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

  • #31
    Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

    INEXPERIENCE
    This year's team is no older than that squad. I see your David West and match you with REGGIE FREAKING MILLER. Kenny Anderson as well. Plus that team had the offensive pop of Al Harrington coming off the bench. Pre-injury young Al which is greater than anything Scola or ET are doing right now.
    But this team as a collective unit is experienced. This is the third straight season that Hibbert/West/PG/Hill (became the starter at the end of 11-12) have been starting games together. As a unit they have a lot of experience together. They have won a ton of games and three playoff series together, including a curb stomping of a 54 win NY team and then taking the eventual champion Heat to 7 games. The 03 Pacers OTOH were coming off of two straight seasons of being the 8 seed and had never won a playoff series together.

    BTW, Kenny Anderson wasn't on the 02-03 team. He played here in 03-04.

    Also, Reggie's presence on those early 00's teams gets overrated. By most accounts, he was passive to a fault and handed way too much over to JO/etc. That's a far cry from West, who is a tremendous vocal leader and will no doubt rip these guys into shape.

    I just don't see many similarities other than the fact that both teams are the Pacers, as well as the fact that 2014 has the exact same calendar as 2003. The Heat's losing streak is only one behind ours. You could have come up with a thread just like this at the end of last season when we looked like absolute garbage down the stretch and lost 5 of our final 6 games (some pretty ugly losses in there). Most teams go through some ugly slumps at some point in the season, but the odds are substantially against us coming anywhere near matching the most epically awful collapse in Pacer history.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-10-2014, 12:03 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

      One big difference? The team quit playing for Isiah in 2003, he lost the team, the players had enough of him. I don't see that now with Frank.

      That to me is a huge difference.

      as far as other points mentioned in this thread, I don't see really any similarities

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

        I think they find their 3rd quarter D and the ship is righted starting Tuesday. I literally think its that simple. The bench at it worst is better than last years bench, it doesn't matter, this team goes as its starting 5 goes. I think they've all had about enough.

        Here's where we stand.

        19 games left
        8 at home (88% winning percentage)
        11 on the road (56% winning percentage)

        46-17 at the moment.

        Tough games to close the season.

        Home:
        Boston
        Phillie
        Chicago
        Miami
        San Antonio
        Detroit
        ATL
        OKC

        Away:
        Phillie
        Detroit
        NY
        Memphis
        Chicago
        Washington
        Cleveland
        Toronto
        Milwaukee
        Miami
        Orlando

        I think you can go 6-2 at home, get 1 of the 3 from Miami Chicago and Spurs. (Chance you beat two of those teams but lose to one of the teams you should beat)
        8-3 on the Road, this is even tougher. I had losses to Memphis, Chicago Miami and one of those other lesser runs beat you just because its hard to win on the road in the NBA. That has you finish 13-6 for 60-22 overall. Miami has the Wiz at home tonight, so they will be 1 game behind the Pacers.

        Lastly, after tonight, Miami has 12 home and 9 away. Its gonna be tough for the Pacers to have the 1st seed in the EC.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

          03 team didn't have the Legend involved. We're fine.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

            I apologize if someone has already made this point, but I remember thinking late last year that this team had lost its mojo. We didn't look very good at all as the regular season wound down. I wasn't confident that we'd flip a switch come playoff time, but that's pretty close to what we did.

            Here's to hoping that will happen again so we can better compare to last year's team, not the 02-03 team.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

              He's turned into my favorite player this year, and although I feel like a broken record, I'm going to say it again. I'm worried about Lance.

              I've been worried about his approach to the game ever since the all star break, and I was worried at the start of the season that he was either going to be our savior or contribute to our undoing.

              Also reading/hearing that he's not been a part of the post-game locker room rallys.

              I hope I'm misreading/misinterpreting what's going on.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                as far as other points mentioned in this thread, I don't see really any similarities
                That their star player was MIP the prior season and was voted to their first all-star starting game the year of the collapse, that they led the conference going into the AS break and therefore had the AS head coach and that the starting center was named AS reserve....

                Yes, that isn't similar at all. Much like blue water is totally different than blue sky cause one is liquid. You are focused on one part that is different (and that you have the benefit of hindsight to identify) rather than how many other things are similar. Even the TYPES OF LOSSES are similar. The clunky wins against bad teams, the massive flops against good teams, the freaking timing of losses in the same locations even.

                They play THREE road games in Texas each year, and in both seasons 1 of those games happened to be their first time losing 4 in a row? You really don't see that playing in Texas is similar to playing in Texas or that FOUR is the same as FOUR?


                To me the reaction to this thread is clear - people simple don't want this similarity to be true. The angle is "no, this is Frank's team and these guys aren't the brawl troublemakers (ahem, Reggie, Brad weren't the brawl troublemakers either), and they have won before"... even if the entire bench is 100% changed just from last year, let alone 2 and Danny of the 2nd round team is gone and that first year of round 2 was enhanced by Howard's injury for Orlando.

