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

  • #91
    Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    Pacers winning percentage against teams .500 or better?

    22-18. We won a lot of games against bad teams. Not so much against good ones.
    Is that our record against .500 or better WC teams over the last 3 years, or is that our record against teams .500 or better overall last year? I'm assuming the latter.

    Yes I thought we did a good job of beating the teams we were supposed to beat, but hovered closer to .500-.600 against the better teams - which is typical I think
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-25-2014, 02:43 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
      Excellent stat. Do you know the record for teams like Miami, San Antonio and OKC against teams 500 or better? That would give us some barometer.
      Here they are from last year, the top 8 teams against above average competition:

      San Antonio 29-16
      Heat 27-15
      Oklahoma City 27-16
      LA Clippers 25-18
      Houston 25-19
      Pacers 22-18
      Portland 21-22
      Brooklyn 20-20

      This actually softens my position some, I think we were a little better than I was giving us credit for. Still nowhere near championship bound, but 6th is a lot better than the 10th I was giving us.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Just having every team in the West beat up on the bottom feeders can have a lot to do with that skew. If 5 teams in the East completely suck, that's 2*5*15 = 150 games of those 284 victories. If they split with the other 10 teams, that's 150 each, which would give the E v W split that 10 teams were evenly matched with every team in the West while 5 truly stunk it up. As the West's record was NOT 300-150, it was actually not that good even in a year marked with the best record numerically.

        Look, I agree that the top 8 in the West is generally better than the top 8 in the East. But the constant narrative that basically every team in the West is better than every team but one or two in the East is wearing.

        Who isn't a bottom feeder in the East though, is the question. We had a 38, yes, 38! win team make the playoffs. You don't even have to win half your games in this conference. Only a handful of teams in our conference can qualify as not a bottom feeder.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

          The point about Lance's draft position is worthless.
          He is a fine young player.
          We need likely two more of those now without trading away anything good.
          We have no cap room so...

          Just trade Stucky for Rondo, CJ2 back for Lance.
          And while were at it let's go ahead and do an LA for Monroe so that we have a replacement for DWest later.
          We should be good for years.

          Rondo Hill Watson
          Lance Hill Solo
          PG Solo
          West Scola
          Hib Monroe Ian

          Now there's a contender.
          Get'r done.
          Good luck with that.
          Last edited by solid; 07-25-2014, 03:14 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            Who isn't a bottom feeder in the East though, is the question. We had a 38, yes, 38! win team make the playoffs. You don't even have to win half your games in this conference. Only a handful of teams in our conference can qualify as not a bottom feeder.
            In that case why isn't the West more like 400 - 50 against the East?

            The record of teams in the playoffs has less to do with being better or worse than the other conference and more to do with being better or worse than the teams in your own conference (particularly your own division). The biggest factor in your record at the end of the season is not the teams you only play twice (the other conference), it is the teams you play 3 and 4 times (your own conference and division). If the teams in your conference beat you every time but you split with the teams in the other conference, you'll have a losing record but you aren't necessarily worse than the teams in the other conference.
            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


            • #96
              Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

              Originally posted by solid View Post
              The point about Lance's draft position is worthless.
              He is a fine young player.
              We need likely two more of those now without trading away anything good.
              We have no cap room so...
              Good luck with that.
              No one was saying Lance is only as good as his draft position or even using it as part of a quality argument at all. Just that there are very, very, VERY few players drafted at that level that can be argued to cost their team a championship opportunity by leaving. It's an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his abilities compared to his draft position are unusually good, not an insult.
              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


              • #97
                Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                Disagree.

                Lance's potential is crazy. That is the main reason it was so important to keep him. Lance and PG could have eventually formed the best wing combo in the NBA, throw in a defensive monster like Hibbert in the mix and we are a threat to win the East for the next 4-5 years.

                We don't get by Atlanta or Washington in the playoffs without Lance. Our future took a huge hit when we lost him.

                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.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                  Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                  OKC did stop becoming a contender by trading Harden. They made the finals in 2012, then they made the trade. OKC has regressed since making that idiotic trade
                  What's the reason they made that trade?

                  B/c they already had paid Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka. Their ownership wasn't willing to go deep into LT Land. Sound familiar?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                    Originally posted by Dece View Post
                    Here they are from last year, the top 8 teams against above average competition:

                    San Antonio 29-16
                    Heat 27-15
                    Oklahoma City 27-16
                    LA Clippers 25-18
                    Houston 25-19
                    Pacers 22-18
                    Portland 21-22
                    Brooklyn 20-20

                    This actually softens my position some, I think we were a little better than I was giving us credit for. Still nowhere near championship bound, but 6th is a lot better than the 10th I was giving us.
                    I'm pretty sure we whooped up on both OKC and the Clippers last year. (I was wrong about Dallas, thank you whoever pointed that out)
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post

                      LOL ummm what?

                      Some people have been known to take that dog's deposit to the owners house and deposit it on their front porch!

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        What's the reason they made that trade?

                        B/c they already had paid Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka. Their ownership wasn't willing to go deep into LT Land. Sound familiar?
                        I don't think trading Harding has had much effect on OKC. They finished the next year with the top seed in the West then Westbrook had his knee blown out in the first round of the playoffs. The year after that they finished second to San Antonio then lost to San Antonio in the playoffs, and that San Antonio team was damn good. Also, I think Harden is an over-rated blowhard who plays no defense.
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                          Yes.

                          Too many ifs for a team to really be an title contender. If Roy figures things out. If Hill plays aggressive. If guys can play at a consistently high level (and be more consistently good).

                          Ultimately, I just don't think Vogel can get it done. Just haven't seen much growth from him as a coach. His offense is a nightmare and still hasn't brought in someone that can take that portion over. He doesn't utilize bench/role players well. Can see that by every bench player he has seems to have a career low in performance. I do think Watson has been pretty steady though. The team just continues to make the same mistakes over and over, most likely due to a poor offensive scheme. And the 1 thing they were great at they completely fell apart on the last half of the season and into the playoffs and that was the #1 defense.

                          I thanked the 2nd part of your post. I believe it has to be the most important aspect of this team going forward. It is imperative that Vogel gets it figured out!!!! No ifs, ands, nor buts about it. AND Bird had best stay on top of it!

                          Comment


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

                            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.

                            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.
                              We got off to an awful start, and we were a 50+ win caliber team that year.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                                We got off to an awful start, and we were a 50+ win caliber team that year.
                                And yet we still didn't win 50 games. Every team goes through rough stretches, and ours just happened to be the first 10 games of the year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X