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

Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

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

  • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

    Originally posted by Roferr View Post
    There have been a slew of teams that have been up 3 to 1 that wished the series was over. The Warriors are not the better team. I have to hand it to them though, because in this short span of games they have been the better team. I still believe the Mavs will win the next 3.

    This series has been an aberration that comes along once in a decade or so. One team gets the number of another but it doesn't mean they are a better team and that over the length of a season would be proved to be worse. To say that the Warriors are a better team is outrageous. If they go on to defeat the Mavs, their road will be very rocky with other teams that they don't happen to match up so well with, teams the Mavs would probably roll over.

    This is not sour grapes, but I do believe that the zebras have let the game flow in such a manner to favor the Warrior's style of play. Dirk has been on the floor more than he's been off. I've never seen one guy get knocked to the floor so many times going after a rebound as Dirk without a foul being called.

    I'm surprised that Avery hasn't been able to meet the challenge. Jackson is not stopping Dirk, alone. Dirk is double teamed every time he thinks about receiving the ball. With him doubled, someone has to be open and with proper spacing, Dirk should be able to pass to the open man. It surely hasn't worked that way. His teammates have not responded by maintaining the proper spacing. If the Mavs can't figure this out, the series may indeed, be over.

    Stern would love to see Cuban lose. That would make his entire season.

    When I said recent history, I meant Warriors vs. Mavs recent history. The Warriors have the Mavs' number, address, and a key to their house. None of this is a fluke. This not your average underdog putting up a big fight situation. This is a case of a team truly knowing the key to beating another. The Warriors are faster, tougher, and they're having a hell of a lot more fun than the Mavs. I said it on the last day of the season, and I've been saying it over and over. The Warriors are mentally tougher and that's why they're going to win the series.

    If you saw the game last night, the Warriors spent the majority of the game playing the Mavs' tempo and still couldn't be stopped. The only thing that'll slow the Warriors down is Baron Davis going down with an injury. Even then, I'm still sure they can pull off a victory to finish off the series. Face it. The Mavs have met their worst nightmare. Don't be blinded by the 67 wins.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

      Anybody who brings up the REFS in defense of a #1 seed not being able to beat a #8 seed....

      I'm not even going to finish that one. It's too ridiculous.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        On a completely unrelated note, Shaq has tied the NBA record for most times being swept out of the playoffs (6)....

        Yep. Unbelivable.

        1994-Pacers
        1995-Rockets
        1996-Bulls
        1998-Jazz
        1999-Spurs
        2007-Bulls

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

          The 5 game sweep in the finals against Detroit unofficially makes it seven.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

            Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
            No, I'm just remembering why we got rid of him in the first place, which apparently a lot of people have forgotten already.

            Hell, go back and read your own posts. There was a reason you wanted him out of here so badly, too.

            The trade sucked. I didn't like it from the beginning. But you know why the trade sucked? Because Jackson killed his trade value by sucking *** on the court and being a dumbass off of it.

            Golden State didn't even want Jack. They wanted Al. They HAD to take Jack to get Al. Jack had NO TRADE VALUE.

            Jack helped to leave this franchise in a shambles and yet some Pacers fans are actively rooting for the guy. I just don't get it.

            Jack isn't laughing with you, Jerm. He's laughing at you, and all the rest of us Pacers fans.
            Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

              GO JAZZ. DERON WILLIAMS IS MY HERO.
              But sadly only up one at half.


              In other news, Wizards want to win a game?

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                No, I'm just remembering why we got rid of him in the first place, which apparently a lot of people have forgotten already.

                Hell, go back and read your own posts. There was a reason you wanted him out of here so badly, too.

                The trade sucked. I didn't like it from the beginning. But you know why the trade sucked? Because Jackson killed his trade value by sucking *** on the court and being a dumbass off of it.

                Golden State didn't even want Jack. They wanted Al. They HAD to take Jack to get Al. Jack had NO TRADE VALUE.

                Jack helped to leave this franchise in a shambles and yet some Pacers fans are actively rooting for the guy. I just don't get it.

