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

Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

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

  • #31
    Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    The argument is not which one is better. It is who is a better fit. Personally, I believe that DC is a better player than DJ. But DJ could be a better fit for our team. That would improve us as fit > talent.

    That may be true. But I'm just explaining why a national writer like Stein isn't overly impressed with our personnel moves.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      We didn't beat OKC and LAL on back to backs in a weekend. The Knicks beat us two consecutive days by a combined total of 29 points. One loss can be a fluke, but there's something alarming when it happens back to back days to the same team.

      All I'm saying is that I think that too many people on this forum and around the NBA in general have written the Knicks off. Do I think we could beat them in the playoffs? Absolutely. But would I be the least bit surprised if they beat us.

      Also, the Knicks would have likely steamrolled the Magic just like we did. And we won one more game against the Heat than them, but they had to contend with Bosh for the entire series.
      The Knicks have a ton of pure talent. No one is debating that. If the games were played on paper, they would easily be better than the Pacers. The problem is, their talent doesn't mesh very well. It's a poorly put together roster. While they have the ability to click on any given night (or two, since you seem to be putting an alarming amount of stock in a random back-to-back), I don't think they can sustain that throughout an entire season or throughout a playoff series against a team that is relatively close in talent but more cohesively put together.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        The Knicks beat us two consecutive days by a combined total of 29 points. One loss can be a fluke, but there's something alarming when it happens back to back days to the same team.
        Fresh off a coaching change, no fanbase should understand how that can re-energize a team better than us.
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          We didn't beat OKC and LAL on back to backs in a weekend.
          Cause we didn't play them on a back to back in a weekend

          Also, I don't remember OKC or LAL beating us at all. Also, I don't remember us having a 4th quarter meltdown against OKC and LAL last season which lead to an epic 40 - 17 4th quarter comeback.

          That's the problem with cherry-picking results, my friend. Anyone can do this

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          All I'm saying is that I think that too many people on this forum and around the NBA in general have written the Knicks off. Do I think we could beat them in the playoffs? Absolutely. But would I be the least bit surprised if they beat us.
          There are several people who have written the Knicks off but there's a good reason for this. Their flaws are quite obvious.

          Personally, I'm not going to write them off just yet for the simple reason that this is the first full season under Woodson. I'll have to wait and see how they perform before I judge them.

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Also, the Knicks would have likely steamrolled the Magic just like we did. And we won one more game against the Heat than them, but they had to contend with Bosh for the entire series.
          Yeah, they would probably beat the Magic.

          About the Heat series though. It's not a matter of 4 - 1 vs 4 - 2. It's the matter that both teams lost the series. The Heat never beat the Pacers by 33 points. I repeat, 33 points. Also, the Knicks were never ahead in the series. We were ahead 2 - 1 at one point. Their only win came after they were already down 3 - 0.

          I can see why some people have not written the Knicks off. I can see why they still consider them formidable opponents. And I do as well. But the idea of them being better than us just because they have sexier names is preposterous.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Collison and Augistin essentially cancel each other out. If Augistin is better than Collison, it isn't by much. Augistin was able to do a lot more last year because he was on such a bad team. Collison had to share with George Hill.

            Our net gain was essentially Gerald Green, Ian Mahinmi, a rookie, and some scrubs for training camp. That's not enough to make a national writer like Stein bat an eye. It's pretty weak compared to what most teams in the East did this offseason.
            This wasn't the offseason moves power rankings though... I believe they did those a month or two ago...

            This is the actual power rankings... And I don't see how a team that finished 5th in the league and lost in 6 to the eventual champs in the 2nd round and then added talent to the bench plus should grow some talent in 3 of the 5 starters doesn't put us a notch or two higher than we are here...

            I can see how everyone not named Philly or Clippers are ahead of us though...

            The Clippers are way overrated... All offense no D...

            And I'm not sold on Bynum being a savior in Philly... As others have pointed out he has some major maturity issues to overcome and is very injury prone... I don't see him leading them past a playoff birth this year... They scream first round out to me...

            And Dallas at 10 is absurd...
            Last edited by J7F; 09-30-2012, 12:13 PM.
            Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

              A few thoughts:

              You cannot overlook Bynum's history of immaturity when talking about the Sixers. For years he was kept in check in LA by Phil, Kobe, Gasol, Fisher, etc. We saw how he reacted to a new, younger coach last season and I wasn't impressed. In addition to very real concerns over his injury history, I think there are huge question marks surrounding his ability to be a franchise player - especially in a tough media market. Consider me unimpressed by Philly.

              As far as the Clippers, unless Vinny Del Negro was replaced, I don't see them doing much. They're almost like a mid-2000s Phoenix Suns redux. Sexy pick, I'll be watching them on league pass, but I don't think they're one of the 10 best teams in the league.

