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

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    What makes certain posters so certain that the Pacers didbt Try to make a big splash? There were countless number of FA who we were linked to being interested in. But even so, just because something isn't made public doesn't mean we didn't necessarily make an attempt to sign someone.
    Saying that they just wanted to keep the starters and fix the bench doesn't tell me that they someway somehow wanted to make a "big splash".
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
      Fixed


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

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Saying that they just wanted to keep the starters and fix the bench doesn't tell me that they someway somehow wanted to make a "big splash".
        Touché. I guess what I was trying to say was, if a realistic opportunity to improve our team presented itself, idk why the Pacers or any other team would decide to not make that move. It's just not logical I guess.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Saying that they just wanted to keep the starters and fix the bench doesn't tell me that they someway somehow wanted to make a "big splash".
          Isn't it possible they attempted it and failed, but the smart PR move is to say they only tried to fix the bench.?
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


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

            i keep trying to believe that we can be the 2004 pistons who won with out no real star, but damn the super teams are too crazy! lol

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
              You conveniently forget the teams that are horrible for multiple years without winning the lottery. Typically there are only 1 maybe 2 game changers in a draft and you can go years being the worst team in the league without getting one. Building the right way gave us the 5th best record in the league and an improving team. I prefer that to assembling a crappy team and praying for divine intervention. Then again a lot of people do prefer to have crap to complain about around here. There are 32 teams, fans should appreciate more than just the one with the trophy.
              This all comes down to whether you are satisfied with good teams that compete ok in the playoffs vs having a dynasty with multiple championships. To win championships you have little chance unless you pick in the top 5 slots...or you are a destination city. It's just about impossible otherwise. The Bulls dynasty was MJ who was picked #3. San Antonio's was Duncan picked at #1. Houston won two titles with Olajuwon picked #1. LA has won 5 largely because they are LA and guys like Shaq (who was a #1 pick) decide to make their home there.

              I think a few here misunderstand. I'm not saying it's the answer to avoiding mediocrity. I am saying that if you want an NBA championship EVER...EVER...you almost have to tank to get the pick in a small market like Indy.

              Comment


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

                There are enough fans frustrated over this off season that I think the F.O. should be open about what they tried to do if they did try to go after any impact players or big names. It would be nice to know if they really tried and then you could be a little more understanding. If what we ended up with was the plan all along then all I can say is that's poor management by our F.O.
                If we weren't going to go after the top 2 pg's then I wish we would have put an offer on the table to the 3rd. best player available which was Kaman. Kaman had already shown interest in meeting with the team and I think he could have been added before signing Hill and Hibbert. The additional money spent on Kaman would have won more games for us, and I don't think the bench changes we've made will win more games for us then last year. Ian, DJ and Green just aren't that much of an improvement over Lou, DC, and Barbosa.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by RLeWorm View Post
                  i keep trying to believe that we can be the 2004 pistons who won with out no real star, but damn the super teams are too crazy! lol
                  Think about this for a moment. The Pistons supposedly had no real star, but look where their best players (except Big Ben) were picked:

                  Derrick Colemen - #1
                  Rasheed Wallace - #2
                  Antonio McDyess - #2
                  Chauncey Billups - #3
                  Rip Hamilton - #7

                  Those are good picks and very good all-star calibre players. Still, I agree they won as a team because they had no MJ, Kobe, Shaq or LeBron type of dominant superstar. Yet it still shows just how important those high picks are to acquire. Can we make the right trades to get this done in Indy? I suppose it's possible.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Haven't people been beating the "Boston is done" drum since like 2009? Yet they keep winning and going on deep playoff runs. They had the opportunity to play a game 6 at home that would have put them in the NBA Finals had they won. Unfortunately for them, one of the greatest players of all time played what was probably the greatest game of his career. Then in game 7 on the road, they led for a good chunk of the game before finally wearing out in the fourth.

                    Post-All Star break Boston was a better team than the Pacers last year because they had three players who were better than any single player on the Pacers with Rondo, KG, and Pierce. I don't see how you can be better than a team that has three players that are better than anyone on your roster. Pierce often looked sluggish against Miami, but that was mostly because chasing Lebron around wore him out. There is no player on the Pacers who would come close to exhausting him like that, which means that he would light us up on the offensive end.

                    It all comes down to KG and Pierce. If age causes them to take a significant step backward, then the Pacers are probably a better team. But if those two can come close to equaling their production of last year then they are an even better team than the one that was a hair away from the Finals. Jason Terry is better than Ray Allen at this point and is two years younger. Bradley was a huge contributor down the stretch for them last season and stole Ray's spot, but he missed the Miami series. If Jeff Green can give them something then that will be a very nice addition. Plus they drafted well.
                    Pierce isn't going to light up the Pacers. We have guys who can slow his old legs down. Garnett scares nobody. Jason Terry's shooting percentages are horrible compared to Ray Allen's. The only reason he scored 15ppg to Allen's 14ppg is because he shoots more...and Terry is getting old too. 35 year old SG's who are 6'2" become pretty easy to guard, pretty quickly. Combine that with his defense which will be even worse...Terry is going to be a liability soon.

