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

1998. Vs 2013

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

  • #16
    Re: 1998. Vs 2013

    I gave you almost no shot in 98. The Bulls WERE a dynasty. And MJ was an assassin.

    I give you at least a 50-50 shot tomorrow. The Heat have been crowned a dynasty by the media way before they deserved to be.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 1998. Vs 2013

      I think this 2013 team is about to win a title. Lets not compare right now because that makes me think you believe we'll lose tomorrow.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 1998. Vs 2013

        The loss that left the worst taste in my mouth was the '95 Game 7 where we got blown out by Orlando. The whole team laid an egg there. I was so disappointed because I thought after '94 we would be right there in the hunt.

        I actually don't remember the 1998 Bulls series hardly at all. Which is odd, because I was older. I was visiting family out of the country during the 2000 Finals, this was before the internet was what it is now, my relatives didn't even have the internet so I had to endure the agony of checking box scores in USA Today.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 1998. Vs 2013

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
          I gave you almost no shot in 98. The Bulls WERE a dynasty. And MJ was an assassin.

          I give you at least a 50-50 shot tomorrow. The Heat have been crowned a dynasty by the media way before they deserved to be.
          You weren't very smart if you gave us no shot. Pacers had them. And blew it at the end. Not to mention they gave the Bulls game 6 by suspending Jalen for walking towards the scores tables during a minor fight.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 1998. Vs 2013

            Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
            You weren't very smart if you gave us no shot. Pacers had them. And blew it at the end. Not to mention they gave the Bulls game 6 by suspending Jalen for walking towards the scores tables during a minor fight.
            Whoops ment Game 5.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 1998. Vs 2013

              Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
              You weren't very smart if you gave us no shot. Pacers had them. And blew it at the end. Not to mention they gave the Bulls game 6 by suspending Jalen for walking towards the scores tables during a minor fight.
              Yeah, that series was a war. I was only 12 at the time but man I was sure we had them.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                The Bulls were an established dynasty, so beating them would have been incredible. It hurt to lose, but was kind of expected. Nobody beats MJ in the playoffs. Lebron is known to lose playoff games, though tomorrow has a different feel
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                  IN 97-98 Chicago was 0-5 at Market Square Arena. The Pacers were every bit Chicago's match, they were probably the best NBA Pacers team ever.

                  If anyone also remembers, it was a war to win the first seed. The Pacers just couldn't quite do it, going 58-24.. If they had one the 1 seed? That would have been a Pacers championship.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                    Oh and game 7 was devastating. I couldn't handle it.

                    I cried. Yep. I cried. lol

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                      If I'm not mistaken in game 7 in 1998 there were two shot clock violation calls that would have turned the game to a Pacers win if they had instant replay back then, one a bad call against Jalen as he released a shot, then another no call where I believe Pippen didn't quite get it off. Rough day, definitely could have won.

                      Speaking of great Pacer teams, anyone see ESPN ran a graphic saying the Pacers had never been to the Finals and are seeking their first visit? How do they not remember a Finals as recent as 2000? Worldwide leader my a$$. Saw a Croshere retweet earlier today with a pic of the graphic.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                        Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                        You weren't very smart if you gave us no shot. Pacers had them. And blew it at the end. Not to mention they gave the Bulls game 6 by suspending Jalen for walking towards the scores tables during a minor fight.
                        Really? Did you win the series or something?

                        I hated the Bulls and the Pacers weren't winning that series, Somehow the Bulls were winning. They just knew how and they sure knew how in a game 7. That was my mindset and had been for every playoff series we'd had with them since 1993.

                        You may want to improve your own mental acuity. The Bulls did not lose those kinds of series. Ever. The Pacers lost them with some regularity.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          Really? Did you win the series or something?

                          I hated the Bulls and the Pacers weren't winning that series, Somehow the Bulls were winning. They just knew how and they sure knew how in a game 7. That was my mindset and had been for every playoff series we'd had with them since 1993.

                          You may want to improve your own mental acuity. The Bulls did not lose those kinds of series. Ever. The Pacers lost them with some regularity.
                          I think his point was that you made it seem like we were completely overmatched against that Bulls team, when in reality it was very even. Every game was a close battle, and as noted, we had a lead late in the fourth quarter of Game 7, so saying we had no shot seems a little extreme. I get your point that the Bulls just refused to lose those type of games, but that Pacers team absolutely had a shot, and came damn close to pulling it off.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                            You have to understand a few things to put 1998 in perspective.

