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

State of the state

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

  • #16
    Re: State of the state

    Originally posted by Tom White View Post


    That would be Oscar Robertson.

    Bird played on better teams, and thus won more championships. Oscar didn't have much help, but when he finally did (1971 Milwaukee Bucks with Kareem), he won a ring. He was also the only player to average a triple double for a season, and darn near averaged it for his career.
    Technically, Oscar Robertson isn't an Indiana native. He grew up in Indy, but he was born in Tennessee.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: State of the state

      Originally posted by tsm612 View Post
      Technically, Oscar Robertson isn't an Indiana native. He grew up in Indy, but he was born in Tennessee.

      Picky, picky, picky!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: State of the state

        Originally posted by Tom White View Post
        Picky, picky, picky!
        Sorry...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: State of the state

          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
          Picky, picky, picky!
          Given that he moved here when he was very young and graduated from Crispus Atticks, I'll give Tom a pass.

          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: State of the state

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            It was the best of time, it was the worst of times…

            Well, mainly it’s been the worst of times. If not for Danny Granger falling to 17, this would be the worst franchise in the league. Clock is ticking. The sun could be setting on the Larry Legend era with the Indiana Pacers.

            Imagine this, you come into work tomorrow morning and your boss says look you have 1 year to be significantly more productive or we’ll have to go in another direction. We’ll give you one year to get this right. Let me ask you this, do you care about 5 years from now? Hell no, you care about the next 12 months. So what do you do? You exhaust every asset you have to get to the best possible position in 12 months. This is why I think one of the greatest “players” of all time will go for broke in the next 8 months and you’ll see major, major moves made for your Indiana Pacers.

            First though, let’s take a quick look back on the Bird era. I’m not going to break down every Yesthecabbageis or Shawne Williams move and just take shots at the Legend. What I will do is point to two things, Bird got paid millions of dollars to do On the Job Training. OJT is fine when you’re paid a minimum wage job as a kid, but as a guy in control of a major corporation, that’s a tough way to go.

            Bird is a straight talking guy who doesn’t waiver in his beliefs, some say stubborn or arrogant, some think steadfast and strong. This can be a good quality if you’re say the Colts Bill Polian who’s done this work for decades. You’ve been around the block, you understand what’s worked. During Bird’s OJT he was in a position of power, which is fine you want one decider or one voice, but sometimes it can backfire. Problem was Larry Bird made decisions and when the circumstances changed, he didn’t, until it was too late.

            Case in point, acquiring Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson. With a chuckle, Bird and Carlise say, well we don’t need milk drinkers. Where was the middle ground here for Bird, where was a non yes man to say, well maybe your right, but you do need chemistry, let’s not forget that. Bird realized this, but it was too late. We all know what happened that November. OJT lesson #1.

            The past can be painful, to remedy the Milk Drinker mistake, they decided to trade for guys who were Milk Drinkers, but weren’t as good. This was actually the harder lesson to learn, since it’s still impacts the team now in the 20 million dollars tied to Murphy and Dunleavy that honestly would have been nice to have to get an impact Point Guard in the building. OJT lesson #2.

            Expensive training for the Legend. First thing people will say is well Donnie Walsh made many of those decisions or give Bird a pass because of Donnie’s presence, maybe, but really do you believe Donnie decided to do these deals or do you think maybe he just signed off on what Bird’s grand scheme was?

            Enough of the world’s most expensive internship. What about now? Well now you have Crunch time, it’s 2 weeks before the draft and you have a sub .500 team with approximately 43 million dollars of expiring contracts, an all star in his prime, an improving true center, and the #10 pick, that’s the asset side of the ledger. The debit side is too long to do a laundry list, but it starts at point guard and it ends with needing a legit 2nd best player on a good team.

