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

Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

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

  • #46
    Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

    Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
    The media always hypes the teams with the superstars or that made a big move in the offseason. The teams that dont make much noise get overlooked and undervalued.

    The Clippers and Sixers are not better than the Pacers. Indy should be at least #6. Boston had a mediocre regular season and caught a lucky break in the playoffs with Rose going down.
    Odd, I think the Clippers and Sixers ARE better than the Pacers. Boston played well in the playoffs. That is why superstars are so valuable.... ...

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

      Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
      i think the #8 ranking is at least arguably fair. I think were better than the Clippers and the 76ers, but I can see how most others would disagree. The Clippers are obviously loaded with talent, and should be better this year with Crawford, a full season of Billups and Grant Hill addressing the weaknesses in their roster from last year.

      And people forget that the 76ers had arguably at least as good a postseason as the Pacers did. They pretty handedly beat the 1 seed without Derrick Rose (we did the same against a worse Magic team without Dwight) and took the Celtics to 7, who came within a good 4th quarter of beating the Heat. And regardless of how much theyll miss Iggy, their improvements from last year are more apparent than ours (Nick Young, Dorrell Wright and the clear cut 2nd best center in the league) and their room for internal improvement is at least as great as ours (Evan Turner and Jrue Holiday mainly).

      If we were objectively trying to look at the situation from the outside, I think opinions here would change. If the 76ers signed Mahimni, Green and DJ in teh offseason (and drafted Miles Plumlee), and we traded say Danny for Andrew Bynum, I guarantee you most people here would be laughing at the 76ers offseason acquisitions, probably saying they didnt get any better at all, while we were poised to win the East.
      You can't rate a team that is entirely dependent on growth to be good, higher than a team that has already proved to be good and only need growth to improve. The 76ers lost 3 starters, and added Bynum. A guy that has shown great immaturity in the past.

      The Pacers were better last year, and now get to grow. The 76ers lost the heart and soul of their team and added pieces that might work well together. Thats a big MIGHT

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

        Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
        You can't rate a team that is entirely dependent on growth to be good, higher than a team that has already proved to be good and only need growth to improve.

        Huh?
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

          And the Clippers are not better than the Pacers?
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Huh?
            76ers need new players to step up, and Bynum to grow up. Where as the Pacers are already good and need those things to simply improve and become better.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

              Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
              You can't rate a team that is entirely dependent on growth to be good, higher than a team that has already proved to be good and only need growth to improve. The 76ers lost 3 starters, and added Bynum. A guy that has shown great immaturity in the past.

              The Pacers were better last year, and now get to grow. The 76ers lost the heart and soul of their team and added pieces that might work well together. Thats a big MIGHT
              The 76ers arent entirely dependent on growth to be good. They were already OK, and made large roster improvements from last year. They traded away a very good, but not superstar wing for a player who is quite clearly the 2nd best center in the entire league. They have a young stud in Evan Turner who plays the same position and does a lot of the same things Iggy could do well. They lost Lou Williams and replaced him with Nick Young and Jason Richardson (probably a sidegrade), and lost an aging but solid Elton Brand but now have a bigs rotation of Bynum, Hawes and Kwame.

              But yea, if you want to talk about growth, they have 3 players that have just as much room for growth as our own Paul George in Bynum, Holiday and Turner. Plus, you say Bynum has been immature in the past, and he has, but you ignore the fact that he might also be just scratching the surface of his potential (he's a whole 1 year older than our rookie big Miles Plumlee and 1 year YOUNGER than our "young" bigs Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansbrough).

              And the Pacers need new guys to "step up" too, because if they don't, we have no bench, and we all know bench production is 50% of what did us in last year against the Heat (the other 50% being James/Wade).

              This isnt a ranking of how good they were last year, its a ranking of how good one writer thinks they are now. Sure the Sixers have a lot of question marks, and you can disagree, with him (and like I said in my original post, I do disagree with him), but I think his ranking isnt far off. Its not like he put the Sixers 5 spots ahead of the Pacers.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
                The 76ers arent entirely dependent on growth to be good. They were already OK, and made large roster improvements from last year. They traded away a very good, but not superstar wing for a player who is quite clearly the 2nd best center in the entire league. They have a young stud in Evan Turner who plays the same position and does a lot of the same things Iggy could do well. They lost Lou Williams and replaced him with Nick Young and Jason Richardson (probably a sidegrade), and lost an aging but solid Elton Brand but now have a bigs rotation of Bynum, Hawes and Kwame.

                But yea, if you want to talk about growth, they have 3 players that have just as much room for growth as our own Paul George in Bynum, Holiday and Turner. Plus, you say Bynum has been immature in the past, and he has, but you ignore the fact that he might also be just scratching the surface of his potential (he's a whole 1 year older than our rookie big Miles Plumlee and 1 year YOUNGER than our "young" bigs Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansbrough).

                And the Pacers need new guys to "step up" too, because if they don't, we have no bench, and we all know bench production is 50% of what did us in last year against the Heat (the other 50% being James/Wade).

                This isnt a ranking of how good they were last year, its a ranking of how good one writer thinks they are now. Sure the Sixers have a lot of question marks, and you can disagree, with him (and like I said in my original post, I do disagree with him), but I think his ranking isnt far off. Its not like he put the Sixers 5 spots ahead of the Pacers.
                This is a very different 76ers team from last year though. So much so, how good they were last year really has no bearing. The entire philosophy of that team has changed with the loss of Williams and AI.

