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

Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

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

  • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. The numbers are there and I'm not even going to highlight how bad we were against the .500+ competition after the all star break. The Clippers and Thunder both would have trashed us, I can't even find a place to begin debating with someone who disagrees with that. I hope the East gets stronger, and I hope we get a LOT stronger. We have a lot of improving to do before we are serious contenders.
    You are wrong....we would have beaten both the clippers and the thunder in the NBA finals. Those teams are deeply flawed unlike the Spurs. Thunder rely too much on Durant at the beginning of the game, and then don't get him the ball in key moments in crunch time. The Clippers....they don't play real defense, and they gun for the home run plays too much. Thats why their half court offense struggles.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
      You are wrong....we would have beaten both the clippers and the thunder in the NBA finals. Those teams are deeply flawed unlike the Spurs. Thunder rely too much on Durant at the beginning of the game, and then don't get him the ball in key moments in crunch time. The Clippers....they don't play real defense, and they gun for the home run plays too much. Thats why their half court offense struggles.
      http://xkcd.com/386/

      Seriously though, if that's the reality to you, more power to you. I think you could not be more wrong, but neither of us have a provable position. I've stated my case, but if people want to believe we were the 3rd or 4th best team in basketball, even after the collapse and barely beating the Hawks and so on. Well. Some people believe in Santa too, and who I am to ruin their joy.

      Comment


      • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        http://xkcd.com/386/

        Seriously though, if that's the reality to you, more power to you. I think you could not be more wrong, but neither of us have a provable position. I've stated my case, but if people want to believe we were the 3rd or 4th best team in basketball, even after the collapse and barely beating the Hawks and so on. Well. Some people believe in Santa too, and who I am to ruin their joy.
        Playoffs are all about match ups. I think we match up incredibly well against both those team. EVEN TODAY with no Lance.

        Atlanta was a tough match up because they pulled our bigs out too far. However if All Horford was playing we would have destroyed them. Because Horford only shoots from just outside the FT line. That would have sealed alot of their driving lanes for Teague. Just like we sealed off the lane in the Wizard's series, they didnt' have a big who could nail the outside shot.
        Last edited by graphic-er; 07-25-2014, 04:13 PM.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

          I don't think OKC was a good analogy either. It's not like we had 3 max-contract players that are all ball dominant. They had a very serious case of not-enough-ball-to-go-around. They also had 2 other max-guys that still had room to grow, so it was easy to replace the production of Harden with internal players.

          I believe if you are trying to be more like San Antonio, which is probably the best option, replacing a ball-dominant/possible locker room distraction with a 3-D and potential 6th man scorer isn't the worst thing that can happen.

          I believe Indiana is a fringe contender due to the fact they are in the Eastern conference. Basketball is a lot about matchups. If they get to the finals (our road is easier than all the western teams) who is to say we don't matchup better with that particular team. And you can never discount a team that plays defense.

          Comment


          • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            Ginobili was drafted in 1999 and didn't even start to play in the NBA until 2002-2003. I don't think that's a good comparison to Lance because it wasn't a matter of taking someone who was coming into the league immediately, it was a draft-and-wait which always occurs below where a player would go if they were coming via the usual path. A great draft on San Antonio's part, but certainly not anything even approaching the norm.

            Rodman was drafted early in the second round (27th). After his 4th year I don't think anyone would have thought he was someone you would break the bank for:

            Code:
            Averages
            Year          Team                  	GP 	GS 	MPG 	FG% 	3P% 	FT% 	RPG 	APG 	SPG 	BPG 	PPG
            1986–87 	Detroit Pistons 	77 	1 	15.0 	.545 	.000 	.587 	4.3 	.7 	.5 	.6 	6.5
            1987–88 	Detroit Pistons 	82 	32 	26.2 	.561 	.294 	.535 	8.7 	1.3 	.9 	.5 	11.6
            1988–89† 	Detroit Pistons 	82 	8 	26.9 	.595 	.231 	.626 	9.4 	1.2 	.7 	.9 	9.0
            1989–90† 	Detroit Pistons 	82 	43 	29.0 	.581 	.111 	.654 	9.7 	.9 	.6 	.7 	8.8
            I don't understand your argument at all, I'm not trying to be difficult here. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

              It was never open to begin with. It wasn't nailed shut, but it was one of those windows that jams and opening it is not likely.

              Comment


              • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Pacers were not going to win the championship in 2013. They only won 49 games that season. tell me the last championship team that won that few in a normal length season.
                The 1994-95 Houston Rockets with 47 wins.
                The 1977-78 Washington Bullets with 44 wins.
                The 1976-77 Portland Trailblazers with 49 wins.
                The 1974-75 Golden State Warriors with 48 wins.
                The 1968-69 Boston Celtics with 48 wins.

                Looks like we are about due for another champion with less than 50 regular season wins.

                Comment


                • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                  ok
                  It is extremely rare for a team to be so stacked with talent that they can afford to
                  let a budding young star walk and yet remain a top team...

                  Do you really like that better or is that just unnecessary verbiage?

                  The point with Lance is that we we're freakin' lucky to have nabbed such a guy with a 2nd round pick. It is the luck you NEED as a fiscally restrained team. Now we need to do it AGAIN.

                  We have too many nearly random and totally replaceable guys on contracts that must make you grimace.
                  Nine mil. for Lance was very reasonable.

                  We are NOT in any way an elite team right now and by the time we fix our weaknesses DWest will be slower than ketchup.

