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 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

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

  • The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

    Since I've used this example in a couple of threads regarding chemistry and how teams can fall apart with issues, I thought it might be worth revisiting this case study.


    On Jan 31 of 2003 the Pacers were at 33-12, coming off a home loss 2 nights before to the Spurs (who were 4 games behind them at the time). They flew up to Toronto to face a dreadful Raps team and lost to them by 12. But they came home the next night, beat a modest Boston team and made that loss look like a blip, layover from the SAS perhaps.

    They are 2nd in the NBA with a 34-14 record.

    They get 2 off days before playing a .500 Lakers at home (home for Bos, off, off, LAL) right before the AS break. They are upset by 3 in that game. Worrying but perhaps they are looking ahead to the break.

    For the ASG Isiah is the head coach, JO starts and is a guy starting to show up in MVP discussions, and the team's starting center Brad Miller is named AS reserve. One Pacer is annoyed by his ASG game snubbing - Ron Artest (and a year later he would be an AS and DPOY).

    They come back from break and beat a horrible (#1 draft pick Lebron will come this summer) Cavs in Indy, but then also beat a solid NO Hornets team on the road. The Cavs game is way too close given a 35-15 type team at home vs a 10-40 team (11 pts), but wins are wins.

    Then on Feb 14th they have to go to OT vs a poor Atlanta Hawks (19-33) team in Indy with a day's rest and your eyebrows go up a bit. And in OT they only win by 1. But at 37-15 they still lead the East and have the #2 record (Dallas) despite looking vulnerable for the prior 2-3 weeks.



    And then....

    2 nights later they have a rematch in Atlanta and lose by a fair amount (13) which is not a fluke win. The Hawks led the whole way.

    2 nights later they play in Memphis. So again you had a free day to go from Indy to ATL (Hawks traveled too), and a free day to go from ATL to MEM. This is a baby road trip without having to play back to back nights.

    And they lose that Memphis game in OT to a team at 16-36 after the win. So now it's starting to seem problematic. It's only the 3rd time all season they've lost 2 in a row, and these are games they should clearly win.

    Next comes critical matchups on the road vs NJ and SAS, both rivals for the NBA's top record. If you can only win this NJ game it will offset some of the sting of those last 2 losses (ahem, think Houston game last night).

    It is Feb 20th when they lose to the Nets in NJ, marking their first 3 game losing streak of the year.


    Now at this point if you aren't freaked out by the similarities in OUTCOMES ONLY, setting aside whatever you think about the personalities of the 2 teams and focusing only on the types of games they are losing and the timing of those losses, then I can only think you are in denial.

    The loss @HOU last night mirrors the circumstances almost precisely of what was going on as the 02-03 team came into NJ, right down to it being the first 3 game losing streak, being just a bit after the AS break, and coming off a road loss to a poor team in the Carolinas/Georgia.

    My brain sees this and screams "W T F IS GOING ON!?!?!?!" It's crazy in similarities.


    So the sad tale is that much like losing in HOU is followed by a trip to a good Texas team for an attempt to stop the losing streak, that NJ loss was followed by a trip to a great Texas team (SAS) who promptly beat them to send them to 4 straight losses and full-on panic mode. S*** was getting real by this point.

    Those Pacers got 2 days off before a home game vs a sub-500 Wiz team, and then lost that game at home for #5 in a row.

    Then it was back on the road to face a strong Boston team and the Pacers were held to 14 1st qtr points and 15 4th qtr points for a final score of 69-71. REGGIE MILLER went 2-14 in that game on Feb 26 (cough...Paul George...cough).

    The losing streak ended at home on Feb 28th when they beat a 500 Bucks squad. Ron was back and went 7-10 and despite the horror of a 6 game losing streak you could almost think that finally they'd solved the problem.



    And then they lost another 6 straight to make it a 1-12 record.

    This ended after game 65. The team was now at 38-27. From there on they actually got back over 500 and finished 10-7 to hang on to the 3rd seed. It wasn't elite ball but they'd weathered the storm perhaps and were figuring out what to do with their issues and how to win games again.


    Then the 6th seed Celtics beat them 4-2, Isiah was fired and Carlisle was about to take them to a franchise high 61 wins (despite losing Brad Miller)




    BTW look at playoff game #1. At home vs Boston ALL the starters played well. Ron was back and playing well too. The starters were 28-52 FG shooting, and as a team they outshot Boston, outrebounded Boston and shot/made more FTs than Boston.

    But Boston went 9-23 from 3 (39%) while Indy went 5-21 (24%) and those 4 extra points plus a 15 to 10 TO advantage got Boston the win.

    The Indy bench went 4-20 and 0-8 from 3 (Harrington, Croshere and Bender mostly). Reggie was 1-5 from 3. Tinsley and Artest went 4-8 from 3 and Tins had 9 assists too.


    I guess we just had bench shooting issues (not scoring cause Boston only got 7 bench points) and they just "hit tough 3pt shots".

    That statement in no way sounds like any recent statements I've heard in Pacers post-games.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-08-2014, 04:02 PM.

  • #2
    Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

    hopefully vogel is less incompetent than thomas?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

      We're going to finish with at least 62 wins, just watch

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
        We're going to finish with at least 62 wins, just watch
        including playoffs?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

          Originally posted by dal9 View Post
          including playoffs?
          No

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

            Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
            We're going to finish with at least 62 wins, just watch
            This is irrelevant to me. I just want to be playing good ball come playoff time. The way things are going that doesn't look promising.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

              I believe we went into last seasons playoffs playing bad basketball right?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                I believe we went into last seasons playoffs playing bad basketball right?
                1-5 to finish the year.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                  Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                  1-5 to finish the year.
                  Exactly that's why I'm not worried yet

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                    Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                    I believe we went into last seasons playoffs playing bad basketball right?
                    .....and we ended up getting knocked out. That is not the goal this season, right?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      .....and we ended up getting knocked out. That is not the goal this season, right?
                      Yeah, after winning two series and taking the eventual champions to 7 games. I think the point he was trying to make was that we turned things around significantly after going through a massive slump to end the year.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                        Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                        .....and we ended up getting knocked out. That is not the goal this season, right?
                        My point was we struggled mightily during the season last year, but turned it up for the playoffs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          We're going to finish with at least 62 wins, just watch
                          You think we are going to go .800 with our remaining schedule?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                            Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                            You think we are going to go .800 with our remaining schedule?
                            yes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                              Thanks Seth. I was really trying to put that 02-03 season out of my mind.


                              Crazy comparison with some definite similarities.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X