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

how many years of sucking before we contend?

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

  • #31
    Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
    One of the worst things about being an EC team is you can still be terrible and make the playoffs.

    It really allows for delusional thinking.

    Frex, the word from Knicks management is that if it wasn't for the injury problems we'd have made the playoffs this year. I don't know for sure if that's true but Crawford and Lee missed about the last 20 games of the season so it's at least plausible.

    That doesn't change the fact that we're a bad team, or that if we were in the West we'd win about 25 games. I don't see the short-term prospects as much different for the Pacers.

    Could they be a playoff team next season? Sure - in the EC, UCLA could be a playoff team next year. That's just disguising the fact that the team isn't very good and the future doesn't look particularly bright.

    If you were in the West, you'd be forced to face the facts. In the East you'll contend for the playoffs.
    Very well put.

    The second half of the past season Indiana was not as good a team as Portland, yet the fact the the Blazers play in the west, combined with some lottery luck has them on the verge or really turning things around.

    Indiana, even though they weren't as good as Portland at the end of last season, has very bleak prospects for a quick turnaround....because they finished too high in the standings in the weak weak east.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

      Why is everyone down on our chances of returning to the playoffs?

      We have a core of very good players who only lanquished playing with JO's style of ball. If we get a couple of sound players for JO, there is no reason we can't be right back in the middle of things this very next season.

      Put Granger, Ike, Baston, Daniels, Williams and Dun with another couple of decent players and you've got a pretty good team. I believe that Murph can return as a double-double player under O'Brien. They will be able to play a different kind of ball without JO having to touch it on almost every possession.

      I don't think JO helped the team that much in the last couple of seasons with his outside game hurting us. If he does go to the Lakers, he will be a much better player with Kobe keeping everyone honest on defense. Maybe, he will return to his low-post play where he is dynamite but his style of play isn't going to do anything for our type of team.

      I can see us finishing as high as 4-5 in the East especially with O'Brien coming aboard who is noted for turning teams around. I am still pumped and stoked for the season to begin.
      .

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

        Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
        We paid the price for trying to build a team through talent.
        As opposed to building through what? I don't get that comment at all. Who's the last contender that wasn't a talented basketball team? You make it sound like having 5 rhodes scholars and a couple choir boys is the way to an NBA title. I guess Detroit traded for Rasheed for his charm instead of his basketball talent.

        Now if your suggesting that TPTB compounded issues by not moving disruptive players - (falling in love with talent), then I would agree with you. But that is exactly the reason I seem to blame Bird more than DW. DW always seemed to move guys that made any kind of noise. I've seen that noted by one of the Walsh critics (BBall or Peck?) several times - the main way a Pacer would get traded is to step out of line. Ever since Bird arrived TPTB seemed to look the other way at internal issues.

        The problem wasn't in trading for Artest, the problem was keeping him for so long. His trade value was certainly higher after his DPOY award and the team certainly already new he was crazy. Carlisle should have been gone after last season and the same goes for JO.

        When Bird and Carlisle came on board the Pacers where a young and talented team, but emotionally immature. I believe things have went about as bad as the could have. I don't see anything that gives me faith in Birds ability to select a coach, make trades, handle personnel, or sign FAs. At least with DW I have his steady leadership of the past to lean on. Personally I have disagreed with every move made since Bird came on - except not re-signing B. Miller. I don't know if that makes it Bird's fault or not, but it certainly doesn't give me confidence in the future with the current management - especially Bird.

        If TPTB make the right moves this team would likely not make the playoffs next year. The other thread talking about acquiring Marcus Camby is exactly the type of move I am afraid the team will make. A 33 year old Center who's game is totaly based on athleticism is not what this team needs. A quick rise to a middle playoff seed is fools gold if there is not enough talent to develop into a true contender. TPTB need to acquire the best prospects they can by trading JO and spend next year concentrating on player developement. That should equal at least one more trip to the lottery.

        So realistically 2 years to make the playoffs and 2 years learning the ropes in the playoffs before they can be truly considered "contending". Best case scenario is 4 years before truly contending -if they don't attempt to "make a run" next year and continue the last 2 years of true mediocrity.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

          how many years of sucking before we contend?

          Depends, how soon will the Simons get sick of our current management and their retooling process and bring in some new management that will actually REBUILD the team to be contenders?

          Im guessing not for another 4-5 years.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

            Originally posted by Roferr View Post

            We have a core of very good players who only lanquished playing with JO's style of ball. If we get a couple of sound players for JO, there is no reason we can't be right back in the middle of things this very next season.

