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

Could there be a Pacers way of building...

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

  • #91
    Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Sure. This thread though is about building a team. The Pistons were built with savvy drafting and trades. Hard-nosed defense. Team play, rebounding. Good coaching. Relatively low star power. Same as the 90s Pacers. Hell, both teams had the same coach for large stretches of their runs. That's all I'm saying is that the Pacers did this before the Pistons did, the Pistons just got 2 games farther (Indy lost 4-2 to LA). It was an extremely similar run. And I'd say that the current version of the Pacers is really doing the exact same thing again as that 90's team. We're built very similarly.... but I'd say this time around we're using savvy drafting way more than the first time.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

      I we're going to strip this down to a bare-bones "no superstar" thread, then yes, they fall into the same category. But the 00's Pistons and this current pacer team have much more in common than that.

      I'd add that three of your four best players this season were acquired via trade or free agency.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        I we're going to strip this down to a bare-bones "no superstar" thread, then yes, they fall into the same category. But the 00's Pistons and this current pacer team have much more in common than that.

        I'd add that three of your four best players this season were acquired via trade or free agency.
        Are we counting Lance in that group? Lance, West, and Hill? I would count Lance as a guy we drafted.


        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Are we counting Lance in that group? Lance, West, and Hill? I would count Lance as a guy we drafted.
          Yeah, I'd count Lance. But he isn't one of your core 4 this season. He's been yo-yoed in and out of the starting lineup, though admittedly he's having a very fine year regardless.

          George-drafted
          Hill-trade
          Hibbert-trade
          West-FA

          Yes, a lot of the support guys were draft picks, but this team is not anywhere near where they are now without those four guys carrying them.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Yeah, I'd count Lance. But he isn't one of your core 4 this season.

            George-drafted
            Hill-trade
            Hibbert-trade
            West-FA
            I would count Hibbert as drafted, he was always the guy we wanted at that slot.


            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

              That pick was unofficially ours when it was made. I see it as a draft as well. It's not like Toronto wanted him, picked him, then later decided to trade him. We had already agreed to that trade in principle prior to the draft and they picked Roy because we told them to.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I would count Hibbert as drafted, he was always the guy we wanted at that slot.
                I don't buy it for a second. He wasn't even the highest pick you traded for. Brandon Rush was.

                I believe Larry wanted him from the start, but no way was he piking him 11th. He was a high risk/reward guy that paid off.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Yeah, I'd count Lance. But he isn't one of your core 4 this season. He's been yo-yoed in and out of the starting lineup, though admittedly he's having a very fine year regardless.

                  George-drafted
                  Hill-trade
                  Hibbert-trade
                  West-FA

                  Yes, a lot of the support guys were draft picks, but this team is not anywhere near where they are now without those four guys carrying them.
                  He's started 41 of 47 games played this year. Your "yo-yoed" comment made me look that up for some reason.
                  Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    I don't buy it for a second. He wasn't even the highest pick you traded for. Brandon Rush was.

                    I believe Larry wanted him from the start, but no way was he piking him 11th. He was a high risk/reward guy that paid off.
                    What I'm saying is we told Toronto to pick Hibbert. Like Hicks said, it's not like we said hey we want Hibbert since you guys drafted him, we said draft Hibbert.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                      Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                      That pick was unofficially ours when it was made. I see it as a draft as well. It's not like Toronto wanted him, picked him, then later decided to trade him. We had already agreed to that trade in principle prior to the draft and they picked Roy because we told them to.
                      My point is, you told them to draft Brandon Rush first. He was higher on Bird's priority list. Had Toronto turned down the deal, Indiana likely would have taken Rush 11th.

                      If Bird believed he was worth taking at #11, he would have seen to it that Hibbert would be taken 13th and not 17th, regardless of where he thought Hibbert would actually land. That's definitely a trade acquisition in my book.

                      Likewise, I count Kobe as a trade acquisition, rather than a Laker draft pick.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 02:48 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Sure. This thread though is about building a team. The Pistons were built with savvy drafting and trades. Hard-nosed defense. Team play, rebounding. Good coaching. Relatively low star power. Same as the 90s Pacers. Hell, both teams had the same coach for large stretches of their runs. That's all I'm saying is that the Pacers did this before the Pistons did, the Pistons just got 2 games farther (Indy lost 4-2 to LA). It was an extremely similar run. And I'd say that the current version of the Pacers is really doing the exact same thing again as that 90's team. We're built very similarly.... but I'd say this time around we're using savvy drafting way more than the first time.
                        And the Bucks did the same thing in the 80s. I mean, check out their records in that decade under Don Nelson and Del Harris.

