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

The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

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

  • #31
    Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

    I disagree with you, as I thought it was common knoweldge that Ron was a hot mess (Jay@section222 warned us all, and if a randon guy in Chicago heard the stories sure other GM/CEO's heard the stories) and that he had a bit of a "crazy" streak.

    Did Donny think he could reign him in and control him? Probably, and that was ultimatly his downfall. But IMO that was the risk, and FWIW Rose was a popular player, though I remember checking Pacers.com every 30 minutes because I knew a trade was needed.

    I agree the Pacers have not taken as many risks as they could (or should) have, but the one risk they did take (and IMO Artest was a huge risk) backfired miserable, so its understandable (but still annoying)
    But Donnie Walsh didn't have Artest's name circled on a chalkboard as the missing piece of the Pacers. He had Rose and Best with question marks beside them because things had deteriorated into a dysfunctional mess and something had to be done.

    Walsh was dealing from a position of weakness because his team's own problems had gotten so bad that he couldn't ignore it any longer. I don't know what other deals he had from other teams, I don't even know if he thought Artest would amount to anything in the trade or not. I assume he knew Artest brought some baggage but who knows what insiders had told him. But whether he thought he could corral Artest or not is beside the point because he didn't actively seek to make Artest a member of the team. Artest was just who was being inserted into the trade because Chicago wanted to wash their hands of him, and Walsh needed to complete a deal to move Rose and Best.

    Clearly getting and keeping Artest was a risk... But it's different than the FO targeting a player they want and going after them using team assets that otherwise would still be Pacers. The whole thing began with the Pacers needing/having to trade Best and Rose due to dysfunction and them being unhappy campers... and ended with the Artest package (Miller and Mercer) being the best DW apparently felt he was going to get.

    And then as Chicago J says... They had no exit plan for when he went crazy or no willingness to move him once they got him and apparently liked what they saw.
    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


    • #32
      Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

      Fair enough.

      Where you and I differ is I always thought Donnie saw Ron and JO as batman and robin and I really thought he saw those two as taking us far (maybe even to a NBA finals)

      Though I will say I agree we needed to dump Rose/Best, and maybe that was the best deal. I guess my question is did Donnie see Ron as a huge piece or did he just want to move Rose and Best that bad?...... IF so, that means he "fell is love with talent" after trade, not before. I always assumed it was the other way around. He thought he was the missing piece, and that is why he he so reluctant to move him. Maybe I am totally wrong......wouldnt be the first time.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

        IF so, that means he "fell is love with talent" after trade, not before.
        Yip... That's the way it went down.
        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


        • #34
          Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

          After the CF meltdown they were ready to shred the team and get rid of Ron, a contingent of players than pleaded with Larry to keep them together (Source SI interview LB) and LB agreed and defended that plan with DW.

          Donnie never said HE fell in love with talent, he just stated a generic "we fell in love with tatlent" when explaining why they held on so long, LB was the man responsible for personelle.
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            This is a bit of a straw-man argument. I can't recall anyone saying high-lottery picks (which is what you mean by tanking) is the only way to acquire a competitive talent level, only that it's typically the easiest way. Bird and company did a fantastic job putting together this team without bottoming-out, but I stand by that claim.
            No, this is a very explicitly stated argument, and not just at PD. All sorts of NBA pundits will rattle off this "critical" stage of the rebuilding process. Often teams that make moves that keep them in the hunt for 6-8th seeds will be criticized for not knowing when to get bad so they can blow it up and get the high draft picks they need to get better. Someone will look at an OKC roster and say "that's how it has to be done" even though it fails miserably as a plan most of the time.

            Even the Spurs will catch that kind of flak, someone will start talking about how they need to know when to move Parker and Manu and just rebuild from the ground up. The Suns were "fools" to hang on to Nash and linger in the middling range rather than dumping him and just going full-on tank so they can start fresh.


