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

Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

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

  • Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

    I think it is important to ask this question right now. Reason being is I fear that many of you are forgetting why the pacers won 61 games. And no this is not all about Artest

    From everything I have read in this forum since the season ended, I have gleemed this:

    Our starting shooting guard refuses to shoot and is a huge defensive liability.

    Our starting center can't shoot and offers nothing offensively. He gets pushed around and can only guard certain players.

    Our starting point guard has improved his defense and has gotten better, but still has trouble shooting even though he is left wide open

    Our 6th man never passsed the ball and took way too many turn around jumpers.

    Fred Jones is too small to play the shooting guard and still can't shoot.

    AJ can't pass, can't handle the ball and certainly cannot run an offense.

    Pollard is just horrible.

    Bender is injured.

    Croshere is inconsistant

    And now in the past few days we hear that Artest's defense is enhanced by the coaches/defensive system. He is an offensive liability, a ball hog who dribbles too much and tries to do too much.


    So I guess the Pacers won for two reasons. Great coaching and J.O.

    If I have not watched every game this past season (except the Cavs game) and if I just went by the things I have read in this forum I would say that J.O must be the best player in the league and the Pacers have the best coaching staff in the NBA, or maybe many of you believe the pacers won 61 games with smoke and mirrors.

    Winning 61 games is not easy

  • #2
    Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

    You forget that the average attention span on this board is about 1.5 games. Hence, all people remember is what happened after JO got hurt and Tinsley was already out. The only thing they remember about Artest is his ****up at the end of game 6.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

      As for the answer to your question, it was all because of the inspired cheerleading of Peanut Butter and Siggy. Now that they're gone, we're just plain screwed.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

        very nice post

        I get tired of hearing the reggie, AJ, Fred, and Bender ones.

        Different look at it (And how we won 61)





        Our starting shooting guard shoots well and hardly ever turns the ball over, and is clutch.

        Our starting center grabs boards like nobodys business and plays some good D.

        Our starting point guard has improved his defense and has gotten better, and shot .380 from 3 land.

        Our 6th man defends well, and took way too many turn around jumpers, but made his share of them.

        Fred Jones is small, but athletic, and has developed a decent shot.

        AJ can't pass, can't handle the ball and certainly cannot run an offense, when compared to Jason Kidd, but is good for a back up PG.

        Pollard is just misunderstood.

        Bender is my favorite Pacer. (OK, I couldn't find much that he did for our season)

        Croshere is a solid 11-15 min a game guy.

        Artest's defense is superb, and improved still by our system, even though his offense can be sloppy at times.


        So I guess the Pacers won for two reasons. Great coaching and a great team.





        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

          Originally posted by Kegboy
          You forget that the average attention span on this board is about 1.5 games. Hence, all people remember is what happened after JO got hurt and Tinsley was already out. The only thing they remember about Artest is his ****up at the end of game 6.
          As someone else said a little earlier in another topic... "And we have a winner!" You are correct Keggie!

          Regards,

          Mourning
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

            I agree.

            Had to be Peanut Butter and Siggy.

            And now that we've traded PB for a lazy, mental, emotionally broken center with conditioning issues, we won't even have that.

            Time to break up the team, no doubt.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

              "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                So I guess the Pacers won for two reasons. Great coaching and J.O.
                Funny you should mention that, UB, but yes, great coaching was the difference. Last year's team was essentially the same team that Isiah coached the previous season. If coaching wasn't the difference, then what was?

                Here is a post that I made Oct. 4, 2003 on realgm:

                Carlisle is the difference here, friends. He took a less-talented team to the ECFs last year. I bet he feels like a kid in a candy store right now. He will bring the discipline and forward thinking to the team that's been lacking for so long. He will shine here, and so begins the road to an amazing coaching career. He's learned from one of the best basketball minds ever to grace the game.

                56 wins. We beat either the Pistons or the Nets in the ECFs, and face the Lakers in the finals.
                I was close. Anyway, care to convince me otherwise, UB? What was the significant difference from 2002-03 to 2003-04?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                  Hmmmm......

                  So people are starting to trash a player who contributed to our team last season & are already starting to think about how the new player will be an improvement?

                  Welcome to my hell Uncle Buck.

                  Let's see during the season Ron was the perfect compliment to O'Neal. He could score from in the post, shoot with some distance, pass, play defense & rebound.