                  I could almost say I am disappointed with management right now.
                  But not quite.
                  It is more correct to say we swung for the fences...
                  Last year.

                  The team assembled had a reasonable chance.
                  They did not take it.
                  They curled up like punks too many times.

                  And to get back on point: We aren't winnin' squat with our current backcourt.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I don't understand your argument at all, I'm not trying to be difficult here. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.
                    I guess I'm trying to say we can't look at Rodman's ultimate career and say, "gee, looks like at this stage in Lance's career it's pretty usual for a deep 2nd round pick to be having championship effect on his team". At similar times in their careers, Rodman hadn't made his huge mark, so no one would have said that it was a no-brainer to sign him for a pre-emptive amount of money.

                    In Ginobili's case, that's an outlier however you look at it. He was not a typical 2nd round pick, and was deep not because of concerns of any kind but because the Euros were overlooked by people other than San Antonio.

                    Bottom line is that I still think Lance is in a very rare position as a late 2nd round pick who is turning out to have an impact on this team worthy of discussion at the championship level, whether you agree with the actual effect or not.
                    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: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                      Maybe... Maybe not... Only time will tell...

                      Depends on what our core of four do next year...

                      If Hibbert rebounds his career and pulls off 15, 9, 2, 2 with moderate consistency things look good... If he comes back at 11,7,1,2 and fades into obscurity things look bad...

                      If West comes back and produces similar to last year things look good... If he gets a step slower and drops big similar to Scola last year things look bad...

                      If PG comes back and stays the same or maybe polishes his O game things look good... If PG gets no help from David, Roy, GHill, and the cast on the O end PG gets worn out early again trying to do too much and things look bad...

                      If GHill comes back and gets aggressive his scoring output increases and things look good... If he stays the same as last year things look bad...

                      Wayyyyyy too early to claim any window to be open or shut... Schrodinger's Boomer...
                      Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        The Pacers don't get by the Hawks or Wiz without PG, DWest, or Hill, so lets not make it out that the ONLY reason was Stephenson. If you listen to some, Stephenson was a 15 mil year player, yet he finally got an offer from only ONE other team for 9 mil per year. That pretty much says it all.

                        Does Stephenson have the potential to be a "great" player, sure, but the Pacers existence, as some feel, doesn't revolve around Stephenson. I read on this forum constantly player X is going to be a future Allstar blah blah blah. I always felt Al Jefferson would be, and guess what it's never happened. He's a really good player with some good stats, but he didn't make a team all by himself and either does Stephenson. Maybe Stephenson is in the same mold, then again maybe he'll be better. Too much Blue n Gold homerism when it comes to Pacer players. Maybe it's taking a step back losing Stephenson, but I believe there is 2 steps to be taken forward in the future. I'm still of the believe that PG and Stephenson wouldn't be able to co-exist. one basketball 2 egos as to who would be THE PLAYER. I'll hitch my hope to PG for the future.
                        Could not have said it better myself.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                          As presently constructed, I don't think this team is remotely capable of winning a title. We have an aging David West. We have a backup, journeyman who has only averaged 19 minutes a game as our starting SG. We have a starting C who has not shown to date that he has the mental part of the game in order. As a slow, plodding C, he now faces an entire season where his game will get exposed night in and night out. We have a decent starting PG who can defend but cannot lead an offense.

                          We do have Paul George, but these days contenders have at least 2 or 3 players at or close that level. Since Lance is gone, we really only have one. So, yes, the door is closed for now unless Bird pulls off another great move which I am afraid is not in the cards for at least a year.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            As presently constructed, I don't think this team is remotely capable of winning a title. We have an aging David West. We have a backup, journeyman who has only averaged 19 minutes a game as our starting SG. We have a starting C who has not shown to date that he has the mental part of the game in order. As a slow, plodding C, he now faces an entire season where his game will get exposed night in and night out. We have a decent starting PG who can defend but cannot lead an offense.

                            We do have Paul George, but these days contenders have at least 2 or 3 players at or close that level. Since Lance is gone, we really only have one. So, yes, the door is closed for now unless Bird pulls off another great move which I am afraid is not in the cards for at least a year.
                            Everyone seems to be putting Miles in as our starting SG. That may not be the case, in fact, if you look at who has experience, the logical choice would be to start Stuckey at PG and GHill at SG. Having said that, I agree that the Pacers as they are currently constructed are not title contenders, however, they should be able to win around 50 games and make it to the second round of the playoffs. That is quite respectable, especially when you consider that they will have more cap space in the summer of 2015 to improve the team.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                              Originally posted by sav View Post
                              Everyone seems to be putting Miles in as our starting SG. That may not be the case, in fact, if you look at who has experience, the logical choice would be to start Stuckey at PG and GHill at SG. Having said that, I agree that the Pacers as they are currently constructed are not title contenders, however, they should be able to win around 50 games and make it to the second round of the playoffs. That is quite respectable, especially when you consider that they will have more cap space in the summer of 2015 to improve the team.
                              Stuckey is pretty much a poor man's Lance Stephenson. Not a bad player really, but will not help you beat the best teams (e.g. the Spurs). I can see us possibly winning 50 games but it could easily be in the 40's. Yes, that's still respectable and much better than the JOb years and gives Paul another year to mature. If we lived through Murphleavy, we can put up with this.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                                I believe it's a bit early to suggest the Pacers are out of the title picture. We'll know more at the All Star game next year.
                                Go Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X