                    The fact is...Boston is old and getting very old. Retirement old, ok? The Pacers split with them last year and will be a year better. Boston will be worse. Boston barely got by Atlanta and the Sixers took them 7 games and almost out of the playoffs. Will they be a threat to the Pacers? Sure. Will many people consider them favorites over the Pacers? Yes, but they aren't going to be as good. I will admit that Rondo is better than any Pacer including Hibbert. But they are sliding and I don't think they have another year where they are better than the Pacers. That tank is empty...

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Pierce isn't going to light up the Pacers. We have guys who can slow his old legs down. Garnett scares nobody. Jason Terry's shooting percentages are horrible compared to Ray Allen's. The only reason he scored 15ppg to Allen's 14ppg is because he shoots more...and Terry is getting old too. 35 year old SG's who are 6'2" become pretty easy to guard, pretty quickly. Combine that with his defense which will be even worse...Terry is going to be a liability soon.

                      The fact is...Boston is old and getting very old. Retirement old, ok? The Pacers split with them last year and will be a year better. Boston will be worse. Boston barely got by Atlanta and the Sixers took them 7 games and almost out of the playoffs. Will they be a threat to the Pacers? Sure. Will many people consider them favorites over the Pacers? Yes, but they aren't going to be as good. I will admit that Rondo is better than any Pacer including Hibbert. But they are sliding and I don't think they have another year where they are better than the Pacers. That tank is empty...
                      agree! Still don't know why analysts think the Celtics are still threats and they are even ranked higher than us in some peoples mind. The Celtics don't scare me one bit! They are too old and not enough fire power. They will finish 5-8 in the Eastern Conference. Boston's window has been closed for the past 2 years.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
                        You can probably take LA off that list in about 10 years when California's finances catch up with Greece. When players realize that along with the sunshine and hot women they have to pay 50% of their income in state taxes alone Indiana might start looking better.
                        Hasn't helped Orlando THAT much (no State taxes). Maybe Miami, but I doubt LJames and Bosh go there without Wade being there. Helps me, though. Loves me some No State Tax!

                        Comment


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

                          Of all the gripes about the offseason that are brought up I'm surprised Hill's signing isn't a bigger one. It's my biggest problem with the summer by far. It's nothing against Hill, I like him a good bit as a player, but he was obviously restricted. Let him sign an offer sheet somewhere. We were comfortable doing it with Roy knowing (they HAD to know) he'd get a max offer, but not Hill? Instead you willingly give him too long of a deal for too much money while having an immediate replacement in house at the time that had ample experience with a year left on his piddly cheap rookie deal.

                          I don't think it was done solely to justify trading for him (and giving up too much in the process), but I do think it absolutely played a role in the decision.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            Of all the gripes about the offseason that are brought up I'm surprised Hill's signing isn't a bigger one. It's my biggest problem with the summer by far. It's nothing against Hill, I like him a good bit as a player, but he was obviously restricted. Let him sign an offer sheet somewhere. We were comfortable doing it with Roy knowing (they HAD to know) he'd get a max offer, but not Hill? Instead you willingly give him too long of a deal for too much money while having an immediate replacement in house at the time that had ample experience with a year left on his piddly cheap rookie deal.

                            I don't think it was done solely to justify trading for him (and giving up too much in the process), but I do think it absolutely played a role in the decision.
                            I couldn't agree more. There was no way he was getting more then an MLE type offer from any other team, so the Pacers shouldn't have offered more then that. It would have been better to wait and match. The cap space saved by waiting would have left us open to go after amnestied players as well.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              I couldn't agree more. There was no way he was getting more then an MLE type offer from any other team, so the Pacers shouldn't have offered more then that. It would have been better to wait and match. The cap space saved by waiting would have left us open to go after amnestied players as well.
                              To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.

                              Can you imagine Roy going to the bench and coming in with Brand & West? I know they are both getting long in the tooth but Brand still has game. He certainly has more game than Tyler & I can only assume he still has more than Ian & Plumlee.

                              That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

                              Heck you could make a real argument that Scola might have pushed West for starters min. if not the starting position.


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

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.

                                Can you imagine Roy going to the bench and coming in with Brand & West? I know they are both getting long in the tooth but Brand still has game. He certainly has more game than Tyler & I can only assume he still has more than Ian & Plumlee.

                                That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

                                Heck you could make a real argument that Scola might have pushed West for starters min. if not the starting position.
                                This is the white elephant in the room for the summer. Why hasn't Wells written an article on this—to either confirm or dispel the concerns?
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X