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 will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

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

  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

    Tanking is for losers...we play to win!

    Comment


    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      This is off the topic, but it irks me a little when I see the recognition given to the Spurs as a class organization. Yes, they are extremely well ran but it's like everyone forgets the tank job they did to land Duncan. Of course luck played a factor but Robinson could have returned and Elliot may have been ready as well late in the season. The foundation of everything they've built has been on a tank job. I won't lie, I'd be o.k. if we had 4 championships built on a tank job but their would be a small asterisks beside them.
      David Robinson's injury (missed 76 games, last game was December 23) wasn't tanking.

      They fired Bo Hill right before Robinson's season debut in mid-December, and went 3-3 when David was healthy enough to play.

      Sean Elliott's injury (missed 43 games, last game was Feb. 5) wasn't tanking.

      Charles Smith's injury (missed 63 games between November 5 and March 15) wasn't tanking.

      Charles Smith even returned to the lineup when the team was 16-47 to play the remainder of the season. Bringing your starting PF back when you're 31 games under 0.500 isn't tanking.

      So that covers their starting front court, of 246 possible games, they played 64.

      Then you add in their sixth-man, Chuck Person, who missed all 82 games after back surgery. (And spent most of the season at his home in Indianapolis and paid for Roger Brown's funeral that season.)

      So their four main front court players missed 264 of 328 games due to injury that season. Its no wonder they were 20-62 that season right after Bo Hill led them to 62 wins (and the WCFs) and 59 wins in the two preceding years.

      Calling this a tank job is one of the most outlandish attempts at revisionist history I've ever seen on PD. And we're pretty good at revisionist history around here.

      ,

      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

        Thank you ChicagoJ. I've debated this point several times here and I've just given up on it. I've begun to wonder how many people saying it even remember it, and how many are just repeating what they heard someone else say.

        Comment


        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

          It call comes down to odds. If you want a championship, do the Indiana Pacers have a better chance of having a soft landing rebuild and snag Paul George at #9....or a hard landing and snag Kyrie Irving, John Wall or Blake Griffin?

          A soft landing is a relatively easy thing to do for a decent rebuild where you have a team good enough to make he playoffs and possibly contend for the ECF.

          But the question remains...do you want a championship? The point isn't that tanking leads to a championship necessarily. The point is...what are the odds and do you really want it bad enough?

          Were the Reggie Miller years completely satisfying?...losing to the Lakers in the finals? Keep in mind, that we are attempting to do pretty much the same thing....but in this case we didn't even have a #2 pick with Smits. Our current studs were both picked at #17.

          I just find our recipe extremely unlikely to ever lead to an NBA championship...

          Comment


          • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

            To correct one minor point, when we are speaking of the past, it is correct to refer to the owners as the "Simons". However, in the present, all owner decisions are being made by the "Simon"... and that would be Herb.

            Comment


            • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              David Robinson's injury (missed 76 games, last game was December 23) wasn't tanking.

              They fired Bo Hill right before Robinson's season debut in mid-December, and went 3-3 when David was healthy enough to play.

              Sean Elliott's injury (missed 43 games, last game was Feb. 5) wasn't tanking.

              Charles Smith's injury (missed 63 games between November 5 and March 15) wasn't tanking.

              Charles Smith even returned to the lineup when the team was 16-47 to play the remainder of the season. Bringing your starting PF back when you're 31 games under 0.500 isn't tanking.

              So that covers their starting front court, of 246 possible games, they played 64.

              Then you add in their sixth-man, Chuck Person, who missed all 82 games after back surgery. (And spent most of the season at his home in Indianapolis and paid for Roger Brown's funeral that season.)

              So their four main front court players missed 264 of 328 games due to injury that season. Its no wonder they were 20-62 that season right after Bo Hill led them to 62 wins (and the WCFs) and 59 wins in the two preceding years.

              Calling this a tank job is one of the most outlandish attempts at revisionist history I've ever seen on PD. And we're pretty good at revisionist history around here.

