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

Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

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

  • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    And who is saying this?
    It just keeps coming up as a reason these teams weren't better than the Pacers, implying they'd have been in the ECF or perhaps better since the Pacers only got to the second round.

    Perhaps greatness is to strong a sarcastic word; the point is that other teams are assumed to be better than us when they fail due to injury, while the Pacers were always assumed to be no better WITH the injured player than they ended up WITHOUT him. Thus: other teams, injuries = special dispensation, Pacers, injuries = excuses.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

      The Heat were fronting us, our post feeding was terrible, and Shane Battier is a big, strong, very intelligent, experienced defender who uses his leverage, grabs, holds, and flops. Is it really that surprising it was tough for West? And even still, sometimes we still found pockets where he was iso-ed on him and had his way. Sometimes Battier won, sometimes West won, in those instances. But don't underestimate Shane Battier. This wasn't like us putting Dahntay Jones on Carmelo Anthony.

      Comment


      • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        It just keeps coming up as a reason these teams weren't better than the Pacers, implying they'd have been in the ECF or perhaps better since the Pacers only got to the second round.

        Perhaps greatness is to strong a sarcastic word; the point is that other teams are assumed to be better than us when they fail due to injury, while the Pacers were always assumed to be no better WITH the injured player than they ended up WITHOUT him. Thus: other teams, injuries = special dispensation, Pacers, injuries = excuses.
        I haven't seen anybody saying that the Pacers injuries= excuses, for the Pacers luck other than Foster(of course) the Pacers were healthy and that helped them for sure, do you think the Pacers overall record would have been the same with a healthy Howard? or a healthy Bosh? I don't think so.

        If you tell me that Howard, Bosh, Rose and Melo are out of the NBA or retiring then I might agree with you but the point is that this players are coming back next year(probably healthy) making it hard for the Pacers to have a better record than those teams, this is not ignoring what the Pacers did or trashing them but as in a basketball game you have to look at your opponent and see who has the better team and at this point at least in paper the Pacers are looking to be in 5th and maybe 4th place.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

          Originally posted by mattie View Post
          I'm suggesting it is a flawed philosophy to simply stand pat with the team's core talent when they can never be good enough to beat MIA/OKC.

          I'm suggesting if they aggressively pursued talent they COULD bring in someone else with a trade. It would take a lot of effort though. Deals don't just fall on your doorstep.

          And I am suggesting that is not their philosophy (regardless of what they say, of course they are going to say that when they have not been able to upgrade the starters - I mean are they supposed to say yes we need to upgrade the starters) If they could upgrade the starters they certainly would - but nothing they have been offered has been tempting enough.

          I believe they are pursuing talent everyday. I'm sure Pritch talks to every GM at least every few days. The effort is there, but they aren't going to make a deal just to make a deal involving their starters
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-25-2012, 10:01 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            The Heat were fronting us, our post feeding was terrible, and Shane Battier is a big, strong, very intelligent, experienced defender who uses his leverage, grabs, holds, and flops. Is it really that surprising it was tough for West? And even still, sometimes we still found pockets where he was iso-ed on him and had his way. Sometimes Battier won, sometimes West won, in those instances. But don't underestimate Shane Battier. This wasn't like us putting Dahntay Jones on Carmelo Anthony.

            I agree with you and disagree with the point made earlier in this thread that Battier shut down West. No he didn't.



            Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
            SeeThe Colts were certainly lucky. Lucky they didnt win too many games. IMO, where they beat the Pacers is in their willingness to sacrifice short term stability for long term gain. Any doubt that they would be better next year if they would have brought back Manning, Saturday, Clark, etc? No way in hell the Pacers would make a similiar decission.

            See, I think the pacers did exactly that after the 200 Finals appearance.

            Comment


            • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I agree with you and disagree with the point made earlier in this thread that Battier shut down West. No he didn't.

              Yes he did, West was not able to do s*** against him, not only that but his poor defense and poor rebounding didn't help either.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                Good series of posts by mattie, and I agree with your central point that a player's intangibles shouldn't be given greater weight than his on court production (or tangibles, as it were). I can't wholeheartedly agree with your posts though, because I think you're underrating West's contributions (maybe by design, i.e. for the sake of your argument). As Ace pointed out he absolutely was our best player in the Orlando series, and a bad matchup against the Heat doesn't change that.

                Regardless, I do agree with you that a 6th man role seems to be where he fits best on the team going forward. In terms of skills anyway, because in terms of overall talent I think he's still firmly in the team's top 5. Which (again agreeing with you) makes the comparison with Antonio all the more apt.

                I don't know whether he can accept this sort of role though, and in fact I think he'll be asking for more touches this season - both because he should be fully recovered from his knee surgery, and because it's a contract year for him. Hope he surprises though and takes another one for the team.

                Comment


                • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I haven't seen anybody saying that the Pacers injuries= excuses, for the Pacers luck other than Foster(of course) the Pacers were healthy and that helped them for sure, do you think the Pacers overall record would have been the same with a healthy Howard? or a healthy Bosh? I don't think so.

                  If you tell me that Howard, Bosh, Rose and Melo are out of the NBA or retiring then I might agree with you but the point is that this players are coming back next year(probably healthy) making it hard for the Pacers to have a better record than those teams, this is not ignoring what the Pacers did or trashing them but as in a basketball game you have to look at your opponent and see who has the better team and at this point at least in paper the Pacers are looking to be in 5th and maybe 4th place.
                  And I'm not talking about just this last season, which has nothing to do with Walsh anyway. If Walsh is being judged on his history with the team, and part of that history is having teams with players who were injured and could not produce (in JO's case at All Star and near MVP levels), and the lack of success of those teams is being laid squarely at Donnie's feet, then people using other teams in comparison can't say those teams get a pass because their guy was injured.

