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

The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

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

  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

    It isn't because they lack scouts, it's because the GM doesn't make proper decisions based on the info he is given.

    Was Anthony Bennett a no brainer pick last summer?

    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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      It isn't because they lack scouts, it's because the GM doesn't make proper decisions based on the info he is given.

      Was Anthony Bennett a no brainer pick last summer?
      I don't think so.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Sure but what have those teams done with those choices though? Cleveland got Kirie because everybody knew he was the first pick but what have they done after that? what about the Bobcats? maybe MJ decides that he needs better scouts? I don't think is a coincidence that those teams get top picks every year and don't know what to do with it.
        So you think that letting teams that do a better job of scouting pick before them would help them pick the right player?
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          So you think that letting teams that do a better job of scouting pick before them would help them pick the right player?
          I think that reducing the numbers of choices can make them better at scouting(for the teams that are always top 5).
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            I think that reducing the numbers of choices can make them better at scouting(for the teams that are always top 5).
            This is crazy.

            These teams sacrifice entire seasons for high draft picks, and you think that's making them value them less?

            You really think teams that don't draft well in the lottery simply don't care about scouting?

            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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              I think that reducing the numbers of choices can make them better at scouting(for the teams that are always top 5).
              First off, the teams you mention got their #1 picks not by being the worst team but by winning the lottery. The Bobcats on the other hand never got a #1 pick because they lost the lottery.

              Secondly, it's why you limit the number of times a team can get the high pick within a certain time period. It makes it bad business to just try to sell tickets by having the current flavor-of-the-month hype guy without really trying to win games.

              Finally, even with a good team winning a championship takes a lot of things to go right. People rag on Cleveland for not getting a championship with LBJ but they were in the hunt a lot of those years when he was there, and they didn't just sit on their rear ends and try to feed off the hype. They tried to make some moves that ultimately didn't work out.

              If a system was so fair that every team won the championship one year, you'd still be looking at teams going 29 YEARS between championships. That's why "Championship or you suck" fandom confuses me immensely. If a team can consistently get to the final 4 or even the final 8 in the NBA, I think that's a team worth watching. While the GOAL should always be the championship, there are just too many things that can go wonky to prevent it. PLAYERS should never be satisfied. FANS should learn to enjoy themselves.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                I still don't think it's as big of a problem as everyone says it is.

                I mean- everyone keeps complaining about tanking but it's astounding how many teams are NOT tanking in what Bill Simmons called the most loaded draft since 1984.

                Is it REALLY a problem?? Tanking teams give up assets, making other teams stronger- when teams are much more willing to trade, it makes it easier for teams to re-arrange their rosters for potentially good to great teams- There are at least 6 great teams in the NBA right now. Normally there is usually about 3 great teams that you can see compete for a championship.

                Not only are there 6 great teams, there are at least 9 other teams that have the makings of a future powerhouse. There's a lot of teams with bright futures now, the league is as competitive as it has ever been.

                I don't think tanking is a problem.
                Tanking isn't a problem on November 1st.

                But just wait until March 1st. Teams will know 2 things on March 1st.

                1. Whether this draft is as loaded as everyone says it is.
                2. Whether they have a realistic shot at making the playoffs.

                If this draft is as good as everyone seems to think it might be, then you're going to see some teams doing weird things to ensure they get the best opportunity at a top player. Look at Golden State in 2012. That worked out great for them.

                And I'll make this personal. Charlotte gets the Pistons pick unless it's in the top 8. I don't think the Pistons will keep that pick unless they have some major injury problems. But if they do, and on March 1st they're in a position where they can't make the playoffs, they ABSOLUTELY should start playing Peyton Siva, Tony Mitchell, Josh Harrellson, and Gigi Datome 35 minutes a night.

                One rule the NBA should implement is getting rid of protected picks in the middle of the lottery. It's either top 14 or top 3 (2 or 1), not top 10, top 8, top 7, etc. That's led to the most blatant forms of tanking in the NBA.

                Comment


                • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                  I've changed my mind on the lottery thing.

                  Just let all bottom 14 teams have an even crack at the top 3. I wouldn't even mind if they expanded the lottery to top-5, just to take away incentive for teams looking to be dead last to guarantee them a top-5 pick.

                  After that, go by record. If the Bobcats go 9-73 and wind up drafting 6th, even in this deep draft, no one will ever tank again. Winning 20-25 games every year will guarantee you nothing substantial, except a dead franchise.

                  I guarantee you this will kill tanking, outside of the last week or so when even one spot in the 6-12 range is worth dropping a few extra games. Of course, we see a lot of good teams tanking games at that time too to keep guys fresh, so it isn't like that will be anything new.

