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

Best young cores

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

  • #61
    Re: Best young cores

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    The last time I saw you laying out your case against Bird, I recall you moving the goal posts repeatedly when people responded to it with good counterpoints.

    I'm not attempting to move any goal posts. I just don't understand how a guy who has had such little success in his job is completely absolved from any kind of criticism.

    The guy got here in 2003 with the title of GM. Yet for some reason every good move gets put on the Bird ledger, and every bad move is the fault of someone else?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Best young cores

      [QUOTE=purdue101;1135028]
      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post

      You can't tell me that Donnie nor Herb approved that pick also. They're in charge, not Larry. I highly doubt Donnie would allow Larry to select a player he was adamantly against - that's not how any business is run.


      It was a weak draft, I can't blame anyone for taking a flyer on potential at 17. About 2/3 of the GM's in the league were goose egged on that draft.


      Herb Simon rubber stamped pretty much whatever Walsh wanted. Walsh wasn't against Bird's picks of Williams or White or as you indicate they wouldn't have been drafted. Walsh apparently wasn't against Bird's great picks of Lorbek and Stanko either. They are ALL Bird's picks. Same as it was Bird's idea to sign Cabbages after scouting him for a year and half. Same as signing Maceo B. They are all bad decisions by Bird.

      You might want to revise the 2/3 quote. 15 players after the 1st 5 players selected are still in the NBA. That's 2/3 of those selected in the 1st round are still in the NBA 5 years later.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Best young cores

        Instead of arguing who had control with Walsh/Bird

        Isn't it just fair to look at what Bird did by himself. I think that's decent, for what he's had to work with. The trades are in our favor, and the draft picks have been good, especially from where they were taken.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Best young cores

          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
          I'm not attempting to move any goal posts. I just don't understand how a guy who has had such little success in his job is completely absolved from any kind of criticism.

          The guy got here in 2003 with the title of GM. Yet for some reason every good move gets put on the Bird ledger, and every bad move is the fault of someone else?
          Morway has been the GM since summer 2008. Do you lay everything since then at his feet, or at Bird's feet?

          Because if you are going to tell me you put it at Bird's feet, then you can't put 2003-2007 (and part of '08) at his feet because at the time he was the Morway to Donnie Walsh's Bird.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Best young cores

            Originally posted by aaronb View Post
            Bullett, lets hash this out.

            What exactly are my "Unrealistic complaints"?

            My whole platform is that when Artest went off the reservation in 2005. It was time to clean house and do a complete ground up rebuild. Instead the Pacers decided to go the piecemeal route of cobbling together a team that could compete for an 8th seed, each and every year.


            The "What could Larry do? He was drafting in the mid teens" argument doesn't hold water. We had no business keeping a roster in tact that kept us in the mid teens.

            In the NBA, if you aren't a contender. You need to be in rebuild mode. Larry has instead chosen to be a "Floater"



            Your turn.........
            Let's be serious for a moment, all this stuff your saying may be true but here is something else that is true. How many teams are contenders. Year after Years it is the same teams. Boston, Lakers, San Antonio and every once in a while someone else. So whatever were doing wrong basically almost every other team in the league is doing it wrong to and most of them are doing it even worse than we are.

            The arguments you are making could be made about every other GM and team president except for a few. When your a small market team without a superstar player, it is very hard to be a contender.

            It's just not as easy as you are trying to make it. If it is then give me one example of a team that has done it.
            Good is the enemy of Great


            We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
            -- Frank Vogel.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Best young cores

              Originally posted by colts19 View Post
              Let's be serious for a moment, all this stuff your saying may be true but here is something else that is true. How many teams are contenders. Year after Years it is the same teams. Boston, Lakers, San Antonio and every once in a while someone else. So whatever were doing wrong basically almost every other team in the league is doing it wrong to and most of them are doing it even worse than we are.

              The arguments you are making could be made about every other GM and team president except for a few. When your a small market team without a superstar player, it is very hard to be a contender.

              It's just not as easy as you are trying to make it. If it is then give me one example of a team that has done it.

              What roster state was Seattle/OKC in 5 years ago? What about the Knicks? What about Miami? Portland? Memphis?

              My point is that there is a wrong and a correct way of going about a rebuild. Larry Bird choose to follow a blueprint that never worked for anyone else. Why he did that I have no idea?

              Maybe he thought the roster was better than it was back then? Maybe he didn't want to stomach through a season or two of 20 wins? Maybe he thinks he's smarter than everyone else in the NBA? Maybe he was too stubborn to listen to other people give advice?

              Bottom line is that this rebuild has been painfully slow, and it leaves us with very little on court upside. 6 years of lotto ball should net you more than 3 NBA rotation level players. At least in my own humble opinion?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Best young cores

                Originally posted by colts19 View Post
                Let's be serious for a moment, all this stuff your saying may be true but here is something else that is true. How many teams are contenders. Year after Years it is the same teams. Boston, Lakers, San Antonio and every once in a while someone else. So whatever were doing wrong basically almost every other team in the league is doing it wrong to and most of them are doing it even worse than we are.

                The arguments you are making could be made about every other GM and team president except for a few. When your a small market team without a superstar player, it is very hard to be a contender.

                It's just not as easy as you are trying to make it. If it is then give me one example of a team that has done it.

