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

Talent Level

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

  • Talent Level

    There's been a lot of talk about the Pacers being a team that's low on talent. I've bought into this to a certain extent, but I'm starting to rethink it a bit.

    Also, I think the evaluations of talent level will be different at the end of the season than at the beginning.

    Let's take a team like Philadelphia. Do they really have more talent than the Pacers? How would you rank the significant players on both rosters? I think Granger's #1, followed closely by Iguodala at #2, and Andre Miller at #3. After that it gets pretty murky, but I think you could make the case that Ford, Jack, and Murphy are as good as anybody else on Philly's roster, especially if you don't count Elton Brand.

    I'm really out to see on this issue, but I'm leaning toward saying that I think the Pacers underacheived from a talent perspective, but I can't seem to muster any vitriol towards O'Brien or the players when I say this.

    I guess I need to do a better job factoring in the fact that we were getting contributions from Rush and Hibbert at the end of the season that we weren't at the beginning and these contribuitions have drastically affected my appraisal of our talent level.
    200
    Cleveland
    12.50%
    25
    Boston
    12.50%
    25
    Orlando
    12.50%
    25
    Atlanta
    11.50%
    23
    Miami
    10.00%
    20
    Philadelphia
    7.50%
    15
    Chicago
    10.50%
    21
    Detroit
    8.00%
    16
    Charlotte
    2.00%
    4
    Milwaukee
    3.50%
    7
    New York
    0.50%
    1
    Washington
    3.50%
    7
    New Jersey
    1.00%
    2
    Toronto
    4.50%
    9
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Talent Level

    The Pacers finished just about where they should in terms of talent. We have one All-Star who is great but not a superstar, some rookies who will be good but are still developing, and a bunch of relatively mediocre veterans. That's not going to get you really far in the NBA.

    We're basically like a not-so-good version of the Miami Heat, their All-Star is a superstar unlike ours, and Beasley (their rookie) probably has much more talent or at least firepower at this point than any of our rookies.

    And by talent do you mean better because there are a lot of players in the NBA who are talented that don't make their team that much better.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Talent Level

      I chose, in no particular order:

      Cleveland
      Orlando
      Boston
      Atlanta
      Chicago
      Miami (only because of Wade)

      I think Indiana is as talented or more talented than the other teams mentioned. That's including Philadelphia and New Jersey.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Talent Level

        I question how people say one team has more talent than another.

        For example - the Cavs IMO because they have Lebron James has a talent advantage over the Pacers. I don't care who else is on the Cavs - James is soooooo good, he alone tilts the scales. So comparing two teams by going position by position and saying OK Pacers have advantage at 3 positions and the Cavs at two - that is meaningless.

        The other thing that is just wrong about going position by position comes into play with the Sixers vs the Pacers. Pacers have better shooters, better offensive players, but how do you figure in overall athleticism, quickness....

        You also run into problems with potential vs veterans. Is Hibbert more talented than Foster - yeah - but Foster is a much more important player to winning right now - to say nothing about this past November and January.

        Not that I have the answer in judging talent - but I first look at best player vs best player and 9 out of 10 times the team with the better "best player" IMO is more talented. I judge best or better player by the impact he has on winning. Granger was the 5th leading scoer- but he was not near the 5th best player in the NBA - not to pick on Danny

        The only teams I think that don't out-talent the Pacers:
        Wizards - Also with Gil - they might
        Nets - Although with VC and DH - they might
        Toronto -
        Charlotte
        New York -

        Every other team on the list IMO has more talent. The Bucks IMO are more talented.

        Really I think I could make a pretty good argument that the only team in the whole NBA that the Pacers clearly and by any reasonable measure have more talent than is the Kings.

        Edit - I am basing this on this past season - not the future
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-20-2009, 02:27 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Talent Level

          I watched just some snippets of games this weekend, but I really found myself thinking that they are that far off any of the East teams other than a healthy Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando.

          With Cleveland and Orlando they just happen to have two of the best 5 players in the game respectively in Dwight Howard and LeBron James.

          I don't seeing huge difference in the entire rest of the East, all of teams not in those first 3 have glaring weaknesses in my opinion. I probably like Chicago a hair better, but I have felt that way even prior to Derrick Rose, so he kind of really puts them over the top.

          Relative to the Pacers, they've legitimately played with all of those team, I've thought.

          The Boston, Orlando, and Cleveland wins were great, but you have to say that was really just a great night each time.

          As for the other 11 teams, I don't think there is one of them that a healthy Pacers team wouldn't at least be competitive in, in a 7 game series.

          This is April obviously, but the Pacers HAVE to make the playoffs next year for a million reasons, but mostly to see where you stand against these other teams in the big picture when the bright lights come on.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Talent Level

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I question how people say one team has more talent than another.

            For example - the cavs IMO because they have Lebron James has a talent advantage over the pacers. I don't care who eslse is on the Cavs - james is soooooo good, he alone tilts the scales. So comparing two teams by going position by position and saying OK Pacers have advantage at 3 positions and the Cavs at two - that is meaningless.

            The other thing that is just wrong about going position by position comes into play with the Sixers vs the Pacers. Pacers have better shooters, better offensive players, but how do you figure in overall athleticism, quickness....

            You also run into problems with potential vs veterans. Is Hibbert more talented than Foster - yeah - but Foster is a much more important player to winning right now - to say nothing about November and January.

            Not that I have to the answer in judging talent - but I first look at best player vs best player and 9 out of 10 times the team with the better "best player" IMO is more talented.

            This is a good point. It's hard to break it down by position and come out with the better team. I think the Pacers gave a game to almost everyone they faced this year, which is good and bad. It means they are far off from being one of the better ones of that group, but not far from being the worst too.