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/

                        So, maybe Milwaukee started this way to build a team in the 80s.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          My point is, you told them to draft Brandon Rush first. He was higher on Bird's priority list. Had Toronto turned down the deal, Indiana likely would have taken Rush 11th.

                          If Bird believed he was worth taking at #11, he would have seen to it that Hibbert would be taken 13th and not 17th, regardless of where he thought Hibbert would actually land. That's definitely a trade acquisition in my book.

                          Likewise, I count Kobe as a trade acquisition, rather than a Laker draft pick.
                          I get your logic here. No problem. But I would just lump acquisitions like Hibbert in the draft category, as all those types are players never before seen on an NBA floor. "True" trades and free agent pickups are known commodities. Two very different categories for acquiring players.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                            Originally posted by owl View Post
                            I dont think too many tears are going to be shed about that.
                            Teachers and many other professions are neither.
                            Lebron needs to start his one man league.
                            Agreed lets feel bad for the big baby cause ultimately it was his decision to end up in the situation he is in, and now all of a sudden he feels he's underpaid? somebody call the waaahmbulance.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                              The Pacers built perhaps the best team in the East with 5 ECF appearances over 7 years ending with a 6 game Finals team without tanking OR signing a big FA.

                              Then the Pacers made TWO TRADES and took that Finals team minus 3 guys (Jax, Dale, Rik) and made it the #1 team in the NBA by record, and please note this also included the best record vs West teams only, and they did it without even missing the playoffs. And they made the playoffs prior to the Ron deal. And even after the Ron trade you could hindsight and say that had they traded Ron and kept Brad that they might have been able to still be a #1 team with Carlisle coaching.


                              So the Pacers have already made this brilliant example twice, and yet I still have to read stuff even like your OP that suggests that somehow the one fanbase that should be intimately aware of how this can work actually thinks that they never have a chance and the NBA hates them.

                              When have the Pacers FAILED TO BUILD A WINNER without tanking? Only one time - JOB years. And the instant you swapped him for Vogel, in the same freaking season, the team went above 500 and was a playoff team.

                              Contrast that with the massive benefits of going up to get Tisdale, McCloud or even Person. Smits panned out but he was never #2 pick good, he was never Ewing, Jordan, Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq good.



                              The Pacers played .500 ball and ran off several years "stuck at .500". National writers called them the Indy 500. And then the only thing they did was change coaches. In fact they traded their CURRENT ALL-STAR (Detlef) and immediately made an ECF run. Meaning that the talent had been assembled without tanking. Reggie, Dale and even Detlef/McKey were assembled with picks outside the top 10 or a great trade.



                              Draft smart, trade smart, good coach = winning. Always. In the entire league. The Lakers didn't tank to get Kobe or Shaq, keep that in mind. Lopsided trades or cap space. And half their moves to make super teams backfire or at least make them worse than before. Meanwhile the Spurs haven't had a high pick in forever, and that's Duncan. Parker and Manu - nope, very late picks for stars. Hill which got them Leonard, not a high pick either.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                                And BTW, the Spurs keep disproving the "the NBA wants big market winners" theory and the instant a big market team wins people shout "other teams never have a chance".

                                People decide on a theory and then just ignore counter-evidence while waiting for something to prove their point. Then they bring it up with screams of outrage.

                                Originally posted by shags View Post
                                And the Bucks did the same thing in the 80s. I mean, check out their records in that decade under Don Nelson and Del Harris.

                                http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/

                                So, maybe Milwaukee started this way to build a team in the 80s.
                                See, I agree. The idea or "method" has proven strong over and over. My favorite is "you can't win without a top 5 pick player". Sure, because in the NBA most of the lower picks end up out of the NBA and the other talent gets shifted around till every team has at least 1 top 5 player. The Pacers had Mike Dunleavy and didn't even make the playoffs. Plus those same people will count Kobe as a top 5 because they forget.

                                Do you get the star and then win, or do the winner-type players BECOME STARS via their winning? If Kobe never wins a title is he still a guy you can win a title with, or does he earn the rep.

                                And what I'm getting at is what I'll now call the Flacco rule - by winning your rep is changed even though you are doing nothing different than you were when people thought less of you. Flacco is not a top 5 QB and he spent most of the playoffs throwing up interception bait high hanging bombs that kept being undefended or poorly defended. The one SB touchdown had his WR come back to the ball because it was underthrown and then the DB went flying past comically to allow a TD that had no biz being a TD. But Flacco gets credit as an elite QB, #1 by Hoge on ESPN a few days later.


                                So what this means is that when the Pacers win the title everyone will say "you can't win without a superstar like PG". But if they don't win then PG will have the DG mark of shame - he's just a Robin, not a Batman. Same player with an opinion based more around what his teammates do than what he does.




                                * should I tell you how I really feel?
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-06-2013, 06:23 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X