            Put Granger, Ike, Baston, Daniels, Williams and Dun with another couple of decent players and you've got a pretty good team. I believe that Murph can return as a double-double player under O'Brien. They will be able to play a different kind of ball without JO having to touch it on almost every possession.
            Are you kidding? By NBA standards this lineup has lottery written all over it. Those ARE NOT very good NBA players. As a group, they are way below average.

            To me this looks like a 23-win team next year. The addition of a couple players in a JO deal might add 10 wins, but it's still a lottery team.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

              We need a player that the other players will go to war for before we can really talk about contending. No one currently has that mantle and it will have to be earned.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                The Bulls are a scoring wingman away from being true contenders.
                What the heck is Deng? And I thought they were a bigman defensive presence away from being true contenders. It's not hard to go back and review how the Bulls were ranked coming into the season.

                Just goes to show you about how close teams are on-paper. Say they get the kind of wing you're talking about (can they afford it even?), then they still come up short. Then we are having this identical conversation all over again but pointing to yet another "all they need" aspect.

                IMO the Bulls have shown that their rebuild was perhaps prematurely crowned. Instead of suffering to get back to the top they've suffered just to end up where the Pacers fans were sick of being the last few years. I mean people wanted Rick gone for only going to the 2nd and 1st round, and then really wanted him gone when they missed this year.

                Well what the heck has Chicago done any different?

                That's why I have to watch the Pacers only win 34 games a year for 3 more years, so they can lose in the 1st or 2nd round and only be a player X from being a contender again?

                Yech, no thanks.


                Honestly I think they are set to be pretty bad for at least 2 seasons, then maybe catch the cusp of the playoffs (which still isn't all that good). Hopefully by that point they'll be able to make a move for a real star (to replace giving up JO which I assume is part of all of this).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                  Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                  how many years of sucking before we contend?

                  Depends, how soon will the Simons get sick of our current management and their retooling process and bring in some new management that will actually REBUILD the team to be contenders?

                  Im guessing not for another 4-5 years.
                  I'm guessing that the Simons aren't interested in overspending as they did because they didn't get a big enough bang for the buck. Just a guess.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                    Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                    \I've seen that noted by one of the Walsh critics (BBall or Peck?) several times - the main way a Pacer would get traded is to step out of line. Ever since Bird arrived TPTB seemed to look the other way at internal issues.
                    I've certainly said that but you are using it in the wrong context. Your ticket out of town would be refusing to accept the party line, not just a dustup. It would be challenging TPTB. Ala, Best, on a slow burn, finally refusing to enter a game. Dale Davis flying off the handle regarding his contract. Jermaine O Neal throwing a hissy fit 8 games into the season...


                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

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

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                      I don't like to think it will take this long...but I really think the whole process of getting us back to real contention status will be about 6-7 years. I'm hoping I am wrong but I think it will just take time to find all the pieces that fit.
                      I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                        We are just not going to be back into elite status until we get several top ten picks in a series of a few years. It's not enough to not make the playoffs. This is really a no brainer since the fastest way to really be competitive is to really suck first. We need a Durant, Oden, LeBron type. Look at the finals. Where did Duncan and LeBron come from? If this team is better and picks in the 14-20 range in next year's draft we will not dramatically improve.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          I've certainly said that but you are using it in the wrong context. Your ticket out of town would be refusing to accept the party line, not just a dustup. It would be challenging TPTB. Ala, Best, on a slow burn, finally refusing to enter a game. Dale Davis flying off the handle regarding his contract. Jermaine O Neal throwing a hissy fit 8 games into the season...


                          -Bball
                          Wouldn't Artest's refusal to board a plane, Tinsley's constant malingering, and SJax's verbal confrontations fall into the same category?

                          I don't know what Bird is actually responsible for, but I do see a distinct difference between the way the team was ran prior to his arrival and after. I certainly don't believe he is the only person to blame - I just don't take any comfort in the thought of him controling the rebuilding.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                            Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                            Wouldn't Artest's refusal to board a plane, Tinsley's constant malingering, and SJax's verbal confrontations fall into the same category?

                            .
                            No, not really. It's when you take your feud with TPTB public. I don't think SJax ever really had a major feud with TPTB, and after his ingame blowups he always seemed to make it to the next game. .... maybe not to the shootaround/practice, but he made it to the game and seemed 'with the program' (as much as we came to expect).

                            -Bball
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

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

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: how many years of sucking before we contend?

                              I can't get past the building around Bynum suggestion..... crazy..
                              Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X