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

Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

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

  • #16
    Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
    Little help here needed.

    "The gap between C.J. Watson and the bricktastic 2012-13 version of D.J. Augustin is about as large as the gap between Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff."

    WTF is those last 2? Does he mean it's small or huge?


    Unclebuck, it's not about insecurity. Far from it. What bugs me is why he has Chicago above us and refuses to see the last season's results/performances.
    Because Rose is back? How does he know how Rose will perform after the injury? BTW the guys are here. Latest example with Rose was not flattering (2011 ECF).
    It's a Harry Potter reference, as Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are two out of the four houses that make up Hogwarts. Although it doesn't make much sense, and I've read all the books multiple times.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I think his analysis is certainly reasonable and it is his opinion. So I don't see why any Pacers fans should take offense.

      Are we that insecure as fans that anytime there is an alaysis where the Pacers aren't picked to win it all we get all riled up? We get all defensive about how we never get any respect.

      Assuming no major injuries, the Pacers, Bulls and Heat are all going to be really good. of course the heat have proven themselvbes, so they are really in a class by themselves. Nets are extremely talented and dangerous and if healthy in April and May will be very tough to beat. Also the Knicks won't be bad either.


      I cannot wait for the regular season
      I think the disagreeable part there is that Chicago is always ranked higher than just because they have a returning former MVP/superstar in Derrick Rose in terms of greatest threat to Miami Heat.

      I mean, sure, Chicago before Rose went down full time were topping the regular season standings, but come playoff time they never posed much of a threat to the Heat, even with a healthy Rose and a homecourt advantage they only managed to win 1 game in the ECF. Meanwhile, the Pacers, with no superstar, no season MVP and no homecourt advantage have managed to make the series tough to better Miami Heat teams (those Heat teams won 2 championships, the Chicago one was just a runner-up). While I do agree that the Pacers need to prove it, I don't know why Chicago has been looked at as a contender when with a healthy Rose never managed to do better than the Pacers in the playoffs. So in a sense, if we do agree that the Pacers are at lower tier from the contenders, Chicago should be too as they also have yet to prove it, specifically in the playoffs.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

        Ok, my only real beef is his assertion that we struggled with the Knicks. Gonna have to disagree with that. Pretty sure we would have closed in 5 had Hill been healthy.


        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Ok, my only real beef is his assertion that we struggled with the Knicks. Gonna have to disagree with that. Pretty sure we would have closed in 5 had Hill been healthy.

          Yeah, did he even watch that series? The Knicks' only good fortune in that series came in Game 5 when Hill was hurt, and in the fourth quarter of Game 2 when they couldn't miss. Aside from that, the Pacers COMPLETELY DOMINATED that series. The Knicks had no answer for our physical style of play and their body language was that of a completely defeated team.

          And he makes it sound like we were a one seed who struggled with an eight seed. The Knicks were the two seeded 54 win team with home court advantage. The Knicks were the team that all of the national NBA media was slobbering over down the stretch of that season. The Knicks were the team who were picked by most of the elite media to win that series. But the Pacers DOMINATED them.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

            Well they only thing you all can do is flood his Twitter account with all the evidence and reasoning you have put forth in this thread. Flood away!!!

            i will say that i agree he is basing his opinion on a a few items that all teams struggle with, I mean what team in that top 4 didn't have a streaky shooting bench.
            Our only Achilles Heel from last season was our turnovers. I think our bench certainly cost us wins in the regular season, but in the playoffs we lost from all the poor turnovers.

            I look at the Bulls and I say yeah prove it, but only Jimmy Butler is really the question mark on their starting unit. Can he pick up the scoring load if Rose falters a bit? Their bench looks terrible though. Outside of Gibson, Bunch of slow players past their primes and who could never really defend in the first place. They really have a lack of depth on that team.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              It's a Harry Potter reference, as Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are two out of the four houses that make up Hogwarts. Although it doesn't make much sense, and I've read all the books multiple times.
              I struggled with that initially, as well. I think Hufflepuff had the perception in the books of being lovable losers, whereas Ravenclaw were studious and very serious. So a big gap.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                I disagree with some things in that piece, but one thing I wanted to point out is that Lowe sees the Bulls past history differently than has been brought up in this thread. That's probably where most of the discrepancy comes from and why they are ranked so high. From his article on Rose on Monday:

                But this team is loaded — if Rose can be something like Rose again. The Bulls finished with the league’s best record in two seasons with a healthy Rose and Tom Thibodeau bellowing on the sidelines. They fell to Miami in five games in the conference finals in 2011, but those games were insanely competitive; the Heat needed overtime to secure Game 4 and an improbable streak of crazy jump-shooting from LeBron James to clinch Game 5. Carlos Boozer was dealing with turf toe, and Chicago lost Omer Asik to a broken leg late in the series. And it returned better than ever in 2011-12, with the league’s no. 5 offense and (by far) the best point differential.
                http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...k-rose-is-back

                He probably would rank Chicago and Indiana's chances against Miami similarly, but he would probably say that's with Chicago being an elite team that is an ok matchup with Miami, while the Pacers are a great team that match up very well against Miami. So he puts Chicago's chances overall to be better. And that's a reasonable opinion, even though some of the reasons he presents are kind of weak. I personally think Chicago and Indiana should be on the same tier (whether that be tier 1 or 2), but the overall ranking of 5 seems fine to me.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                  The positions would be reversed if the Pacers hadn't gotten worked by Chicago in their first game.

                  We're gonna be battling with Chicago all year long. I hear people talking about a Heat-Pacers rivalry, but what I expect to see is a Pacers-Bulls rivalry.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                    I think he is just afraid of Pacers ability to score consistently. Unlike the Pacers the Bulls have Rose who you can give the ball and tell him to make magic. We just need Paul George to get to that ability.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                      I mean it's a pretty big leap to just assume Rose is going to average 26 a game again.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        The positions would be reversed if the Pacers hadn't gotten worked by Chicago in their first game.
                        Really? If that's true, then it's more bad than I thought initially.
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                          Oh man, it is going to be so sweet to beat Chicago in 6 in the second round this year.

                          Also, the notion that the Pacers "had trouble" with the Knicks is pretty far-fetched. We beat them 4-2 and lost one of those games when George Hill was injured and we had to start Augustine. New York was never a threat to win the series provided Hill could play. Sometime you wonder if these guys watched the games.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                            I was really excited to read this thread. If Simmons had written it, the reaction would have been immediate vitriol and calling Simmons (or anyone else, really) a hack. But since pretty much anyone who reads anything about basketball can agree that Lowe is as good as it gets, this is getting more respect than this opinion would otherwise have gotten.

                            As to the column, it's fair. He makes good points. Put it this way: I think Miami is the best team in the league, but I would rather see them in a seven game playoff series than a fully healthy Bulls team. Part of that is because I love the way we match up with Miami, and part of that is the compromising of our home court with shitbird Bulls fans.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              What poster has said anything about not being picked to win it all?

                              I am referring to the common refrain we don't get any respect whenever there is an "expert" that doens't pick us to be as good as some in this forum think.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Grantland/Zach Lowe: "Kings Court: Evaluating the NBA's Tiers of Power" (Pacers listed #5)

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I am referring to the common refrain we don't get any respect whenever there is an "expert" that doens't pick us to be as good as some in this forum think.
                                Okay, since it's so common who's saying we're not getting any respect?

                                Disagreeing with rankings isn't crying, whining, *****ing, complaining about not getting any respect, complaining about not being picked to win it all. It's simply disagreeing with the rankings. I agree, as a board, we tend to go over the edge on some topics, but this aint one of them.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X