                            First... the arena. The home games in 1998 were in Market Square Arena, an old-school straight up and down arena with no luxury boxes. During the playoffs that year, the stadium got SO LOUD. And it was not a 1/2 Bulls 1/2 Pacers type of crowd. Yes, there were Jordan and Pippen jerseys, but it was truly a Pacers crowd. The loudest Pacers crowd in history may have been in reaction to Miller's last second three in that series. The arena gave it such a personal feel, and the city was collectively together in the experience.

                            Now, Conseco/BLF is a much nicer place, and much more beautiful. I was at Game 4 of the Knicks series and Game 4 of the Heat series this year in the lower level suite, and it is a really nice place to watch a game. It got really loud. The suite was great. But I would trade the suite experience for another chance to watch a game at sold-out MSA.

                            Second, the opponent. Unless you lived through it and remember it, you cannot understand how universally loved Michael Jordan was in his prime. The Bulls team of the 90s single-handedly revolutionized televised, cable NBA games. Looking back this has been well-documented. But to live through it - the guy really never failed in his prime (unless you include the playoff game against the Magic in his first year of his comeback). He was invincible and had been for nearly a decade. The league was different when he retired mid-decade, and it was different when he returned. There was no question of his greatness. They were the two-time defending champs and they had already three-peated earlier in the decade. They were working to cement the 'greatest team ever' title and had 5 rings already to prove it.

                            In comparison, this Heat team is not historically on the same level as that Bulls team. This is the equivalent of playing Michael's Bulls in 91 or 92, which were great teams but not yet on the historically grand scale. Lebron James may someday be declared the GOAT, but he isn't yet, and he doesn't have the hardware to prove it. He also is not as universally loveable as Jordan was during his primtime years.

                            Finally, the Hoosier context. The 1998 Pacers happened after decades of losing in the Hoosier state at multiple levels and brought a ray of hope into a city hoping beyond hope for a champion. Other than the miracle run by the Colts in 1995, the only hope in town for a winner was the mid-90s Pacers. There was no collective memory of going to multiple Colts playoff games, or a Super Bowl, or even hosting a Super Bowl. The IU teams were above average, but the Bob Knight era was about to come to an end. Peyton Manning had not even arrived in town yet, and the Colts were terrible the season before. In other words, there was a huge sports void, and the Pacers filled it. And they were the first to fill it since the early-to-mid-80s IU teams and the brief success and fame that Eric Dickerson brought the Colts in the 80s. Imagine that.

                            Now our city watches the 2013 Pacers and we have the collective memory of what it was like to root for 2 Super Bowl teams and 1 NBA finals teams. In 1998, we had NO memories of that.

                            In my lifetime, the 1998 team was the best I ever saw, and they arrived during a void in Indiana sports that needed filled, and they were moments away from doing it against perhaps the greatest team/player of all time.

                            This team may go down as being the best ever if it goes to the NBA finals and shocks the world. But tonight goes a long way in my mind to determining whether they join the fun teams of the 90s that never made it to the mountain top, or whether they can take that next step.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                              Originally posted by Smits Happens View Post
                              I think his point was that you made it seem like we were completely overmatched against that Bulls team, when in reality it was very even. Every game was a close battle, and as noted, we had a lead late in the fourth quarter of Game 7, so saying we had no shot seems a little extreme. I get your point that the Bulls just refused to lose those type of games, but that Pacers team absolutely had a shot, and came damn close to pulling it off.
                              No, the original questioon was what people thought before the game. That's what I thought going into the game, particularly as, IIRC, you'd been blown out the last time you were on their floor.

                              The fact that you made it competitive is completely irrelevant to the question. And this poster's idea that he should insult my intelligence because I have a viewpoint that's different from his is complete and utter bullsh!!t.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 1998. Vs 2013

                                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                                No, the original questioon was what people thought before the game. That's what I thought going into the game, particularly as, IIRC, you'd been blown out the last time you were on their floor.

                                The fact that you made it competitive is completely irrelevant to the question. And this poster's idea that he should insult my intelligence because I have a viewpoint that's different from his is complete and utter bullsh!!t.
                                Fair enough. You were right that game 5 was a bigger blowout than I remembered, although every other game was tight. I'd say most Pacers fans gave us a legitimate shot to win Game 7, and we were proven right based on how competitive the game was, but if you didn't, so be it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X