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

It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

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

  • #31
    Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    If he comes back next season and is here for his fourth season he will only be behind Slick and tied with Rick.
    He would be tied with Brown too. Brown was here from 1993-97

    EDIT: I guess it is just 3 years if you ask Jay.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-05-2010, 02:14 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      So how many of you will be screaming to high heaven about how poor the strategy is if we lose into the top 5 but then lottery back out of it? "Damn you, Larry, you should have shot the entire team in December and forfeited the rest of the games for that #4 pick."
      Not me. I understand probabilities. And I know that a 20% chance at a franchise player is better than a 3% one.

      How many of you will be screaming to high heaven about how amazing the strategy is if we luck into Wall or Turner?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

        At this point, I agree that it's too late to fire JOB. That's why I wanted it done by mid-season, at the latest.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          Not me. I understand probabilities. And I know that a 20% chance at a franchise player is better than a 3% one.

          How many of you will be screaming to high heaven about how amazing the strategy is if we luck into Wall or Turner?
          I'll acknowledge we got lucky, but more in the "dodged a bullet" than the "took a reasonable chance" sense.
          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


          • #35
            Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            I will admit that having JOb helps you in June. The problem is swallowing the whole package for such a long time. Actually, the next time I watch the Pacers will probably be the draft.

            That's what she said.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

              Our chemistry was so good last year, that we got away with playing two point guards, playing Troy, and letting Roy give opposing players 12 FTA's per game.

              Now that our young players are ready to play in this league, Jim doesn't like them, and frankly, he'd rather play Jeff and Head than Roy and Rush.
              "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

              Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                I hate to say it, but we are so bad that we can't even tank the right way! What a hilarious season.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                  I'd love to see Minnesota and Golden State go on hot streaks to close-out the season. I want that #2 position.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                    Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                    Our chemistry was so good last year, that we got away with playing two point guards, playing Troy, and letting Roy give opposing players 12 FTA's per game.

                    Now that our young players are ready to play in this league, Jim doesn't like them, and frankly, he'd rather play Jeff and Head than Roy and Rush.

                    Brandon Rush plays 29 mpg, which is easily more than Luther Head. Jeff Foster hasn't played for the majority of the season. Right now, Hibbert's minutes per game are right about what he played while at Georgetown. I think he's getting the appropriate amount of playing time given his current level of conditioning, experience and foul problems.

                    Last year, the team overachieved and got away with employing some smoke and mirrors. This year, one of the key components of those smoker/mirrors (Jarret Jack) is gone. He was the 2nd best player in the 4th quarter, when most NBA games are won and lost.

                    You're right that JOB likes playing Foster. And so did the 3 previous people who coached the Pacers. This year, he hasn't been available and that's hurt the team. Even losing Marquis Daniels has hurt. He was mainly a part time player, but he was effective in spurts. This year, they are completely missing that element. Even little things like Rasho being a better backup C than Solomon Jones factors in.

                    All in all, last year's role players were better than this year's, which is a big factor. Then of course, you've got a much more hurt and beatup Danny Granger this year as opposed to last.

                    Bottom line is last year's team didn't have that much margin for error to begin with. But with some smoke and mirrors, they found themselves in a lot of games that they had no business being in. They even won a few of them. This year (for various reasons), that margin has been totally zapped out of existence.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                      New member here.
                      I hate watching a team tank which is why I'm more of a college basketball fan than a pro fan, but I think it is probably the best thing for them to do right now. Hopefully we can get a good draft pick and build for next year. At least that is what I tell myself why I try and watch this team.
                      Go Pacers, Cards and Aces!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I'll acknowledge we got lucky, but more in the "dodged a bullet" than the "took a reasonable chance" sense.
                        More like "caught a bullet between our front teeth, spit it out into our hand and grinned while casually putting it in our pocket on the way to the bank with our newfound bags of something resembling, and that we hope actually is, gold" sense.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                          Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                          I wonder if this team can do any better is there was no head coach.