                And let me add, that this very Pacers team was a solid NBA contender for 13 years. We were the San Antonio Spurs of the last generation. Just without the Titles.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Best young cores

                  Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                  What roster state was Seattle/OKC in 5 years ago? What about the Knicks? What about Miami? Portland? Memphis?

                  My point is that there is a wrong and a correct way of going about a rebuild. Larry Bird choose to follow a blueprint that never worked for anyone else. Why he did that I have no idea?

                  Maybe he thought the roster was better than it was back then? Maybe he didn't want to stomach through a season or two of 20 wins? Maybe he thinks he's smarter than everyone else in the NBA? Maybe he was too stubborn to listen to other people give advice?

                  Bottom line is that this rebuild has been painfully slow, and it leaves us with very little on court upside. 6 years of lotto ball should net you more than 3 NBA rotation level players. At least in my own humble opinion?
                  OK here we go.

                  1 Knicks, 22-16. Got amarie, It's New York he wasn't coming here. Not a contender.

                  2. Memphis 18-20, I wouldn't trade them rosters. Not a contender

                  3. Portland, 20-19, Had 1st pick in draft and passed on Durant, if bird had done that you would be screaming. Not a contender.

                  4. OKC Lucked out getting Durant because of Portland, what would they be without him. Superstar. Still not a contender.

                  5. Prince James, and company were not going to get together to come to Indiana. May be a contender, but haven't won anything yet.

                  Still waiting for an example. Thanks
                  Good is the enemy of Great


                  We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
                  -- Frank Vogel.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Best young cores

                    Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                    And let me add, that this very Pacers team was a solid NBA contender for 13 years. We were the San Antonio Spurs of the last generation. Just without the Titles.
                    We went to 1 finals. Not hardly the Spurs
                    Good is the enemy of Great


                    We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
                    -- Frank Vogel.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Best young cores

                      Originally posted by colts19 View Post
                      OK here we go.

                      1 Knicks, 22-16. Got amarie, It's New York he wasn't coming here. Not a contender.

                      2. Memphis 18-20, I wouldn't trade them rosters. Not a contender

                      3. Portland, 20-19, Had 1st pick in draft and passed on Durant, if bird had done that you would be screaming. Not a contender.

                      4. OKC Lucked out getting Durant because of Portland, what would they be without him. Superstar. Still not a contender.

                      5. Prince James, and company were not going to get together to come to Indiana. May be a contender, but haven't won anything yet.

                      Still waiting for an example. Thanks

                      Each and every one of those teams has a better roster than we do right now. Is your argument that every team that doesn't win the Title is a failure? Should the Pacers just contract now?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Best young cores

                        Originally posted by colts19 View Post
                        We went to 1 finals. Not hardly the Spurs

                        5 Eastern Conference finals and 1 Championship appearance is extremely successful.

                        Do you think the Manning era Colts are failures as well?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Best young cores

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Morway has been the GM since summer 2008. Do you lay everything since then at his feet, or at Bird's feet?

                          Because if you are going to tell me you put it at Bird's feet, then you can't put 2003-2007 (and part of '08) at his feet because at the time he was the Morway to Donnie Walsh's Bird.
                          I think it's fair to say he's ignoring your point.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Best young cores

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I think it's fair to say he's ignoring your point.

                            What was the point exactly? That once again the PD faithful Bird loyalists will never hold him accountable for anything? I'm just curious what the excuse will be next year at this time.


                            Who could we have drafted at 11 overall?

                            How could Larry know that free agents didn't want to come to Indy?

                            If the CIB hadn't loomed over Larry all summer. He could have gotten somebody good?

                            The Simons are just trying to ruin Larry's legacy?


                            Rest assured it's going to be something. Write it down!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Best young cores

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              How quickly we forget. After Stephenson was drafted, he was THE pick., a pick Bird wanted in the 1st round. His star was bright and greatness was just waiting to happen... until his PR nightmare incident. So don't play the "he was a 2nd round pick" card with me. Speaking of 2nd round picks, what happened to Rolle? Remember, the Pacers had the 3 best players in summer league. 3 can't miss Bird picks.

                              What fantasy world are you living in? What, just because he had a good Summer League and a few members on PD got excited, he became the pick? I came on to PD after I got back from the Draft Party, and the talk was ALL about PG. He was the main guy.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Best young cores

                                Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                                My point is that there is a wrong and a correct way of going about a rebuild. Larry Bird choose to follow a blueprint that never worked for anyone else. Why he did that I have no idea?
                                See, we've been over this so many times, and you choose to simply ignore what you don't like, or don't want to hear. Perfect example, this thread. I simply asked you if we were in a better position today, than we were on the day Donnie Walsh quit. Do you answer? Of course not, because you don't want to admit that we're better off today, than the day Bird took over as the boss.

                                Regardless, I've been over this before with you. I've went through the Pacers draft picks, and records before the 90's team started winning on a high level. We repeatedly picked in the teens, and yet we went from a "rudderless and middle of the road" team, to a contender. This blueprint has worked, and it was for the very team you claim to root for. So you're wrong to claim it 'never worked for anyone else'. You asked for the 'unreasonable' part, well that's case in point. I'm not going to sit here and hash out our previous 10 page debate.

                                For your inability to answer simple questions, and remember that I've already disproved arguments you continue to make .... I'm going to give you a big fat, NFL Countdown style ...... C'mon Man!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X