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

Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

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

  • #76
    Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

    Pacers were not going to win the championship in 2013. They only won 49 games that season. tell me the last championship team that won that few in a normal length season.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
      Exactly, and basketball is a lot about matchups. Dallas took San Antonio to 7 games, and I feel confident that the Pacers could have spanked Dallas and been spanked by san antonio.
      Pacers were 0-2 against Dallas this year. Dallas might very well have come out of the East.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

        There are avid NBA fans who seriously don't think the West is way better than the East? I mean, maybe that'll finally start shifting back, but for the past 5-10 years it hasn't been close. Last year the disparity was especially huge with all the injuries in the East. Through the first 80 out of conference games last year the Eastern conference was 23-57 against the West. I'm not sure how it ended up, but I do know their 8 seed had 49 wins and our 3 seed had 48. They have been stacked. It hasn't even been remotely comparable.

        You have to beat the West to win the title. Of course, you have to make the finals before that, too, which...

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          There are avid NBA fans who seriously don't think the West is way better than the East?
          Yeah, that's not what was said.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            So, no I don't look at it as "its the east" because honestly I think some of that is overblown.
            Followed by multiple people agreeing. That's exactly what was said, it was said the difference is overblown. It's not, at all. We almost got bounced by a 38 win team without their best player. Phoenix won 48 and missed the playoffs. It's not crazy to think they would have bounced us.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              There are avid NBA fans who seriously don't think the West is way better than the East? I mean, maybe that'll finally start shifting back, but for the past 5-10 years it hasn't been close. Last year the disparity was especially huge with all the injuries in the East. Through the first 80 out of conference games last year the Eastern conference was 23-57 against the West. I'm not sure how it ended up, but I do know their 8 seed had 49 wins and our 3 seed had 48. They have been stacked. It hasn't even been remotely comparable.

              You have to beat the West to win the title. Of course, you have to make the finals before that, too, which...
              The only unquestionable thing to me is that the teams in the two conferences are built differently. In the East they have long been built to beat teams with a single dominant player (thus the development of a stifling defensive game to counter either that player or everyone else). In the West they are built to beat teams with a barrage of offense (thus the development of teams that value scoring more than defending). YES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS (the Spurs being one of the main ones). In general, though, by emphasizing scoring the West plays more like what TV thinks fans want to see, while the single players in the East get more attention than their teams. When East matches against West, it is often truly a battle between two opposing styles of play, and while you would think (given opinion that the West is so superior) that the West would have won all but a very few titles in the last couple of decades, that is not the case. The excuse, of course, is that the East produces one really fantastic team while everyone else doesn't deserve to make the playoffs - an answer that is a bit off-putting because it implies that one team playing against horrible competition for most of its games can develop during the season while the other teams playing against horrible competition clearly have no opportunity to develop because ... well, horrible competition.

              Unless and until all teams play each other the same number of games, there's really no way of proving anything other than that in the style of play favored by the pundits the West excels.

              In any given year, there's likely an imbalance. Lord knows the East had more than its share of horrible teams this year. But denigrating the teams who weren't horrible because they played (and won) the games in front of them is more proof of bias than of quality.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                There's no question the Western Conference is overall better than the East. Absolutely zero question about it. But when the the NBA champ comes out of the East 2 out of the last 3 times, it's pretty hard to argue that the ECF is irrelevant.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  The only unquestionable thing to me is that the teams in the two conferences are built differently. In the East they have long been built to beat teams with a single dominant player (thus the development of a stifling defensive game to counter either that player or everyone else). In the West they are built to beat teams with a barrage of offense (thus the development of teams that value scoring more than defending). YES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS (the Spurs being one of the main ones). In general, though, by emphasizing scoring the West plays more like what TV thinks fans want to see, while the single players in the East get more attention than their teams. When East matches against West, it is often truly a battle between two opposing styles of play, and while you would think (given opinion that the West is so superior) that the West would have won all but a very few titles in the last couple of decades, that is not the case. The excuse, of course, is that the East produces one really fantastic team while everyone else doesn't deserve to make the playoffs - an answer that is a bit off-putting because it implies that one team playing against horrible competition for most of its games can develop during the season while the other teams playing against horrible competition clearly have no opportunity to develop because ... well, horrible competition.

