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
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #16
    Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

    Hogwash, most of it, Ron is one of the biggest talents out on any court in the NBA.
    We know little or nothing about "issues" unless we want to play tabloids and point to all the "little" things as headaches and such to say those things weren't real, it was something else, we nay know what however.
    As a player; few are better or more talented.
    He's 24 years old for crying out loud, he has yet to reach his prime and become an adult, please don't tell me about wives and kids, any dick can make kids.

    As for why we won 61 games? Because we have a pretty good team.
    Yes we did lack some perimeter scoring, though some stepped up unexpectedly to do their part, without Tins' injury who knows he might have rained a few on the Pistons and the outlook would have been different.

    Yes JO is reaching that very elite status, not because he is talked about but because he is a hard worker with loads of talent.

    Yes coaching was better, but the players were a year older and at the aaverage age our players are, that one year is a world of difference, please compare JO over his last 3 years to the man who's team the Pacers became at this moment.

    Bender defintely had an influence, after all he averages 1 pt per minute, to sad he only averaged 2 or 3 minute per game over 82 games.

    The addition of AJ helped, and not to forget Kenny Anderson, who sadly fell of the face of the earth, but let's not forget he opened up within the concept and helped us win a number of games.
    Tins grew up, his 3d year in the league and he made strides that make the comparison with Kidd more and more correct.
    Jeff took well to starting, Al took less well to being 6th man, but had his games, to sad he couldn't bring it every time, but he to is still growing up.

    Reggie, he did his thing in games that were important early in the season and later in the season, we forget how he did his Knicks display in MSG and only focus on the block and the passed up shot in the ECF.

    We do the same with Ron, we forget his contributions during the season and most importantly his performance during the playoffs, against Miami AND against Detroit, we focus on the game he started playing when we lost our starting PG, added to his frustration over AJ, (yes most of the season he was).

    Freddie coming to terms with some of his talents helped us a great deal to, Cro was the same as the years before (yes evenhis minutes) and Polly was plain funny, which could be more valuable then we think at times

    In all this team matured a year, as they have done again, that was the main difference.
    JO took up his part in leading the team and made it clear after the ECF; My Team.

    We do not know "off the court issues" we believe some here in their reports, we conclude our own upon speculation, because why else would they trade him, we forget the little sentences in articles and interviews, such as when Al was traded that talks about Ron added and Terry added (among others) were shot down by Rick, yes read it again, it says it right there.

    We overlook other possibilities, like LB not liking Ron personally, his attitude (LB's) could be one that doesn't stroke to well with Ron's, and he can simply want him out, for a plentitude of reasons.

    Make no mistake, the trade proposed is a "decent" one, we gain a 3 time all star for a one time allstarr dpoy, and yes he is not as bad at defense as people make him to be, the trade would be a "fair" trade where both parties gain, and lose.

    Do I want Ron gone? NO, I love the man, including all his problems, there are more troublesome players on the courts and hanging on has paid of handsomely for those who were prepared to go the extra mile(s) see Rodman, Iverson, Kobe, Wallace and those are just a few.
    Can I change anything? nope, I can not, I do not have a vote, just an opinion, I can choose to let the team drop from my sight, but why would I, this kind of crap always happens, some of us are still brooding over Dale, where other can't let go of the Brad thing, perhaps rightly, I nay know, but it seems a lot of negative energy to waste, certainly when dealing with the now.
    Management will make decision we do not like, often, despite our protest or opinions.
    IF the trade goes down, do we still have a team that is considered a contender? yes, more so or less so, I don't know, it could be that the 1-2 JO Pedja is one that people in the NBA will start fearing before they see them a second time, it could be that Artest lifts the Kings over the hump, we do not know before the end of the season.

    IF Ron leaves, because management decides it, then I personally am glad I could witness his enormous talent on our team, his winning attitude might have rubbed of on other players and I do wish him a ring at one stage of his career, just not against the Pacers.

    We (the team) grew over time, a new manager came in and made changes, and will make more, it could lift us over the hump straight into a championship, or kill the team and in that case send us back to mediocrity for years to come, because if that happens, more players will not renew, not want to come here or just plain leave here.

    I look forward to the new season, the off-season being a bore, so bad we talk about nightmare scripts, We will know what team we have when training camp starts.

    I would like it to be with Ron, but if Larry wants him out, then I can live with Pedja, better then with f.i. Damp.

    chill out brothren, we will all rejoice when they win, and cry when they lose, no matter who's on the floor, but let's be honest, with JO and supporting cast, we have a decent chance for a number of years.

    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment

    • #17
      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.
      Yep that about summed it up I think

      Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

      Comment

      • #18
        Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

        Bulletproof. I am not comparing '03 with '04 I agree with you that the difference between those two season was the coaching. Pacers IMO were the best coached team in the NBA last season, or as well coached the Pistons and Spurs.
        But that was not my point at all,

        My point is there were other reasons besides coaching and J.O, for 61 wins, and as I did say I fear the pacers are losing or trading away many of the things that led them to 61 wins. This is not only about Artest.

        I just want people to think about how rare 61 wins is and to think about how or why they won 61 games.


        Edit: Peck and Bball...point well made. But I was being critical of Brad's defense, and having his shot blocked throughout the season. But Brad is a great passer and offensively he was a perfect complement to J.O. Never said antyhing different than that.


        The Atlanta Hawks of the late 80's always ring in my head. I realize that the Pacers and Hawks situation is diferent. But the Hawks had a young team that was very well coached and had great chemistry, then they traded for Reggie Theus, an aging Moses Malone, and on paper they looked like they really improved themselves, but the team was never the same, and I learned a lot from that. We know the pacers won 61 games last season, with Peja and Jax minus Al and Ron we have no idea
        [edit=24=1092153094][/edit]

        Comment

        • #19
          Re: Why or how did the Pacers win 61 games

          Originally posted by Unclebuck
          I just want people to think about how rare 61 wins is and to think about how or why they won 61 games.
          They didn't - it was all a dream.

          Seriously, they created horrible matchup problems because they could come at teams from so many different directions. They had one of the top five post players in the game in JO. You had slasher/scorers like Artest and Harrington. You had the hustle guy in Foster whose impact is bigger than his numbers. You had a very coherent system and a PG in Tinsley who could execute it.

          The Pacers could not only come at you with different people but be effective with two totally different game plans - throw it in to JO and play off that or open the floor and attack the rim.

          When you add the defense to that it makes a pretty special team. Add a Jon Barry or another outside shooter to complement Reggie and you don't have many weaknesses.

          Don't know if you'll get 61 this year. You're stronger but so is Detroit and several other EC teams have upgraded quite a bit. But 55-58 should be in the works.

          I definitely think trading both Harrington and Artest from a 61-win team is too much. Go another season with what you have, see if Ron further straightens up (he's already light-years ahead of the 02-03 season) and if it doesn't work he'll still be sought after next summer - impact player, reasonable salary, etc.

          The only reason for urgency IMO is if there's some sense within the organization that you have to get a ring for Reggie. Other than that the Pacers need to keep building. The team's young and should keep improving.
          [edit=50=1092156214][/edit]
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment

          Previous 1 2 template Next
          Working...
          X