                  Sure, if Roy is injured we're (literally) in a world of hurt. If DWill gets injured, so are the (now considered a contender) Nets. If LeBron is injured, can Wade and Bosh carry Miami? I don't really think so - they'll still be good, but I don't think they would be anywhere near unstoppable. But those are all REASONS for having a difficult season, while in the past when they are pointed out for the Pacers they are simply "excuses" and the FO is at fault for the season.

                  Not in direct reply but in frustration at this and other threads on DW - there are times one would think that getting to 4 ECFs and a Finals appearance was worse than keeping JOB for 3-1/2 seasons.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Yes he did, West was not able to do s*** against him, not only that but his poor defense and poor rebounding didn't help either.
                    I suppose we need a working definition of "shutting down"

                    edit:

                    Lets see if the stats shed any light on this discussion.

                    Game #1 - 37 mins, 6 for 12, 17 points and 12 rebs

                    Game #2 - 41 mins 5-13 - 16pts and 10 rebs

                    Game #3 - 40 mins. 5-13, 14 points and 9 rebs

                    Game #4 28 minutes 3-8, 8 points West was in serious foul trouble

                    Game #5 - 31 minutes 5/13 10 pts. (this was a blowout, George was our leading scorer with 11

                    Game #6 - 41 mins 10/16 24 points and 8 rebs.


                    OK if those were Lebron james numbers, yeah he was to a certain degree shut down, but for West those are his typical numbers. Averaged 15 points per game. (also keep in mind the heats defense was really focused on West
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-25-2012, 10:14 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                      I expect David West to have a really good season next year. Mainly because he's a year away from his knee surgery. and some just because it is a regular season. As much as the condensed season may have helped the Pacer younger players, IMO, it really hurt David. Here's hoping he can turn back the clock a little and become DWest again.

                      Plus this is a big season for him. If he can be the guy he was at New Orleans, he's gonna make a boatload of cash. If not, he's risking falling into the pool of undersized bigs that can score but not defend. Since there are a bunch of those guys, his paycheck will be taking a big hit. This season could be a $10M/yr season for him.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I suppose we need a working definition of "shutting down"
                        Game 6: Battier 1-7 2 REB West 10-16 5 REB
                        Game 5: Battier 4-7 3 REB West 5-13 4 REB
                        Game 4: Battier 1-7 4 REB West 3-8 6 REB
                        Game 3: Battier 0-7 3 REB West 5-13 9 REB
                        Game 2: Battier 1-2 5 REB West 5-13 10 REB
                        Game 1: Battier 0-3 3 REB West 6-12 12 REB

                        OK, those are raw numbers, and don't take into account who is guarding who. But I think the burden of proof HAS to be on someone claiming Battier shut down West and West couldn't do anything against him defensively.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                          There was a point in the series where Miami came with a hard double team on David West, when he got it the low post, to consider as well. If the statement was, David West didn't dominate him completely the entire time, I'd guy that one. To say him got shut down, just isn't correct from a stat point or even from the eyeball test, imo.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Game 6: Battier 1-7 2 REB West 10-16 5 REB
                            Game 5: Battier 4-7 3 REB West 5-13 4 REB
                            Game 4: Battier 1-7 4 REB West 3-8 6 REB
                            Game 3: Battier 0-7 3 REB West 5-13 9 REB
                            Game 2: Battier 1-2 5 REB West 5-13 10 REB
                            Game 1: Battier 0-3 3 REB West 6-12 12 REB

                            OK, those are raw numbers, and don't take into account who is guarding who. But I think the burden of proof HAS to be on someone claiming Battier shut down West and West couldn't do anything against him defensively.
                            Great now we have some stats that prove that West is a lock down defender

                            I don't think anybody is saying that Battie killed West on offense, everybody knows Battie is not an offensive player so those numbers don't mean anything.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I suppose we need a working definition of "shutting down"

                              edit:

                              Lets see if the stats shed any light on this discussion.

                              Game #1 - 37 mins, 6 for 12, 17 points and 12 rebs

                              Game #2 - 41 mins 5-13 - 16pts and 10 rebs

                              Game #3 - 40 mins. 5-13, 14 points and 9 rebs

                              Game #4 28 minutes 3-8, 8 points West was in serious foul trouble

                              Game #5 - 31 minutes 5/13 10 pts. (this was a blowout, George was our leading scorer with 11

                              Game #6 - 41 mins 10/16 24 points and 8 rebs.


                              OK if those were Lebron james numbers, yeah he was to a certain degree shut down, but for West those are his typical numbers. Averaged 15 points per game. (also keep in mind the heats defense was really focused on West
                              You beat me to it! But to go even further, West wasn't brought in to be a focal point of our offense, as much as he was meant to be a stabilizer/consistent performer. He had 2 sub-par games, one really good game and 3 typical solid D.West games. I don't think he was "shut down" at all

                              Comment


                              • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Great now we have some stats that prove that West is a lock down defender

                                I don't think anybody is saying that Battie killed West on offense, everybody knows Battie is not an offensive player so those numbers don't mean anything.
                                I never NEV ER NEVER said these showed West was a "lock down" defenser.

                                You said:

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Yes he did, West was not able to do s*** against him, not only that but his poor defense and poor rebounding didn't help either.
                                These stats seem to indicate West was not shut down, and that his "poor defense" didn't help Battier do better.

                                You are really going to have to come up with something better to support your claim that West was helpless against Battier.

                                I don't need to somehow show West as DPOY or MVP to refute that Battier had his number.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X