                So much in fact that this is going to be a team that is pretty bad if the guys don't step up and Bynum doesn't adjust well to his new role.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  Odd, I think the Clippers and Sixers ARE better than the Pacers. Boston played well in the playoffs. That is why superstars are so valuable.... ...
                  Odd, to find yet another post where you have to be Debbie Downer... Dont know if you have ever said anything positive about the Pacers...
                  Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    And the Clippers are not better than the Pacers?
                    Ok, I'll bite. Why are the Clippers so superior to the Pacers? Yes I get Chris Paul but after that I just don't see it.


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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Ok, I'll bite. Why are the Clippers so superior to the Pacers? Yes I get Chris Paul but after that I just don't see it.
                      Blake Griffin? not only that but CP3 by himself should be enough to put the Clippers over the Pacers in my opinion, they also have a player in Butler that's not scrub, Jordan is also pretty good, I know many here hate Knick Young but the guy can score and go for 20+ points at any night.

                      They also added Lamar Odom, a guy that when he is in shape he is better than anything the Pacers have and I bet if he was a Pacers many here would be proclaiming him a "20/10 guy at least".
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Blake Griffin? not only that but CP3 by himself should be enough to put the Clippers over the Pacers in my opinion, they also have a player in Butler that's not scrub, Jordan is also pretty good, I know many here hate Knick Young but the guy can score and go for 20+ points at any night.

                        They also added Lamar Odom, a guy that when he is in shape he is better than anything the Pacers have and I bet if he was a Pacers many here would be proclaiming him a "20/10 guy at least".
                        I'll give you Chris Paul, without a doubt one of the top 3 point guards in the NBA & frankly you could make arguments for him or Williams or Rose to be # 1.

                        Yes Blake Griffin is a dynamic scorer but his defense is just not there. It's not bad mind you but it's not good either and frankly David West is the kind of player who is going to give him trouble (& yes vice versa I admit) because West doesn't rely on his athleticism.

                        Butler is a good defender & can hit an open shot but honestly he's nothing special and any of Granger, George or Green will be able to get theirs with no problem and Danny has shut him down in the past as well.

                        Nick Young is fine but I'll take Paul George. Lamar back in the day? Sure but this guy is a mental midget right now & frankly he is getting long in the tooth. Jordan needs to learn to play basketball without relying on his ability to jump.

                        Teams can take him out of a game if they just keep a body on him & frankly he just has no hope vs Roy.

                        Now on top of that we have George Hill who while is not a traditional point guard he does team up with Paul George to form a very dynamic defensive combo, somthing that honestly none of us talk enough about.

                        I guess we are also forgetting about Grant Hill and he will help their depth for sure.

                        But let's not forget that they have Del Negro as the head coach so that is a big minus right there.

                        Look I'm not saying they are bad but I am saying that they are not laughably better than us as you implied in fact I dispute that they are really that much better than us if they are better than us at all.


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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                          Look I'm not saying they are bad but I am saying that they are not laughably better than us as you implied in fact I dispute that they are really that much better than us if they are better than us at all.
                          Yes they are that much better because they have two guys that are way better than anything the Pacers have, I know many here don't want to believe it or refuse to believe it but superstars always triumph over a bunch of decent players that play "team basketball", I also know that some people want to bring Detroit as an example but the fact is that that team had four all stars and one pretty good player in Prince so nope the Pacers are not like The Pistons either.

                          By the way I agree with you regarding Del Negro to me he is the only one holding that team back.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                            If I'm not mistaken the clips lost nick young but added jamal Crawford, Lamar Odom and grant hill. That plus maybe chauncey for an entire year and they should be better this year than last.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                              Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                              This is a very different 76ers team from last year though. So much so, how good they were last year really has no bearing. The entire philosophy of that team has changed with the loss of Williams and AI.

                              So much in fact that this is going to be a team that is pretty bad if the guys don't step up and Bynum doesn't adjust well to his new role.
                              And if Bynum does adjust and new guys step up, then they'll be a beast of a team, and quite possibly better than Indiana. The bottom line is the sixers put themselves in a position to improve signifanctly better than the pacers did, and it's not unreasonable to think they may be better than Indiana this year. And that's all the power rankings are, one person thinking they will be slightly better this year
                              Last edited by SkipperZ; 10-01-2012, 02:14 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Espn Power rankings Pacers #8

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Yes they are that much better because they have two guys that are way better than anything the Pacers have, I know many here don't want to believe it or refuse to believe it but superstars always triumph over a bunch of decent players that play "team basketball", I also know that some people want to bring Detroit as an example but the fact is that that team had four all stars and one pretty good player in Prince so nope the Pacers are not like The Pistons either.

                                By the way I agree with you regarding Del Negro to me he is the only one holding that team back.
                                Well first of all your not dealing "many here" your dealing with me. I agree with you, I said after the Miami series that the Heat series was so horrid for me because it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that two superstars can beat a group of really good 5 players. I hate it, I hate it so much that I questioned why I watched the NBA all summer long but it is what it is.

                                However we're not talking LeBron & Wade here. We are talking Chris Paul (superstar) I will give you that & won't bat an eye.

                                However I'm sorry but Blake Griffin is a superstar because of his leaping & dunking ability. He does not take over on the defensive end and frankly for as athletic & strong as he is I think he can rebound better. So to me he is a star player but I will not put him on the level of Bryant, Wade, James, Paul, Williams, etc.

                                So, yes I will now revert to the Indiana way and say that while I think Paul is great, he is not enough to overcome our team. A team of 5 really good players can beat a team of one superstar & another star player.

                                You do agree with me that it took superhuman efforts from Wade & James in particular for the Heat to beat us last season. I don't think Paul, as good as he is, can take over the game like either of them can.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X