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

Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

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

  • #61
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

    Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
    If I worked with a no-defense-playing sieve like Jamaal Tinsley and a chucking play breaker like SJax or Artest, I'd be upset at times too.
    I would at least hope you'd be level headed enough to be upset at their stupidity, not upset about your touches, like JO. This is a guy that had a lockerroom melt down about Rick's system 7 games into a season. I would have loved to see JO call them out publically for all their crap, but he was more worried about getting the ball on the elbow.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I agree about Jackson. The ironic thing is that after his suspension ended, he came back and played some really solid ball alongside Reggie. JO got hurt in early March and didn't comeback until the end of the season, and Artest was obviously suspended the entire year. Tinsley also missed a ton of time that season. It was vintage Reggie, Stephen Jackson, Anthony Johnson, and the return of Dale Davis that gave that team a serious spark down the stretch of the season and propelled them into the playoffs. Reggie and S-Jax were a pretty lethal combo on the wings down the stretch that year.

      Jackson and Artest have each won championships with other franchises and have obviously shown that they can succeed in a stable environment. The problem with those mid 2000's teams is that the personalities were a toxic mix and there was no stable veteran presence to cancel them out. As beast23 mentioned, Reggie deferred too much until his farewell tour when he went out with a bang by taking on a more primary role.
      The biggest reason that Stephen Jackson played so well after Artest and JO were gone, IMHO, is because Reggie was the unquestioned leader and Dale Davis had his back completely in the event one of those other guys had any delusions of grandeur and tried to start any foolishness.

      I totally agree that Reggie should've never given up his role as leader of the Pacers. However, I now believe that team was never going to amount to anything during the playoffs because they had too many players that wouldn't listen to any sort of authority figure.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

        And also I classify players who get into fist fights with their teammates, especially crazy teammates that you know you have no shot of making sane, a knucklehead.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

          Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
          Since we're revisiting history and getting things off our chest, I feel like I should get this off my chest. Looking back on it now, I now think that team never really had a chance to win the championship even if the brawl had never happened. The Pacers brass broke the "Only 1 Knucklehead" rule and were badly burned by it.

          Yeah, even if the brawl wouldn't have happened, I don't think that team wins the championship. That team was built on a foundation of sand and something else would have happened. I don't think they could have actually knocked Detroit off in a series. That Pistons team had exceptional mental toughness. I don't think we would have ever been able to close them out.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

            JO was mentally weak and lazy on the court.
            I've never seen a supposed 'star' centerpiece player get taken out of his game as JO would be. You could literally see the defending player get in his head and watch him lose his rhythm and knocked off his spot.

            Also, when you hear people talking about a player that does all the little things that don't show up on a stat sheet.... They don't mean JO. He couldn't be bothered with the little things.

            I don't think it's a coincidence that when Bird was officially and unquestionably in charge that a JO trade finally happened. He might've wanted out as bad as Bird wanted him out but unlike Walsh there was no way Bird would try and keep him.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

              That whole team could be summarized by one word....selfish. The antithesis of today's team.
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                Originally posted by Bball View Post

                I don't think it's a coincidence that when Bird was officially and unquestionably in charge that a JO trade finally happened. He might've wanted out as bad as Bird wanted him out but unlike Walsh there was no way Bird would try and keep him.
                If Bird would have taken over in 2007, JO would have been traded in 2007. If Bird would have taken over in 2006, JO would have been traded in 2006. If Bird would have taken over in 2005......well, I think you get the point.

                Trading JO was always the first thing that Bird was going to do if Walsh ever got out of the way. We could have netted some serious assets for him if we had traded him a couple of years earlier. As it stands, we were fortunate as hell that we got the 17th draft pick in our package for him, which turned out to be our franchise center who anchors our defense. We basically traded Jermaine O'Neal for Roy Hibbert. It's hard to type that with a straight face. Thanks, Legend.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  JO was mentally weak and lazy on the court.
                  I've never seen a supposed 'star' centerpiece player get taken out of his game as JO would be. You could literally see the defending player get in his head and watch him lose his rhythm and knocked off his spot.

                  Also, when you hear people talking about a player that does all the little things that don't show up on a stat sheet.... They don't mean JO. He couldn't be bothered with the little things.

                  I don't think it's a coincidence that when Bird was officially and unquestionably in charge that a JO trade finally happened. He might've wanted out as bad as Bird wanted him out but unlike Walsh there was no way Bird would try and keep him.
                  I will always believe-though I have no concrete proof-that soon after Bird arrived on the scene and having a chance to get an up close and personal look at JO, that he wouldve preferred to have traded JO and built the team around the other guys along with the significant pieces he couldve gotten back in trade...I think Bird knew JO wasnt cut out to be a leader or face of a franchise and that having him around-especially at a max deal-would eventually fail...and ill always believe Walsh vetoed the idea...