            It is crunch time, this is where we know Bird understood the stakes as a player, what’s he got now? The main thing is he won’t leave any bullet in the gun. He’ll try to make every move possible, likely starting on June 24th with the draft. For those who think he’ll trade down get a couple of picks or just draft at 10, I’d guess there’s about a 2% chance of either, why? He has 8 months to keep his job, what does he need a rookie for?

            I would guess his mindset is completely to sell out and that no one is safe. I think you’ll see not just 1 slight move, but a flurry of drastic moves. Who knows when the smoke clears and I am sure Simon has to sign off on things (his money), but what I do believe is Bird will try to trade with everybody and often.

            Lastly, Bird knows success, he understands basketball. You hope that he can transfer just an inkling of that clutchness to his decisions now. What you don’t hope is it becomes desperate moves that damage the long term health of the franchise and therefore jeopardize the future of the team in Indiana. How ironic would it be that the best player to ever play as a native Hoosier would have the potential to kill professional basketball in his home state. Scary. Regardless, the next 8 months will tell more about what happens for a franchise, but also a Legend.
            Eh, I disagree with the general idea of this post. First, the whole "milk drinker" theory is just goofy. It's not an either-or situation of "good player"-to-"bad person" ratio. It's getting old to hear it all the time. There's no "lesson to be learned" there.

            Second, while Bird may not be moving as fast as you like, he might be doing the right thing. The Pacers were dealt a massive blow back in 2004. Huge. The had to tread lightly, be extremely careful with their moves, and start putting themselves in position to recover, and it's not easy in our small market, and in this economy that has seen very hard times in the past few years.

            So it's not do-or-die time. It's "slow recovery" time, which is just how it is, and we're still in the middle of it. I actually think we're getting close to the end of that recovery period --- we've shed a bunch of huge contracts, got rid of the trouble-makers, gathered some talent, and really the only major thing left is just getting rid of Murphy's contract, who, while overpaid, is actually not near as bad of a player as most people make him out to be, and has some market value. It's mostly a juggling act with player contracts until that all shakes out, which is happening, it's just taking a few years, which is realistic. We had to overhaul the roster, and we had to do it with a roster full of people that no one wanted.

            Smart moves are nice. Stupid moves for the sake of making moves are not.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 06-09-2010, 11:42 AM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: State of the state

              I disagree with the entire post. If the lovely folks of Indiana didn't care so much about "image", we would still be contending. If I was GM, Artest and Jackson would have been sent to Anger Management classes and worked a LOT of community service to shed their thug image.

              On a different note, I LOVE our current core of players. Personally, I believe that Bird has done a great job of positioning this team with nice young talent and CAP flexibilty while AT THE SAME TIME changing the image of the team. I swear, we have to be the only team in the NBA whose GM has to worry about Talent and Image at the same time. Bird could have probably done more moves, if he didn't have to worry about image so much...in a small market.


              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


              • #22
                Re: State of the state

                I'd rather have a luvable group of losers than a criminal group of winners.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: State of the state

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  I'd rather have a luvable group of losers than a criminal group of winners.
                  That's not true at all.

                  If we had a team full of 12 convicted felons that won 60 games a year no one would be saying a peep.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: State of the state

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    That's not true at all.

                    If we had a team full of 12 convicted felons that won 60 games a year no one would be saying a peep.
                    That's not true at all.



                    I'm sure at least ONE person would make a peep.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: State of the state

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      That's not true at all.

                      If we had a team full of 12 convicted felons that won 60 games a year no one would be saying a peep.
                      Except that we did have a 61 win season, and people did have issues with liking that team.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: State of the state

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I'd rather have a luvable group of losers than a criminal group of winners.
                        Well, that's what you got right now. Be happy.

                        The only "criminal" thing that was done was the shooting outside of the nightclub. Tinsley was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Williams is a "criminal" by association. Ron Artest was labeled a thug for going into the stands which is no different a reaction that I would have had. Outside of those "petty" incidents, what did they do that was soooooooo criminal? Last I checked, none of the players were convicted of rape, murder, or robbery.