              Boston has come in with the age questions each of the last 3 years. At some point they are going to break down, but until I actually see it happen, I have no problems with them where they are on this list.

              If Minnesota's roster played for the New York Knicks or Brooklyn Nets, I seriously feel like they would crack the top 10 in a lot of these rankings. Rubio coming back (assuming he's fully recovered from his knee injury) is going to be huge - they were on track for a playoff spot before he got hurt last year. Wouldn't surprise me to see them challenging the Utah/Dallas/Memphis slots in the West.

              I have no idea what Portland will do this year, but Lillard will be a treat to watch. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see them in the playoffs.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                I also understand how San An and Boston are put above us with the way their veterans pushed them to another level later last season... But those aging teams have Indiana and Denver respectively waiting to overthrow them...
                Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                  I'm just glad this year we're arguing over whether or not we should be a little above or below 8th best in the league.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                    The problem with these rankings is they really are mostly just looking at the stat sheets, and not taking into consideration all of the intangibles. Sexy names are nice, but as the Knicks have proven you need more than sexy names, and a sexy name doesn't always mean that player is more talented either. I think this is missed most of all with Bynum. Not only does he have maturity and injury issues, but as far as I can remember outside of maybe his first season or two he hasn't spent a season as the best post player on his team. At best he was the third best player on the Lakers any given season, put him in a situation where he is the focal point and given his maturity issues I see him as being put in a position where he is just as likely to be an epic failure as he is to be their savior.

                    I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the Clippers, but not on the 76ers. Not when they had to give up Iggy.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                      Its important to remember that when the Knicks beat us twice we were without George Hill, who even though he wasn't starting he was more important than DC at this point.

                      Besides, I am sorry but the Knicks lost Lin and we saw how well Carmelo and Amare work without Lin. They don't work, like at all.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        And you know this how?

                        Speaking of the regular season though, they did wax us pretty good on a back to back in March.....
                        And they went a whopping 36-30 on the season and only made the playoffs because of a coaching change. The Knicks started 18-24 last year and were going nowhere.
                        Last edited by hoosierguy; 09-30-2012, 04:00 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                          The media always hypes the teams with the superstars or that made a big move in the offseason. The teams that dont make much noise get overlooked and undervalued.

                          The Clippers and Sixers are not better than the Pacers. Indy should be at least #6. Boston had a mediocre regular season and caught a lucky break in the playoffs with Rose going down.
                          Last edited by hoosierguy; 09-30-2012, 04:12 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                            The media always hypes the teams with the superstars or that made a big move in the offseason. The teams that dont make much noise get overlooked and undervalued.

                            The Clippers and Sixers are not better than the Pacers. Indy should be at least #6. Boston had a mediocre regular season and caught a lucky break in the playoffs with Rose going down.
                            Honestly I would probably take the clippers (Blake Paul, and company) over our roster. They have a ton of talent...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                              Honestly I would probably take the clippers (Blake Paul, and company) over our roster. They have a ton of talent...
                              Yeah, they had a lot of similar talent last year as well and I think our squad was better last year. The Clippers will be good, but it's too early to tell if that roster will live up to it's potential. They have Crawford who didn't fair too well in Portland last year. We all know Lamar Odom was just terrible last year. Matt Barnes has never been anything special imo. Grant Hill will be good for them. They basically added a bunch of small forwards and guards who can play small forward.

                              As for the Sixers, they should not be ahead of us by any means. They added Bynum and that's about it. They are relying on Turner to make a big improvement and I don't think it'll happen.

                              Also, I have a lot of doubts about the Nets. They added some decent pieces on paper I guess, but the biggest name was Joe Johnson and I don't think he automatically makes them a contender by any means. Imo the Nets will be anywhere from an 8th seed at worst, 5th seed at their complete best.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                                i think the #8 ranking is at least arguably fair. I think were better than the Clippers and the 76ers, but I can see how most others would disagree. The Clippers are obviously loaded with talent, and should be better this year with Crawford, a full season of Billups and Grant Hill addressing the weaknesses in their roster from last year.

                                And people forget that the 76ers had arguably at least as good a postseason as the Pacers did. They pretty handedly beat the 1 seed without Derrick Rose (we did the same against a worse Magic team without Dwight) and took the Celtics to 7, who came within a good 4th quarter of beating the Heat. And regardless of how much theyll miss Iggy, their improvements from last year are more apparent than ours (Nick Young, Dorrell Wright and the clear cut 2nd best center in the league) and their room for internal improvement is at least as great as ours (Evan Turner and Jrue Holiday mainly).

                                If we were objectively trying to look at the situation from the outside, I think opinions here would change. If the 76ers signed Mahimni, Green and DJ in teh offseason (and drafted Miles Plumlee), and we traded say Danny for Andrew Bynum, I guarantee you most people here would be laughing at the 76ers offseason acquisitions, probably saying they didnt get any better at all, while we were poised to win the East.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X