            To me it's not even the best way of a set of many ways. The best way is just to enable the players you have to be part of the team, develop an environment of responsibility and expected dedication to the team, and avoid any risky overspending. You have to be willing to be wrong on some players and ride out those mistakes rather than hurrying to fix them with a panic move.


            And you know it's not just the Pacers. The Lakers had the Late Show in the mid-90s that were very competitive but then by trading Vlade for the not top 10 Kobe pick and clearing enough space to bring in Shaq they re-tooled...and then couldn't get to the Finals anyway. It took adding Phil to go that last step, but none of involved a high pick.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Yep but they still gave the Pacers a big NO, or we forgot the reported reason why Morway was fired?
              But you are actually proving my point. They were WILLING TO SIGN WITH INDY by your own admission. Crawford didn't say "I don't want to play there, find me a beach or top 5 city".

              He said no because of MONEY or how the team dealt with him, not because it was Indiana, not because of location or market size.




              As for the point that location or team makeup or ownership being a factor, I DO agree with that. But that means that if Indy has a good FO or a player is from the region then Indy might even have an advantage in a deal, not some automatic handicap. The Celts, Lakers, Knicks and Bulls have an IMAGE advantage because players grew up watching Bird, Magic, Jordan and MSG/Spike Lee. But 15 years from now some kid is going to want to play for OKC because of the college-style atmosphere and becoming a fan of Durant and Westbrook as a kid.


              Players have the money to go to Fiji or Hawaii on a goof, they can spend all off season in Miami or LA. And during the season there is a ton of travel to the point that you are hardly in your home city half the season.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-29-2012, 06:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

                Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                Seems like some strawmen here:

                1) hasn't the argument been that the team will overpay there own and appear content to just be a good playoff team instead of taking a risk to try to win it all? Yet your rebuttal seems to suggest they do (or should do) exactly that.

                2) I don't think anyone believes that no FAs will come to Indy, just that the top FAs won't come to Indy. Let's say guys like Derron Williams perhaps? We weren't on Lebrons short list. Not on Shaqs, either. Howard's? No. Stoudamire's? No. Anthony's? No. Bosh? No. The last upper echelon player that I remember listing Indy was Barkley. But the Pacers passed - see "myth" #1. I guess they didn't want to break up a championship team?

                3) as someone else pointed out, i like how you conveniently forget that the pacers two best players were lottery picks. But besides that, the goal is to win a title - not just be really good (see myth#1). Detroit is the only championship team built in the last 25 years whose top players were not acquired by lottery picks or FA acquisition by destination cities (LA & Miami - see myth #2). It doesn't seem smart to me to use the exception as your blueprint.
                1) So the Spurs and OKC were "satisfied" with just being good when they paid to resign Duncan and Durant? 5 ECF in 7 years isn't "satisfied with being good". That's what "you made it" looks like, minus the moment or break it takes to win it all. This is part of another problem I have, the BINARY logic. Either you win it all or it was a total disaster. 98, 99, 2000 were not teams "just willing to be okay". They were the cream of the crop. They didn't need a big move any more than Utah or Seattle did when they lost to the Bulls.


                2) The Pacers aren't on "short lists" because they aren't on the list at all. They aren't making a pitch, they don't have the cap space. Obviously the one year they did have money they were on the short list of an all-star PF and top 5 FA options. Considering that Crawford also had interest it appears they were on the list of 2 of the top available guys.

                But I 100% believe that if the Pacers had Dwight cash and were presenting a team that would be him replacing Roy basically, then they'd be on the short list.
                Lebron said NO to CHICAGO and NEW YORK, so I guess they just aren't desirable locations. But of course they are, it's just a case where at some point a choice will be made among many close options. And in the cases where a guy is literally saying "my basketball career hinges on being near beaches and bars" is that really the guy to hinge your team around? Seems very risky.

                Present a quality environment, FO support, solid facilities and staff, and good teammates and you can have any FA worth having if you have the cap space.