                Ron joined the starting lineup the prior year (trade mid-season) just like Lance did thanks to Granger's injury. And his joining the heavy minutes seemed at first to be nothing but a godsend to the team despite the antics and drama. Then we started seeing OFFENSIVE CHEMISTRY issues between Artest (Lance) and JO (Paul). Not a similar issue now?

                I love Frank, but the current criticism we are hearing is "NOT TOUGH ON THE PLAYERS". Gee, that's in no way familiar to Isiah being too much of a player's coach and not reigning in the egos in time.


                Here was my point: People suggested that THIS TEAM couldn't implode cause it was so solid and all the wins and all the maturity. Then I showed that in fact they had almost IDENTICAL age make-up, talent make-up and even results make-up.

                Again, the 2003 team didn't just stop winning games forever, they just stopped playing consistent quality games against good teams. They were clunky and hit and miss and they had good wins down the stretch. They didn't go 0-30 to finish. They looked exactly like this because this is what broken chemistry looks like.


                The main difference is that Frank is much better than Isiah at strategy AND that team had not had Brad and Ron for the full 2 years prior and had therefore been a first round and out team instead of a 2nd round and ECF team.

                On the other hand JO had spent 4 years with a Portland playoff team and was far more NBA experienced than Paul George. Artest had more NBA PT by that point than Lance has now. Reggie Miller was DRAMATICALLY more playoff savvy and experienced than either West or Hill.

                So my point that it's ridiculous to say "can't happen here cause not the same" is solid. All the "protection" from failure this team has existed with that team as well.



                BONUS SIMILARITY - oh, yay, the had a great HOME win against another playoff team when they knocked the Bulls down the other day. Finally a big win against a winning team to get the entire fanbase saying "see, they got it fixed"
                Ahem...

                Pacers 91, Bulls 79 on March 21st, game 69. Potential 2nd round opponent if Indy falls behind Miami.
                Pacers 102, Boston 72 on March 19th, game 68. The same Boston team that would eliminate them from the playoffs a month later.



                And how do you think fans felt a few games later when the 2003 team won 140-89 over the Bulls
                . Sure they were bad but that's still a FIFTY-ONE (51) point win. The bench scored 75 points. What would you say if the Pacers won a game a few games from now by 51? You'd say things looked back on track and everything was fixed.

                There was no Peck, Hicks, Buck or Trader Joe post-game thread saying "sure they won by 51 but this team is totally going to lose in round 1 for sure". Not here, the Star, Real GM, newspapers, anywhere. The view was that maybe they had found their footing because a team not playing together can't beat another good playoff team or destroy a bad team in that manner. The "us" of then were just as confused and willing to see things starting to click again.






                I do not want Frank dumped like I wanted Isiah dumped (Frank is who you'd go get if you didn't have him). I don't think Lance will ask for time off to work on his record label. I do not think this team will get in a brawl. I'm not suggesting those types of similarities.

                Heck, the year after the implosion they freaking won 61 games and went to the ECF despite being forced to let an all-star FA go cause they couldn't resign him (Lance??).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The 2002-03 Pacers collapse (similarities to 13-14)

                  Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                  03 team didn't have the Legend involved. We're fine.
                  THE BRAWL TEAM DID.

                  Checkmate. Unless you care to make the case that the 2003 meltdown was worse than the brawl, and if so I'm all ears.

                  we looked like absolute garbage down the stretch and lost 5 of our final 6 games (some pretty ugly losses in there).
                  5 of 6 is 4 of 5...the final game the starters didn't play because their seed was locked.

                  3 of the losses were vs playoff teams. The Washington loss could have been a day after hangover from the OKC disappointment.

                  The prior 4 games were 4 ROAD WINS vs West teams, 2 of which were strong West teams and a 3rd was at .500. What is this 4 game collapse that lasted 10 days? That's not 2 straight months after having the top record in the East. You only need to go a few weeks back to find multiple wins against winning teams on the road.

                  They've beat 2 winning teams in months and one of those is Portland in OT in Indy, a Portland team collapsing harder than Indy btw. Prior to that you have to go back to the start of January with the win over GSW, and that is also how far back you have to go to find a road win over a winning team.

                  Here's what happened prior to the OKC, WSH, BRK, NYK losses at the end of the year...
                  W by 21 @ CLE (bad team)
                  W by 22 vs ORL (bad team)
                  W by 24 vs MIL (.500 team)
                  L by 3 @ CHI (good team)
                  W by 6 vs ATL (good team)
                  W by 9 @ HOU (good team)
                  W by 25 @ DAL (.500 team)
                  W by 8 @ PHX (bad team)
                  W by 3 @ LAC (great team)

                  You see that and think it looks like this season? I don't. Going 1-4 vs OKC, BRK, NYK, WSH and CLE over 9 days doesn't come close to a trend after those prior 15 days of output. OKC, BRK and NYK won 60, 49 and 54 last year and the WSH game was a road game 2nd night.

                  They were beating good teams on the road and beating bad teams by 20. Now they are beating bad teams by 3-5 and beating the worst losing streak team in NBA history by 9-10, and then are losing to good teams. They go down by 15-20 in most of these games and spend most of the game behind in the losses.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-26-2014, 05:20 AM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X