                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: State of the state

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          Well, that's what you got right now. Be happy.

                          The only "criminal" thing that was done was the shooting outside of the nightclub. Tinsley was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Williams is a "criminal" by association. Ron Artest was labeled a thug for going into the stands which is no different a reaction that I would have had. Outside of those "petty" incidents, what did they do that was soooooooo criminal? Last I checked, none of the players were convicted of rape, murder, or robbery.
                          Stephen Jackson killed my inner-child.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: State of the state

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Except that we did have a 61 win season, and people did have issues with liking that team.
                            That's not what the ticket sales indicated. They're always going to be "that group" who are going to do think that African American Sport athletes are thugs/criminals based on appearance and having "basic" fun (going to clubs, smoking weed, etc). If Granger got a bunch of tattoos tomorrow, there's going to be a small segment of fans who are going to suddenly dislike him and label him a thug. Facts of life...ask Richard Jefferson. Here some stats to chew on...

                            http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pacers

                            2000-2001: 10th (Isiah Thomas new coach, JO acquired, 41-41)
                            2001-2002: 16th (Acquired Artest & Miller, JO 1st All-Star, 42-40)
                            2002-2003: 15th (48-34)
                            2003-2004: 16th (Resigned JO, Carlisle new coach, Bird-President, 62-21)
                            2004-2005: 17th (Acquired Jackson, The Brawl, 44-38 <- Interesting)
                            2005-2006: 24th (Artest for Peja, 41-41)
                            2006-2007: 28th (Mid-Season trade for Dunleavy/Murphy, 35-47)
                            2007-2008: 30th (JOB new coach, Granger/Dunleavy's growth, 36-46)
                            2008-2009: 28th (Rush and Hibbert are drafted, Granger-AllStar, 36-46)
                            2009-2010: 27th (Hansbrough is drafted, 32-50)

                            Have the attendance tell the story, fans care more about winning than having nice guys.


                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: State of the state

                              I'm not sure those numbers say what you think they are saying.

                              Are you trying to say that the drop in attendance from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 only happened later in the season (we didn't go on a losing streak until December, and even then we didn't drop below .500 until the end of January)? Same with the drop in 2006-2007, because we were near .500 until well into January and tearing it up from mid-Jan to mid Feb? If not, then you have to explain why a mere 3-game drop in record caused a fairly large drop in attendance DURING THE SEASON. You also have to explain why attendance ranking INCREASED between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 with the exact same record.

                              IF, however, you include an antipathy for the players, meaning no one is willing to stick out even a slight drop in record, it tends to explain the the numbers.

                              I look at it this way - it takes quite a bit to get fans to leave, and then it takes quite a bit to get them back. Just losing is not going to drive fans out within a single season, but the combination of losing and a team of players no one likes is very likely to do so. By the same token, replacing the bad guys with good guys can fix part of the problem, but you are starting over in building the fan base and therefore ALSO have to win.

                              In other words, having bad characters on the team meant a single losing season could do the work of many. Having good character alone is not enough to bring fans back, but simply losing would not have driven them away.
                              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: State of the state

                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                                Have the attendance tell the story, fans care more about winning than having nice guys.
                                Everyone who has eaten soup will eventually die... therefore soup causes death.

                                --
                                Fans care about winning... But they also care about seeing progress...
                                Give them a team that isn't winning or showing progress and that's when you have problems.

                                Bad character generally doesn't equal much winning or long term success.

                                Once this team lost Reggie we lost our anchor and we were left with 1 deranged player, a diva, a player with questions about his dedication to the game vs his dedication to partying, a player whose moral compass was out of whack, and several players who couldn't respect the other players... and that was plenty for a bad chemistry mix. And we weren't winning. If we were winning Sjax wouldn't have been traded... nor Harrington.

                                That seems to be overlooked in the milk-drinkers debate. The winning had long ceased before we acquired any milk drinkers.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X