Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

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

  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

    What does it take to get just an interview? If rebuilding is so easy, and it would result in such a better ran franchise, then we need to do all we can to get Vnlza to Simons so we can start rooting for a winner.

    I have a hard time believing it's such a simple plan to execute, when teams routinely stay horrible after getting lottery pick after lottery pick. If it really is this easy, then it's like they try to be so bad at their jobs.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      If it really is this easy, then it's like they try to be so bad at their jobs.
      Well, the current theory seems to be that you can make more money being consistently bad so it is better to get your fans to "buy in" to the concept.
      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: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        What does it take to get just an interview? If rebuilding is so easy, and it would result in such a better ran franchise, then we need to do all we can to get Vnlza to Simons so we can start rooting for a winner.

        I have a hard time believing it's such a simple plan to execute, when teams routinely stay horrible after getting lottery pick after lottery pick. If it really is this easy, then it's like they try to be so bad at their jobs.
        And nobody is saying that is easy and yes a lot of GM's are bad at their jobs.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Well, the current theory seems to be that you can make more money being consistently bad so it is better to get your fans to "buy in" to the concept.
          Consistently bad? no, consistently mediocre? yes, win 40/45 games a year and get to the second round every year while getting a percentage of the money teams like NY, Lakers, etc are expending = good business.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Consistent bad? no, consistent mediocre? yes, win 40/45 games a year and get to the second round every year while getting a percentage of the money teams like NY, Lakers, etc are expending = good business.
            So let me ask you in all seriousness - given that not everyone spending NY/Lakers money wins a championship or gets to the finals, how many years of spending that kind of crazy money without winning a championship does it take before someone can believe that an owner/franchise really wants to win? When does it then become that the owner/franchise is incompetent because they obviously spent the money on the wrong people (because spending that kind of money otherwise would bring a championship)?

            Remember, it has not been that long ago that the Pacers had a contending (ECF and Finals appearances) team with a salary well over the cap (before the LT), and the Simons spent all kinds of money - and yet the argument was STILL that they weren't doing enough to win a championship.

            It seems to become the "there is no try" argument again - the only way to prove you are trying to win a championship is to win one. No one who made it to a high level (and by that I mean conference finals or higher) but got beat actually tried to win, since they didn't win.
            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: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              And nobody is saying that is easy and yes a lot of GM's are bad at their jobs.
              Easy is a relative term. You're arguing that it's easier to rebuild by tanking than it is by "staying mediocore."

              I just find it funny that you keep hanging your verberal hat on San Antonio, while ignoring the other 90% of cases where it doesn't work out that way. Teams try to tank to rebuild all the time, or they just happen to be in the lottery all the time so if whether or not it's on purpose is moot, and they still can't manage to follow your blueprint to success.

              If tanking is an easier path to rebuilding, then more teams would do it, and more teams would jump from the bottom to the top. And yet they don't. Theories sound good on paper, but are much harder to execute once you actually try to put them into practice.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Consistently bad? no, consistently mediocre? yes, win 40/45 games a year and get to the second round every year while getting a percentage of the money teams like NY, Lakers, etc are expending = good business.
                And another thing - we've gone from defining constantly being in the second round as "not contending" to defining it as "mediocre", pretty much meaning that of 30 teams only 4 of them aren't mediocre. The former I argument I can at least accept as valid even if I don't agree with it necessarily. The latter is rather ludicrous.
                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: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  So let me ask you in all seriousness - given that not everyone spending NY/Lakers money wins a championship or gets to the finals, how many years of spending that kind of crazy money without winning a championship does it take before someone can believe that an owner/franchise really wants to win? When does it then become that the owner/franchise is incompetent because they obviously spent the money on the wrong people (because spending that kind of money otherwise would bring a championship)?

                  Remember, it has not been that long ago that the Pacers had a contending (ECF and Finals appearances) team with a salary well over the cap (before the LT), and the Simons spent all kinds of money - and yet the argument was STILL that they weren't doing enough to win a championship.

                  It seems to become the "there is no try" argument again - the only way to prove you are trying to win a championship is to win one. No one who made it to a high level (and by that I mean conference finals or higher) but got beat actually tried to win, since they didn't win.
                  I think the Simons were willing to go over the cap in the previous CBA, I don't think they are willing to do the same in the new CBA because of the penalties plus the money the will lose if they go over the tax line, so not only they have to pay the penalties but they also lose the "free money" they were going to get from the tax paying teams.