                  I promise you this, no franchise will plan to tank a full season for the 6th pick in any draft and a 7% chance at moving up.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 02:01 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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    I've changed my mind on the lottery thing.

                    Just let all bottom 14 teams have an even crack at the top 3. I wouldn't even mind if they expanded the lottery to top-5, just to take away incentive for teams looking to be dead last to guarantee them a top-5 pick.

                    After that, go by record. If the Bobcats go 9-73 and wind up drafting 6th, even in this deep draft, no one will ever tank again. Winning 20-25 games every year will guarantee you nothing substantial, except a dead franchise.

                    I guarantee you this will kill tanking, outside of the last week or so when even one spot in the 6-12 range is worth dropping a few extra games. Of course, we see a lot of good teams tanking games at that time too to keep guys fresh, so it isn't like that will be anything new.

                    I promise you this, no franchise will plan to tank a full season for the 6th pick in any draft and a 7% chance at moving up.
                    Again, the problem is that you are punishing the tanking teams without doing anything to help the team who goes into rebuilding, gets a major FA who then goes down with an injury. Once they start losing and no one wants to go there, how do they dig out when they lose the lottery every year and end up with a #14 pick every time?

                    You've really got to give the teams that get hit hard by circumstances - especially the ones who labor under other handicaps, like a lack of revenue and a small market - a way to get out that isn't just luck. As much as it is like to think that there should be 30 genius GMs out there who can build bricks without straw, that's unrealistic. A decently competent GM should have more options than just luck and overspending on FAs.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Again, the problem is that you are punishing the tanking teams without doing anything to help the team who goes into rebuilding, gets a major FA who then goes down with an injury. Once they start losing and no one wants to go there, how do they dig out when they lose the lottery every year and end up with a #14 pick every time?

                      You've really got to give the teams that get hit hard by circumstances - especially the ones who labor under other handicaps, like a lack of revenue and a small market - a way to get out that isn't just luck. As much as it is like to think that there should be 30 genius GMs out there who can build bricks without straw, that's unrealistic. A decently competent GM should have more options than just luck and overspending on FAs.
                      Sorry, that logic is how San Antonio gets Tim Duncan after one bad luck year following eight 50+ win seasons in a row.

                      Injuries suck, but it's just one season. Do your scouting, draft a sleeper in the 6-10 range and get back at it next year.

                      And please spare me the poor small market revenue excuse. The new CBA virtually guarantees any NBA team to run at a substantial profit so long as they stay away from the LT. I would have bought that argument three years ago; now any owner that claims otherwise is either being cheap, greedy or both.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 02:57 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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                        They almost need some type of weighted formula that allows consistent bottom dwellers a bigger chance at getting the top picks.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          They almost need some type of weighted formula that allows consistent bottom dwellers a bigger chance at getting the top picks.
                          Yeah but then that punishes the good franchises who through the normal circumstances that can arise in this business who fall off for a time. Having to wait several years for your cumulative record to be bad enough to get a better pick.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                            If they're good franchises, then they won't be punished for long. Consistent bottom dwellers need more help than a team that had an unlucky year, and the draft process should reflect that IMHO.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              If they're good franchises, then they won't be punished for long. Consistent bottom dwellers need more help than a team that had an unlucky year, and the draft process should reflect that IMHO.
                              Problem is consistent bottom dwellers are often consistent by design. Yes they don't use their high picks wisely, but it only emboldens them to tank another season to "get it right."

                              Charlotte is a perfect example. Everyone cheered three years ago when they broke up a playoff team because the fans wanted their own superstar and apparently tanking was the only way to get one.

                              Well 3 years later, they still don't have one, and guess what? They're still rooting for the bobcats to lose. Oh I hope we're not too much better this year, I'd be disgusted if we lost out on Wiggins or Parker by winning too many games! ugh.

                              The loser's mentality has overtaken 1/3 of the NBA to the point where fans are content not showing up for games and waiting year after year because they're convinced next year will be the year they hit the lottery jackpot. Owners are content because they're making money either way and won't be pressured to pay high-priced free agents, and GMs have an excuse to be incompetent for the better part of a decade because losing games was part of the plan, right?
                              Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 03:05 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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                                The Pacers' longest playoff drought was five seasons - from 1981-1982 through 1985-1986. Only five team have shorter droughts in their team histories (Orlando and New Orleans at 4, Miami at 3, Los Angeles at 2, and San Antonio at 1).

                                Of the active droughts, the Timberwolves have the longest, with nine seasons having passed since their last playoff appearance. In addition to Minnesota, the Raptors (5), Wizards (5), Pistons (4) and Cavaliers (3) are all looking to end several-year droughts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X