                  friggen walsh...
                  The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                    Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                    I will always believe-though I have no concrete proof-that soon after Bird arrived on the scene and having a chance to get an up close and personal look at JO, that he wouldve preferred to have traded JO and built the team around the other guys along with the significant pieces he couldve gotten back in trade...I think Bird knew JO wasnt cut out to be a leader or face of a franchise and that having him around-especially at a max deal-would eventually fail...and ill always believe Walsh vetoed the idea...

                    friggen walsh...
                    I think that's pretty believable. JO was "Walsh's guy". He traded the ever popular Dale Davis for him and then gave him a max contract a few years later. JO was the centerpiece of Walsh's post Finals rebuilding effort. I don't think that he ever wanted to admit that JO wasn't the right guy to lead the franchise, because that would have been admitting that his post Finals rebuilding effort wasn't a success. It took someone else in Bird to finally cut the cord.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                      This probably needs its own thread... or not asked at all even... but:

                      What would the rebuilding process have been like had Walsh stepped aside on a schedule as originally thought to be planned versus hanging around after the brawl? The word was that Walsh didn't want to leave the team in that condition and with those problems. But arguably the things that happened in that period didn't really help and some things could be argued to have made it worse.

                      Do we make the albatross contract tradeoff of taking Dunn and Murphy back for Sjax or is that handled differently? With a different direction in the FO does Reggie still retire when he does and does Dale Davis hang around another season after his short return? Do we move JO sooner when he still had solid trade value and load up on assets that way? Do we move Tinsley or handle him differently before things got out of control? Is the Artest situation handled differently where we are able to do what we want with him on our terms? Are we able to fix the team instead of needing to jettison Carlisle in hopes a new voice can change things? Do we even get to O'Brien if we fixed the team at its core first?

                      IOW would we have addressed core problems head on and shortened the dark ages or did we just have to go through that period no matter what? As far as Bird 'not being ready yet' IMHO Bird would've done what he always did and made sure to surround himself with a prepared staff on the same page as him. At least in a business/technical sense. So as far as navigating the waters of contracts and that type of thing I think it's safe to assume Bird would've had a righthand man of his own choosing fairly quickly. So I don't see an argument as Walsh was needed for that as all that convincing. The question is more whether Bird would've been proactive enough to steered out of the dark ages even sooner without Walsh's help.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                        Do we really have to go back to rewriting history to make Donnie something horrible and suck in order to build up Bird even more? What do you think would have been done differently if Donnie had stepped down immediately? Not made any trades and told the Pacers' sponsors to just suck it up and keep writing checks? Larry Bird would have NOT drafted Shawne Williams? Larry Bird would have NOT hired Jim O'Brien? Reggie Miller would have NOT retired? Jermaine O'Neil would have NOT been injured?
                        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


                        • #72
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Do we really have to go back to rewriting history to make Donnie something horrible and suck in order to build up Bird even more? What do you think would have been done differently if Donnie had stepped down immediately? Not made any trades and told the Pacers' sponsors to just suck it up and keep writing checks? Larry Bird would have NOT drafted Shawne Williams? Larry Bird would have NOT hired Jim O'Brien? Reggie Miller would have NOT retired? Jermaine O'Neil would have NOT been injured?
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Do we really have to go back to rewriting history to make Donnie something horrible and suck in order to build up Bird even more?
                            Don't be silly... We don't need to rewrite anything for that!

                            What do you think would have been done differently if Donnie had stepped down immediately?
                            Traded JO. Once that happens it would change so many things that I couldn't begin to guess what would happen next.


                            Not made any trades and told the Pacers' sponsors to just suck it up and keep writing checks?
                            Don't know that it would get to that because a JO trade would've changed everything about the team.

                            Larry Bird would have NOT drafted Shawne Williams?
                            Maybe... maybe not... Changing the team at it's root would've changed so many dynamics that it would not just have affected draft position but needs as well.

                            Larry Bird would have NOT hired Jim O'Brien?
                            If the team was fixed then hiring O'Brien might've been unnecessary even if the firing of Carlisle still happened. Which itself would be in question in this scenario.

                            Reggie Miller would have NOT retired?
                            Maybe maybe not... We know Reggie had had enough of the existing Pacers lockerroom. We don't know if the promise of massive changes, especially if they addressed some of his concerns would've made any difference or if he'd just grown tired of the grind and uncertainty.

                            Jermaine O'Neil would have NOT been injured?
                            It could've been injured with someone else.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                              I don't remember him struggling against Duncan, Garnett, or Webber... at least not scoring against them. I had the opportunity to see him play against each of those guys live and he put up big numbers against them. Sheed and Cliff Robinson always had his number but they were both fantastic post defenders and they knew JO's every move from playing together in Portland and working out together in the summer.
                              .
                              I remember him struggling.
                              http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=garneke01



                              Take what conclusions from that. Revisiting this in stats is different. JO struggled is what I remember. I am not looking at Duncans. And the reason why is because it is not going to matter what stats say, it is what we chose to remember. I think JO struggled against comparable talent.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                                These numbers are from ????????????????
                                From my own opinion. Sorry I should have said that. Even though, within context, it seemed obvious. It is hard to determine the value of chemistry, even though we are seeing the value now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X