                  By the way I don't think you have to overspend the same way teams like NY or LA do, my point is that at some point if you want to win a championship you have to get over the tax line, how many teams over the past 15 years that won a championship were under the tax line? my guess is 0.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Easy is a relative term. You're arguing that it's easier to rebuild by tanking than it is by "staying mediocore."

                    I just find it funny that you keep hanging your verberal hat on San Antonio, while ignoring the other 90% of cases where it doesn't work out that way. Teams try to tank to rebuild all the time, or they just happen to be in the lottery all the time so if whether or not it's on purpose is moot, and they still can't manage to follow your blueprint to success.

                    If tanking is an easier path to rebuilding, then more teams would do it, and more teams would jump from the bottom to the top. And yet they don't. Theories sound good on paper, but are much harder to execute once you actually try to put them into practice.
                    It's easier if you have a competent front office, just because other teams with crappy front offices have failed doesn't mean that your team is also going to fail, I guess you guys don't trust the Pacers front office the same way I do even though I'm the one criticizing them for their failures.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      It's easier if you have a competent front office, just because other teams with crappy front offices have failed doesn't mean that your team is also going to fail, I guess you guys don't trust the Pacers front office the same way I do even though I'm the one criticizing them for their failures.
                      You sure can come up with some doozies.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        And another thing - we've gone from defining constantly being in the second round as "not contending" to defining it as "mediocre", pretty much meaning that of 30 teams only 4 of them aren't mediocre. The former I argument I can at least accept as valid even if I don't agree with it necessarily. The latter is rather ludicrous.
                        A team that is constantly staying in the same place year after year even if they get to the second round is "mediocre" in my book, the Hawks are "mediocre", Milwaukee trying to get to 8th place every year is "mediocre", maybe a difference qualification of "mediocre" but they are still competing to be in purgatory.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I think the Simons were willing to go over the cap in the previous CBA, I don't think they are willing to do the same in the new CBA because of the penalties plus the money the will lose if they go over the tax line, so not only they have to pay the penalties but they also lose the "free money" they were going to get from the tax paying teams.
                          My understanding of the current CBA is that you actually lose LESS by going over the LT level than you did in the previous CBA - am I not remembering correctly that the LT level is tiered and that as long as you are below a certain tier in the tax you still receive money from teams paying more tax than you - so it isn't a complete "all or nothing" at the LT line like it used to be.

                          I also don't quite understand the penalties you seem to be talking about for being over the CAP. Do you mean the drastic escalation if you are over the TAX, or is there some cap penalty I can't remember besides just trade issues and restrictions to using exceptions?
                          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: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            A team that is constantly staying in the same place year after year even if they get to the second round is "mediocre" in my book, the Hawks are "mediocre", Milwaukee trying to get to 8th place every year is "mediocre", maybe a difference qualification of "mediocre" but they are still competing to be in purgatory.
                            OK. Not any definition of "mediocre" I've ever heard of, as it tends to carry connotations of being below average not just failing to improve from an already good position. I might define the Bucks in your scenario as "mediocre", likely not the Hawks - I'd define them as "having reached their limit" or something similar rather than applying a term that means they are actually doing poorly as well.
                            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: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              My understanding of the current CBA is that you actually lose LESS by going over the LT level than you did in the previous CBA - am I not remembering correctly that the LT level is tiered and that as long as you are below a certain tier in the tax you still receive money from teams paying more tax than you - so it isn't a complete "all or nothing" at the LT line like it used to be.

                              I also don't quite understand the penalties you seem to be talking about for being over the CAP. Do you mean the drastic escalation if you are over the TAX, or is there some cap penalty I can't remember besides just trade issues and restrictions to using exceptions?
                              The 1.50 per every dollar teams pay now instead of the 1 for every dollar penalty. (not sure if it's 1.50 or 1.25)
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Yes they tanked and yes they are a class organization, just because they tanked doesn't put an asterisk next to their championships, that's the way the NBA system is, if you tank you have a possibility to get the highest pick and they were smart enough to tank.

                                As an example the Colts tanked for Luck last year, does that make them less of an organization compared to other teams? nope, as soon as they start winning SB's nobody would even care to talk about the tanking year.
                                How does that compare them to the Pacers who refuse to tank even though we were sitting at a possible 4th. worse record just a few years ago and ending with something like 10th.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X