            I would guess if the main group of players are here next year and Obie doesn't do a 180 with the schemes, you'll see a pretty dramatic positive result against some of these teams.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Talent Level

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I question how people say one team has more talent than another.

              For example - the cavs IMO because they have Lebron James has a talent advantage over the pacers. I don't care who eslse is on the Cavs - james is soooooo good, he alone tilts the scales. So comparing two teams by going position by position and saying OK Pacers have advantage at 3 positions and the Cavs at two - that is meaningless.

              The other thing that is just wrong about going position by position comes into play with the Sixers vs the Pacers. Pacers have better shooters, better offensive players, but how do you figure in overall athleticism, quickness....

              You also run into problems with potential vs veterans. Is Hibbert more talented than Foster - yeah - but Foster is a much more important player to winning right now - to say nothing about November and January.

              Not that I have to the answer in judging talent - but I first look at best player vs best player and 9 out of 10 times the team with the better "best player" IMO is more talented.
              I agree with almost everything you're saying.

              How do you evaluate talent in a possible Cavs vs. Lakers matchup? I happen to think that LeBron is better than Kobe (I don't even think it's all that close, frankly). But I also think that Gasol and Odom are more talented than anyone on Cleveland's roster. As a whole, there's little doubt in my mind that the Lakers are a more talented collection of players.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Talent Level

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                This is April obviously, but the Pacers HAVE to make the playoffs next year for a million reasons, but mostly to see where you stand against these other teams in the big picture when the bright lights come on.
                That is sooo true - you really don't know a player until you see them in the playoffs. Look at Reggie - without the playoffs - he doesn't make the HOF, his deserved reputation is completely different. The regular season is only there as a primer for the playoffs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Talent Level

                  somebody explain to me how exactly washington does not have more talent AND potential than the pacers...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Talent Level

                    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                    I agree with almost everything you're saying.

                    How do you evaluate talent in a possible Cavs vs. Lakers matchup? I happen to think that LeBron is better than Kobe (I don't even think it's all that close, frankly). But I also think that Gasol and Odom are more talented than anyone on Cleveland's roster. As a whole, there's little doubt in my mind that the Lakers are a more talented collection of players.
                    I agree with you, but I don't think the gap between the role players of the Lakers and that of the role players of Cleveland is enough to make the Lakers better than Cleveland. LeBron is just that good.

                    Besides, Big Z, Delonte West, Mo Williams, and Varejao aren't bad players. Even Joe Smith, Wally Z, Gibson, and Ben Wallace have their moments. They're much deeper than they were the last time they made the Finals. Sasha Pavolic, who had a big role on their NBA Finals team, is probably their 11th or so man now.

                    When you look at the Lakers beyond their starters, the only two guys on their bench I would even covet are Lamar Odom and maybe Sasha Vujacic. Farmar can be a good backup PG but he is banged up right now. They are relatively thin now and the Cavs can go much deeper into their bench.
                    Last edited by idioteque; 04-20-2009, 02:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Talent Level

                      Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                      I agree with almost everything you're saying.

                      How do you evaluate talent in a possible Cavs vs. Lakers matchup? I happen to think that LeBron is better than Kobe (I don't even think it's all that close, frankly). But I also think that Gasol and Odom are more talented than anyone on Cleveland's roster. As a whole, there's little doubt in my mind that the Lakers are a more talented collection of players.
                      Not to get off topic, but that is why I think Lebron is the MVP over Kobe - Kobe has better players on his team vs the Cavs.

                      Overall I think the Lakers are the most talented team in the NBA. Cavs aren't too far behind. But on the other end of the spectrum - a team like the Clippers with Camby, Baron Davis, Zack Randolph, Kaman, Al Thorton, Eric Gordon, Ricky Davis - that is at least in the top half of the league talent wise
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-20-2009, 02:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Talent Level

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Really I think I could make a pretty good argument that the only team in the whole NBA that the Pacers clearly and by any reasonable measure have more talent than is the Kings.
                        I'd certainly add a couple teams to your list, especially if you don't project into the future and just look at the past season. The bottom feeders are obvious: Minnesota, Memphis, OKC. I also think it's pretty clear that we're more talented than the Knicks.

                        There's 3 categories really: Cleary worse than the Pacers, On par with the Pacers, Clearly better than the Pacers

                        Clearly Worse:
                        Sacramento, Minnesota, Memphis, OKC, New York

                        Clearly Better:
                        Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Denver, Portland, Utah, LA Lakers, LA Clippers, Phoenix
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Talent Level

                          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                          somebody explain to me how exactly washington does not have more talent AND potential than the pacers...
                          When healthy, they have 3 players who are very clearly better than anyone on the Pacers other than Granger.
                          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                          - Salman Rushdie

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Talent Level

                            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                            somebody explain to me how exactly washington does not have more talent AND potential than the pacers...
                            I couldn't make a strong argument - except to say Gilbert is injured. When he is healthy and when Haywood is healthy - they are more talented

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Talent Level

                              Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                              I'd certainly add a couple teams to your list, especially if you don't project into the future and just look at the past season. The bottom feeders are obvious: Minnesota, Memphis, OKC. I also think it's pretty clear that we're more talented than the Knicks.

                              There's 3 categories really: Cleary worse than the Pacers, On par with the Pacers, Clearly better than the Pacers

                              Clearly Worse:
                              Sacramento, Minnesota, Memphis, OKC, New York

                              Clearly Better:
                              Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Denver, Portland, Utah, LA Lakers, LA Clippers, Phoenix
                              I can't argue with you. Although the Wolves, Grizz, and Thunder each have some talented young players - IMO the Kings don't even have that. IMO the Kings are in their own category then

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X