                  Now that a trade may be coming he is a headcase, troublemaker, ballhog, inconsistant long distant shooter, never passes, is overrated as a defender & doesn't rebound enough.

                  Deja Vu all over again.

                  Brad Miller during the season was the perfect compliment to O'Neal. He could score in the post, shoot with some range, pass, play defense & rebound.

                  When a trade was immenent he became a player who always had his shot blocked, was inconsistant from the floor, nobody ever questioned his passing for some reason, his defense was a joke & he only rebounded when he wanted to.

                  I will never understand why fans feel the need to trash a player just because they are being traded.

                  Ron has problems, there can be almost no argument to that, but he is a good player. He did a lot of good here & if he is moved I think we should just wish him well & move on.

                  Now as to why we won 61 games last season.

                  Well, we did have great coaching.

                  Jermaine O'Neal is a superb player.

                  The East to start the season was pretty weak, even we have to admit that. But as the season went on it evened out a little.

                  But & this is just my opinion here, our # 1 reason for being so good was our perimater defense. We were one of the most physical teams I've ever seen away from the basket. We were NOT a physical team in the post, but between Ron, Fred, Al, Jeff, Anthony & even Jamaal down towards the end we were very very physical outside.

                  Of course the catalyst of this was Ron.

                  But even as much as I admit that Ron was important to the team last season I have no problem cutting him loose because of everything else that is going on.

                  IMO, it comes down to J.O. or Artest.

                  Who do you choose?


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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                    It feels different when you're on the other side doesn't it? You watch the people line up behind whatever the team appears to have done. ... or not done (as has happened often in Pacerland) and shout their undying faith and belief in the situation. Players that you once thought almost all respected become a dirty word.

                    Some posters could argue for days about a player saying he should be gone and the Warriors would march into battle united in their defense of that player... until it becomes obvious management IS going to trade that player. Then the tune changes. These same people now are ready to tear that player apart... even if they once defended him. Hence the frustration sometimes felt.

                    -Bball
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                      "Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games"

                      Oh... that is simple... They scored more points than the opposition on 61 occassions. :P

                      -Bball
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                        Originally posted by Peck
                        But & this is just my opinion here, our # 1 reason for being so good was our perimater defense. We were one of the most physical teams I've ever seen away from the basket. We were NOT a physical team in the post, but between Ron, Fred, Al, Jeff, Anthony & even Jamaal down towards the end we were very very physical outside.

                        Of course the catalyst of this was Ron.
                        And again I ask, what changed between 2002-03 and 2003-04 that made such a difference?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                          Originally posted by bulletproof
                          Originally posted by Peck
                          But & this is just my opinion here, our # 1 reason for being so good was our perimater defense. We were one of the most physical teams I've ever seen away from the basket. We were NOT a physical team in the post, but between Ron, Fred, Al, Jeff, Anthony & even Jamaal down towards the end we were very very physical outside.

                          Of course the catalyst of this was Ron.
                          And again I ask, what changed between 2002-03 and 2003-04 that made such a difference?
                          Larry Bird was hired.... :P

                          -Bball
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                            Originally posted by Bball
                            Originally posted by bulletproof
                            Originally posted by Peck
                            But & this is just my opinion here, our # 1 reason for being so good was our perimater defense. We were one of the most physical teams I've ever seen away from the basket. We were NOT a physical team in the post, but between Ron, Fred, Al, Jeff, Anthony & even Jamaal down towards the end we were very very physical outside.

                            Of course the catalyst of this was Ron.
                            And again I ask, what changed between 2002-03 and 2003-04 that made such a difference?
                            Larry Bird was hired.... :P

                            -Bball
                            And you'd be partly right.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

                              Originally posted by bulletproof
                              Originally posted by Peck
                              But & this is just my opinion here, our # 1 reason for being so good was our perimater defense. We were one of the most physical teams I've ever seen away from the basket. We were NOT a physical team in the post, but between Ron, Fred, Al, Jeff, Anthony & even Jamaal down towards the end we were very very physical outside.

                              Of course the catalyst of this was Ron.
                              And again I ask, what changed between 2002-03 and 2003-04 that made such a difference?
                              Oh, you'll get no argument from me about coaching.

                              But I do want to add one small thing. Adding to the physical nature of our perimater play was the addition of Anthony Johnson & the increased improvement of Fred Jones.




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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X