed in a King County referendum. They were trying thru the state to get something accomplished, but the request pretty much fell on deaf ears.

                          Unfortunately, the planning for Key Arena was pretty poor which led to the building being obsolete so quickly. Between the city trying to save a buck in a retrofit of a small building and the community already being bled out by the teams other 2 pro sports franchises... Doom, pain and misery were on the forcast with the standard rain thats always there.
                          Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-26-2010, 01:53 PM.
                          ...Still "flying casual"
                          @roaminggnome74

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Does anyone know?

                            I'm curious to see what, if anything, changes with our approach to each game once we are mathematically eliminated, so I wanted to know what the "magic number" was to where we are officially eliminated.

                            Thanks
                            Last year Rasho was still starting over Hibbert sometimes and Josh wasn't getting on the floor even after official elimination. I remember because I was furious. Expect nothing to change.
                            Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 02-26-2010, 01:58 PM.
                            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                            - ilive4sports

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                              I don't believe that the issue ever got to a vote, but after the construction of Qwest Stadium and Safeco Field (built at the same time) it was all but assured that a vote to replace a 12 year old facility was all but doomed in a King County vote. They were trying thru the state to get something accomplished, but the request pretty much fell on deaf ears.
                              I also recall it came to a vote, but I seem to remember the word on the street was that everyone involved in the sale knew that vote was going to fail so it was already a moot point by then.

                              I see what both Gnome and Hicks are saying, I really do. I don't think I'm just being Chicken Little irrational about this (but remember, Chicken Little was RIGHT in the Disney movie...)

                              I don't think I'm setting up a straw man, because no single action takes place in a vacuum. I think if the fan base is more behind the team, then it is easier to find a buyer in Seattle (so the sale to Bennett isn't the only option) OR easier to convince the city to spring for an arena (which, I admit, is much less likely because of the city finances at the time). Even if the immediate cause of the move was $$$, Clay Bennett being the only option available with $$$ didn't appear out of nowhere.

                              Even if we discard the move as an EFFECT of losing, the point for this thread is that the OKC Thunder clearly had nothing to lose by playing their youngest guys. I think from Gnome's post it looks like they had pretty much no one but younger guys - which is the way you have to do it, in my opinion, because it is the only way to keep your locker room from getting bad because guys who think they deserve to play don't want to sit on the bench in service to some future.

                              To be in that situation the Pacers not only have to be in a position where they have little left to lose by losing - say, next year for sure - but also have to be in a position where they can get rid of all the players that aren't part of the future. All of them, not just one or two and bench the others. That legitimately won't happen until either the trade deadline or when the contracts expire.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: What is our elimination from the playoffs "magic number"?

                                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                                Last year Rasho was still starting over Hibbert sometimes and Josh wasn't getting on the floor after official elimination. I remember because I was furious. Expect nothing to change.
                                The Pacers were eliminated from the playoffs when they lost to Atlanta and Detroit beat New Jersey on April 10th last year.

                                Rasho started exactly one game last season after December 12: March 7th at the Clippers. Roy missed that game to attend a funeral.

                                After sitting for the better part of two months last season, McRoberts played in 12 of the teams final 13 games. He only played 23 seconds against Washington, and the DNP-CD came in the Atlanta loss. He played all three games after the "official" elimination.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X