              ,

              I have no way of proving it but it was common knowledge that Robinson could have returned that season. If they let him then they win more games and not playing your best players if they can play is tanking. I remember Barkley accusing them of it that season. It's listed as one of the biggest tanking jobs in the nba on many articles.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                When Bo Hill and Rifleman arrived in San Antonio, I began tuning into their games on the League Pass quite regularly. I won't say that I cheer for the Spurs, but they are the team I've watched the second-most amount of times over the past 18 years of subscribing to the League Pass. Getting Duncan and then Manu helped me stay tuned in after Rifleman and Bo Hill moved on...

                There was discussion in real-time that the Celtics were trying for the #1 pick, and wouldn't it be justice if Tim Duncan didn't go to Boston but landed in San Antonio. Pop was frustrated that injuries to D-Rob, Elliot, Rifleman and Smith took them out of championship contention when they had a top-five team at the time. For crying out loud, they brought Dominique Wilkins out of the old folks home and he was their leading scorer. That's not tanking. You don't bring in Dominique to tank. You let Carl Herrera and Cory Alexander have all the minutes if you're tanking. They played, but out of necessity not out of "Tank" strategy.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  I have no way of proving it but it was common knowledge that Robinson could have returned that season. If they let him then they win more games and not playing your best players if they can play is tanking. I remember Barkley accusing them of it that season. It's listed as one of the biggest tanking jobs in the nba on many articles.
                  They were already eliminated from playoff contention when David Robinson might have been able to return from his broken foot. It was "iffy" If they were in the playoff picture they could have rushed him back sooner and had him on the court at less than 100%. What happened to Bill Walton's foot when he tried to come back too soon? There is a history of big men never really recovering from broken feet. Sam Bowie? Can't blame the Spurs for not wanting to share this cursed history with the Blazers.

                  What sane GM allows an MVP candidate on the court at less than 100% while recovering from a broken foot, and with risk to re-injury or setback, when his team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs? Only Jim O'Brien would be that shortsighted.

                  http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...ed-3-15-start/
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    They were already eliminated from playoff contention when David Robinson might have been able to return from his broken foot. It was "iffy" If they were in the playoff picture they could have rushed him back sooner and had him on the court at less than 100%. What happened to Bill Walton's foot when he tried to come back too soon? There is a history of big men never really recovering from broken feet. Sam Bowie? Can't blame the Spurs for not wanting to share this cursed history with the Blazers.

                    What sane GM allows an MVP candidate on the court at less than 100% while recovering from a broken foot, and with risk to re-injury or setback, when his team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs? Only Jim O'Brien would be that shortsighted.

                    http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...ed-3-15-start/
                    I just looked at that seasons' standings again. I'd forgotten how bad Boston was trying to lose, finishing at 15-67. As much as I wish the Celtics, Tom Heinsohn, the Auerbach family, and all Celtics fans many, many, many years of 15-67, I hope its because they're trying to win and can't, not just that they have ML Carr coaching the team so they'll lose. The Grizzlies were 14-68, and that might have been about right for them. They didn't have any injury issues, they didn't tank. They just SUCKED. So the Spurs weren't even at the bottom of the standings in their so-called tank season.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                      Well I tried to start a thread, and I guess it was too similar to what this thread was about, and I apologize to mattie for that. Did not mean to call you out or steal your thunder.

                      Anyways, I like our chances of winning in the next five years because of the four biggest contenders in the East (Miami, Boston, Chicago, Indy) we are by far the youngest. And I guess I'll just leave it at that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                        Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                        Well I tried to start a thread, and I guess it was too similar to what this thread was about, and I apologize to mattie for that. Did not mean to call you out or steal your thunder.

                        Anyways, I like our chances of winning in the next five years because of the four biggest contenders in the East (Miami, Boston, Chicago, Indy) we are by far the youngest. And I guess I'll just leave it at that.
                        It got a little wild over there and the thread was closed. No need to apologize. And don't worry about the goofballs. If you are new around here and dare to offer an opinion, you will get such treatment from some silly people around here. I pity those fools.

                        But most are A-OK.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          It's easier if you have a competent front office, just because other teams with crappy front offices have failed doesn't mean that your team is also going to fail, I guess you guys don't trust the Pacers front office the same way I do even though I'm the one criticizing them for their failures.
                          Wow... You come close to making my head explode on a daily basis... Maybe I am a masochist...
                          Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X