                          A positive for JOB is that if he's fired, I'm sure he'll become an assistant somewhere else.
                          There will be a high demand for JOB as head coach for any team wanting to tank a season. He can make a career out of this, just like a bad boxer that pads other guys records.
                          “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                            Rexnom - the draft is deep in PFs so there is no need to tank. Plus the difference between the 4th pick and the 8th pick is more than offset by the overall improved play by the 5 long term guys, especially working together (Price, Rush, DJones, Josh, Roy).

                            The 4th pick won't be so much better than the 8th that it will make up for an utter lack of player development.

                            Just look at OKC - are they improved more because of Harden or because Durant, Green and Westbrook got better the last 2/1 years. They benched Watson so Westbrook could play more, seems to be working out for them.


                            Plus, while I like the younger guys and think they tend to play BETTER basketball, I think it's a big stretch to think they would make any real impact on the overall W-L totals this year. Maybe 2 more wins. Max.


                            Firing JOB would not have made them win in Denver or Portland, it would just mean that NEXT YEAR in March vs Atlanta or Miami they'd be getting that much needed win to push for 41 wins. It's a long term strategy. In the short term nearly nothing would really change, its just too late for that kind of quick impact.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              I'll acknowledge we got lucky, but more in the "dodged a bullet" than the "took a reasonable chance" sense.
                              Exactly. That's like patting a guy on the back when he hits the hard 8 with $1000 on the table.

                              Going against the odds and praying for luck is not a "strategy", at least not a good one.

                              As I said, the team needs PF help as much as anything and you could trip and fall into a PF in this draft. The Pacers will have a chance to take Patterson, and he's a prototype PF. Upside they maybe have a shot at Favors if they are willing to ride out 2 seasons as he dials it in (see Beasley for example, or Noah really).

                              If they draft smart they can add two physical front line guys, Ndiaye seems poised to fall into round 2 right now and he's 7 foot, very physical in the block and a good shot blocker. Great bench big to go with your starting PF in the first round.

                              The draft will not turn them around though because for the most part we might see all the main pieces back (TJ, Rush, Danny, Troy, Roy with Dun off the bench, Price instead of Watson, DJones). The draft pick will just take Tyler and Josh's place, not Troy's place. At least next partial season.

                              Even if Troy is traded we aren't getting an offensive post guy probably, not a go-to scoring type at least. So again the impact will be slow and steady, not insta-fix.

                              The draft is a helper this year, the fix is the guy you get for TJ/Troy/Dun contracts, and I don't mean an all-star or that total salary coming back. I mean maybe a Devin Harris level player. Less total salary, vet player that is border AS ala Danny.

                              I also think all the team needs is that quality banger PF, that scoring vet and a new coach. Should be good to go for playoffs in 11-12 with that. No Wall/Turner required (though I'd esp. love Turner here)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Just look at OKC - are they improved more because of Harden or because Durant, Green and Westbrook got better the last 2/1 years. They benched Watson so Westbrook could play more, seems to be working out for them.
                                O.K.C. improved because they already had a good talent level capable of winning 50+ games. All they needed was experience and to develop some chemistry, which they've done this year and the last. We're not at that stage yet. We need more than just experience and chemistry -- we need talent.

                                Rather than compare us to the current Thunder, a much better analogy would be the '07-'08 Thunder (actually, Sonics).

                                They had a great start (Durant and Green) but they needed more. We have a very good start (Granger and Hibbert) but obviously we, too, need more.

                                Enter the #4 pick and Russell Westbrook, and now they're in business. This is our year to add our Russell Westbrook. Possibly even better.

                                I'd like to think Price could be our Westbrook, but that's too big of a stretch. I'd settle for him being our Eric Maynor with Brandon Rush playing the role of Thabo Sefolosha.
                                Last edited by Lance George; 03-06-2010, 01:54 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X