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

Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

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

  • Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-ind...0371--nba.html


    In a Time of Big Threes and Super Teams, Pacers Prove Contenders Can Still Be Built



    COMMENTARY | The Indiana Pacers are not your conventional NBA team.


    In an age where acquiring a "big three" is considered an accomplishment, the Pacers have assembled a starting five with an incredible chemistry. And, quite honestly, Indiana might just be the best thing to ever happen to the NBA.

    The downfall of the association began with LeBron James' departure from Cleveland in favor of Miami. The formation of the first "big three," Miami had managed to keep guard Dwyane Wade and sign both James and forward Chris Bosh.

    Then it was the Los Angeles Lakers making their attempts, signing point guard Steve Nash and acquiring center Dwight Howard in an experiment that ended up backfiring on the Lakers. Following Miami and Los Angeles' lead, the Brooklyn Nets took their chance, acquiring forwards Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce to complement point guard Derron Williams and guard Joe Johnson.

    And after reaching one NBA Finals in 2011 and the winning in both 2012 and 2013, it appeared the NBA was headed into a "market battle." The teams in the smaller markets were going to suffer because of the money and lifestyle, along with supporting cast, that big cities could offer.

    Interest in the league seemed to be lacking.

    Cue the Indiana Pacers.

    Team president Larry Bird has constructed a young team over the last six years that is in serious contention to knock off the defending champions and claim the NBA title for the first time in franchise history.

    In a league where flashy offensive is coveted, Indiana is a defensive powerhouse. In a day where players want to follow the money to big-market destinations, Paul George signed a five-year max contract to remain in Indianapolis. And in a time where teams are trying to lure the big name free agents, Indiana has quietly built a contender with skill players.

    But don't take my word for it--let the stats speak for themselves. Through 31 games, Indiana ranks first in the league in all of the following categories: points allowed (89.2), opponent field-goal percentage (41.2%), opponent three-point percentage (32.4%), and point differential (+8.9).

    But it's not ONLY defense that is getting it done for Indiana. Arguably the most balanced attack in the NBA, the Pacers are winning with almost a different leading scorer every night. That is, however, with the exception of Paul George's seventh-ranked 23.5 points per game.

    When looking for your next NBA champion, look no further than Indianapolis. And whether NBA commissioner David Stern and his successor Adam Silver want to admit it or not, the NBA will never reach the level of popularity that the NFL has achieved without providing what the NFL provides--parity.

    The Indiana Pacers are threatening to do just that--level the playing field. And it's exactly what the NBA needed.

    Unless otherwise indicated, all statistics were courtesy of ESPN.com.

    Joe Tacosik is a Featured Columnist for Bleacher Report and a Yahoo Sports contributor. You can read Joe's writings here, on BleacherReport.com and his freelance writing at JoeTacosik.com
    You can also follow Joe on Twitter (@JoeBobTaco)

  • #2
    Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

    I would contend that the first big three was in Boston a few years earlier. But nice little article.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

      Yeah, not much substance to the article.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

        I like the meaning of the article and agree with the premise but I wonder if his theory that interest in the league had declined since the big 3 in Miami is even remotely true?

        Without looking I thought TV ratings have never been higher since this happened and I thought league wide attendance is either at the same or even a little higher?


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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

          #hotsportstakes
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            I like the meaning of the article and agree with the premise but I wonder if his theory that interest in the league had declined since the big 3 in Miami is even remotely true?

            Without looking I thought TV ratings have never been higher since this happened and I thought league wide attendance is either at the same or even a little higher?

            I don't think his theory is the league overall has declined since the big three went to Miami. Although he sort of alouds to that. I think perhaps he is saying for the NBA to take it to the next level in popularity they need parity or they need teams like the pacers.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              I would contend that the first big three was in Boston a few years earlier. But nice little article.
              The article would have been better stating it as the first player generated big 3.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                I like the meaning of the article and agree with the premise but I wonder if his theory that interest in the league had declined since the big 3 in Miami is even remotely true?

                Without looking I thought TV ratings have never been higher since this happened and I thought league wide attendance is either at the same or even a little higher?
                You would also have to factor in the economy right? The populairty being down could be due to the recession and slow recovery.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  I like the meaning of the article and agree with the premise but I wonder if his theory that interest in the league had declined since the big 3 in Miami is even remotely true?

                  Without looking I thought TV ratings have never been higher since this happened and I thought league wide attendance is either at the same or even a little higher?
                  Not even close to being true. The League became a lot more interesting once LeBron took his talents to South Beach. In fact, I'd argue that it's been one of the best things that's happened to the NBA since the MJ returned from retirement. They even survived a Lockout with hardly any loss of interest from the fans because you can hate or debate Lebron and the Heat during the offseason.


                  The NBA could benefit from more parity. I'll give him that but it's not like they weren't making Billions of dollars from the Heat Triumvirate. However, the Pacers are also becoming popular because they battle the Miami Heat so well and are a threat to dethrown them.
                  Last edited by naptownmenace; 01-03-2014, 04:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I like the meaning of the article and agree with the premise but I wonder if his theory that interest in the league had declined since the big 3 in Miami is even remotely true?

                    Without looking I thought TV ratings have never been higher since this happened and I thought league wide attendance is either at the same or even a little higher?
                    Well, the Pacers/Heat matches have set lots of viewing records. Are people outside of Indiana tuning in because they love the Pacers? Or because they love to see the Heat get beat?

                    Parity is a big deal.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I don't think his theory is the league overall has declined since the big three went to Miami. Although he sort of alouds to that. I think perhaps he is saying for the NBA to take it to the next level in popularity they need parity or they need teams like the pacers.
                      I think he's trying to say that one team being the only real contender can be boring. I think that's a faulty premise, because La Liga is HUGE among soccer fans worldwide and the only two teams that ever win there is Real Madrid or Barcelona.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        You would also have to factor in the economy right? The populairty being down could be due to the recession and slow recovery.
                        But that should not impact TV ratings at all

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why the Pacers Are Exactly What the NBA Needs

                          Parity won't come until you get a hard cap, forcing teams to be more pragmatic and focus on developing talent, and players and coaches start to buy into the team concept. Basically doing what has allowed the Spurs to be a contender for the past decade and a half, and hopefully what will allow the Pacers to be a contender for the next decade-plus.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "Pacer love" notes

                            Joe Tacosik Writing for Yahoo Sports writes a nice piece of Pacer love that should make us all very proud.

                            http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-ind...0371--nba.html

                            "In an age where acquiring a "big three" is considered an accomplishment, the Pacers have assembled a starting five with an incredible chemistry. And, quite honestly, Indiana might just be the best thing to ever happen to the NBA".

                            I remember a few years ago when people were saying that we couldn't win with out a superstar.
                            I always believed a good deep team that had several solid players could win.
                            I also said Defense was the way to go. Because it's more in your control. AND it's under appreciated. So you can get better over all players for your money if you forego trying to buy a big time scorer.

                            So now after all the planning and work it's falling into place. Wow!
                            This is just a wonderful season.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: "Pacer love" notes

                              Technically the people saying you can't win without a superstar, could still be right, cuz Paul George is a superstar so....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X