                3) I didn't ignore Rik. How many years did Rik and Reggie sit at .500? 4 straight years. Not a couple, not getting a bit better each year. 4 straight years. So by the "you've got to no when to give up" standard this is the CLASSIC CASE. You go .500 over and over till you literally have the nickname the Indy 500. You aren't a lottery team, you are IN THE PLAYOFFS all those seasons.

                And my point isn't not being in the lottery anyway because the argument is that you can't chase #8 and then fall short - you need more than the virtual no chance of getting into the top 3 of the lottery that you get with #9 or #10 in the conference.

                Rik and Reggie had to be RESIGNED before they went to the ECF which goes against the retool rule. The "stuck at .500" rule means trade both of them for picks, let the team flop to the bottom to get yet another high (top 3) pick so you can get the next Jordan or Magic, surround them with other #5 to #14 picks and then win it all.


                Rik and McCloud show you what the Pacers got by being really bad. Nowhere special. NO FANS would tolerate 4 years of .500 ball. Isiah got fired for 3 years of .500 ball and who was lamenting that? This is not to say that Rik wasn't a key piece, but he wasn't a classic #2 talent, he wasn't the star, he wasn't a multi-time AS like Ewing or Hakeem just waiting to have the roster filled out around him. Before the ECF runs Rik Smits was a BAD #2 PICK by historical views. He still isn't considered Wade, Melo, or Bosh. The two guys the team got in that era for being bad were McCloud and a solid Robin-ish level player. That was the first pick, nearly a decade before the team hit it's prime stride, and toward the end he may have been behind Reggie, Dale (All-Star) and Jackson in terms of contribution. I loved the guy, but those teams were classic balanced style teams that didn't require a high pick to build (Hibbert at 17 flirts with being Smits caliber statistically already).



                If the 1998 team was the best Pacers team ever, what did they do that made them better than the 1990 team? Rik and Reggie were already there and they not only didn't win the lottery, they actually kept going to the playoffs and getting crushed in round 1 (except the epic 5 game Boston series).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I don't know where are you getting that West was our first choice? Do You remember who was the player the whole Pacers staff when to visit as soon as free agency opened? yes the answer is Nene...... and nope I don't think it was an "smoke screen so we had a chance to get our big fish in West".
                  Yes, let's add Denver to another of those party/beach/major metropolis cities that we can't compete with.

                  At some point the list of "small, undesirable" NBA cities gets smaller than the "elite big markets" which kinda contradicts the whole elite angle.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

                    Seth, I honestly don't understand what you are arguing. At one point, you use Shaq and Kobe to prove your point - two guys that ended up in LA because ..... it's LA!. Shaq went as a FA (he didn't end up in Cleveland) and Kobe forced his way there by threatening to play in Italy. And IIRC, the Pacers had a pick that could have been used to draft him, but surprisingly he wasn't forcing his way to the Pacers. You also mention LAs trading an all star center for the rights to a high school kid. That doesnt seem aggressive to you? That wasnt risky? Then you use Duncan and Durant as examples - a #1 pick (whos team tanked once Robinson was hurt!) and a #2 pick (who's team has also been accused of tanking). I must not understand your argument very well because I have taken it to be that: 1) you don't need high picks to win, 2) big markets don't have an advantage in acquiring the very upper echelon FAs, 3) you don't have to be aggressive or take some risks to win a title. Yet the examples you give of actual championship teams seems to contradict one or more of these statements. And your other examples are of teams that didn't win championships.
                    Last edited by rm1369; 06-29-2012, 10:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

                      So Nash doesn't count?
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

                        Interesting analysis. And I suspect a lot of truth in it. You are right that the Pacers have spent money and that whole criticism is inaccurate. We were tied up with contracts for years that disproved that no spending arguement.

                        I always keep in mind that none of us actually KNOW anything for a fact because we are not in a position to know. None of us work for the team and never will. Anything we say is speculation. Some accurate and some not.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)

                          Pacers biggest mistake during the Walsh era was letting Brad Miller go.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X