                Jack isn't laughing with you, Jerm. He's laughing at you, and all the rest of us Pacers fans.
                Shade, that really is a good post, I'm thinking about nominating it for post of the year

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                  I wish we were in the playoffs with Jack right now and he was laughing at me, I wouldnt mind.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                    Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                    I wish we were in the playoffs with Jack right now and he was laughing at me, I wouldnt mind.
                    Seriously, we could hang with any of these teams except maybe Detroit (though we did a good job with them when we had Jack and Al) and Chicago. I'm not afraid of anyone else...god I'm bitter...I just really wish we were in the playoffs; it pains me to watch the playoffs without the Pacers.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      Seriously, we could hang with any of these teams except maybe Detroit (though we did a good job with them when we had Jack and Al) and Chicago. I'm not afraid of anyone else...god I'm bitter...I just really wish we were in the playoffs; it pains me to watch the playoffs without the Pacers.
                      Do you really want to get swept in 4 games?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                        Originally posted by grace View Post
                        Do you really want to get swept in 4 games?
                        it doesn't hurt THAT bad.
                        STARBURY

                        08 and Beyond

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                          How about Robert Horry, that guy is as clutch as they come, even at 36. The Mavs should be taking notes, the Spurs are showing how to step up to the pressure against a hostile crowd.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                            Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                            Seriously, we could hang with any of these teams except maybe Detroit (though we did a good job with them when we had Jack and Al) and Chicago. I'm not afraid of anyone else...god I'm bitter...I just really wish we were in the playoffs; it pains me to watch the playoffs without the Pacers.
                            The whole thing does provide great ambivalence for me. I don't care so much about Jack's success this post season. I like Nelson and have always been both a Dallas and GS fan-teams I pull for other than the Pacers, but obviously not the same. This is why I am happy for GS.

                            The trade is bittersweet. Jackson was going to be dismissed from Indy at some point soon. I wasn't as pissed as some. I wasn't happy particularly after the Club Rio shooting incident though. I just recognized it wasn't gonna work out and a parting of the ways was inevitable.

                            However, the ironly about the harsheness of us not being in the playoffs is that, I believe Jack on the roster would have gotten us there. Would we have been ECF material? Dont' think so. Would it have solved the Jack impasse in the public eye? Dont' think so. The result is what it is. GS has benefited (although moreso from adding Jack to a bunch of other great talent), we lost out from the immediate standpoint, but if you couldn't stand Jackson you got what you wanted.

                            But, finally, I couldn't give a about what people think about Jack, what he thinks about us, or about what others perceive Pacers fans or organization (and I guess me by extension?) based on how this thing has played out or what goofy dance he's doing. Just b/c he played on the team I support, or perhaps is "laughing" at us now, means nothing. Most people realize that him playing for "Indiana" doesn't equate to him as a represenation of the fans. If they do want to jump to such a blatant generalization or stereotype, that's their choice or lack of being critical cultural/ media consumers.

                            Honestly, I just continue to be amazed the amount of extreme love or loathing that seems to persist about Jack. I'll reiterate from before, this whole thing gets way to much attention and energy. It's just a basketball player who doesn't follow the rules. Big deal. He's not the first or last celebrity that will ever run afoul of the law or be a controversial figure. I can think of other people in positions of power who IMO are at least as detrimental to the general welfare than Jack but not as villified.

                            Is his behavior acceptable? IMO no. Especially the shooting guns in public. Is this discussion overkill? Hell yes. He was traded and he's in court so for those Pacer fans that couldn't stand him-happy ending. He's contributing to a team on the cusp of a huge post-season upset so for those who like him-happy ending. Everybody gets something they can accept. Time to stop bickering. Accept the reasonable form of resolution in each case but realize it's tought to get one's cake and eat it, too.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                              Does everyone realize the Pacers havn't been swept out of the playoffs since 1992 (3-0 loss to the Celtics). The Pacers have played 27 series since then and have never been sept. In fact they have never even lost a 7 game series 4-1.

                              That is remarkable and I doubt there is another team in the NBA who has played that many series and that hasn't been swept.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                                ...that's remarkable?

                                BTW, being swept isn't that common. The Bulls haven't been swept since 1987, off of memory.

                                Off the top of my head, that's 39 series since their last sweep.

                                Utah hasn't been swept since 1989. That's an even 30 series without being swept, I believe.

                                The Celtics have been swept TWICE. Ever, if I remember correctly, and both times came when they were a #8 seed.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X