                  Unless and until all teams play each other the same number of games, there's really no way of proving anything other than that in the style of play favored by the pundits the West excels.

                  In any given year, there's likely an imbalance. Lord knows the East had more than its share of horrible teams this year. But denigrating the teams who weren't horrible because they played (and won) the games in front of them is more proof of bias than of quality.
                  Your position would make more sense in a NCAA Football scenario where two conferences are only liable to meet in the post season. The East plays the West all year long. We have more data than just the championship game. The West regularly SLAUGHTERS the East. 23-57 is brutal. It didn't get much better from there: http://chickennoodlehoop.com/category/east-vs-west/

                  The West won 63% of their games against the East, 284-166. They were better, and by a wide margin.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Manu Ginobili would like to have a conversation with you and then as soon as he is done I have Dennis Rodman on line 2.
                    Ginobili was drafted in 1999 and didn't even start to play in the NBA until 2002-2003. I don't think that's a good comparison to Lance because it wasn't a matter of taking someone who was coming into the league immediately, it was a draft-and-wait which always occurs below where a player would go if they were coming via the usual path. A great draft on San Antonio's part, but certainly not anything even approaching the norm.

                    Rodman was drafted early in the second round (27th). After his 4th year I don't think anyone would have thought he was someone you would break the bank for:

                    Code:
                    Averages
                    Year          Team                  	GP 	GS 	MPG 	FG% 	3P% 	FT% 	RPG 	APG 	SPG 	BPG 	PPG
                    1986–87 	Detroit Pistons 	77 	1 	15.0 	.545 	.000 	.587 	4.3 	.7 	.5 	.6 	6.5
                    1987–88 	Detroit Pistons 	82 	32 	26.2 	.561 	.294 	.535 	8.7 	1.3 	.9 	.5 	11.6
                    1988–89† 	Detroit Pistons 	82 	8 	26.9 	.595 	.231 	.626 	9.4 	1.2 	.7 	.9 	9.0
                    1989–90† 	Detroit Pistons 	82 	43 	29.0 	.581 	.111 	.654 	9.7 	.9 	.6 	.7 	8.8
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                      Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                      If we had contracts that weren't garbage, we could improve. However, pretty much all but 3 guys on the team are overpaid. They aren't going to improve and unload bad contracts.
                      That may be true and I don't fully disagree, but I will still hope for the best. I do think we have the assets to do something positive. It's all up to the FO.
                      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        The West won 63% of their games against the East, 284-166. They were better, and by a wide margin.
                        Pacers winning percentage against the West?
                        11-12: 72%
                        12-13: 60%
                        13-14: 60%
                        (Both years Pacers went 18-12)
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                          I don't think we were title contenders last year with Lance also. When you limp into the playoffs the way we did while playing the most meaningful games of the schedule you have serious issues. It was not just Roy, Lance or whoever. Starting with management and the coaching staff. If there were issues between the players they should have nipped it in the bud. If they couldn't then they weren't strong enough coaches. It starts at the top. There was no real leadership from management or players. This year we are going into the season with all these ifs. If Hibbert plays better, if West has another year left in him, if Hill is aggressive, if Stuckey and Miles can fit in and be productive. If the bench can contribute which is a huge if because Vogel has never gotten his bench to contribute. Serious contenders don't have all these ifs. Everything would have to fall into place for us to even be competitive in our own division. I am not betting on it. We don't even have a starting caliber backcourt and that will be a real issue.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Pacers winning percentage against the West?
                            11-12: 72%
                            12-13: 60%
                            13-14: 60%
                            (Both years Pacers went 18-12)
                            Pacers winning percentage against teams .500 or better?

                            22-18. We won a lot of games against bad teams. Not so much against good ones.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                              Originally posted by Dece View Post
                              Pacers winning percentage against teams .500 or better?

                              22-18. We won a lot of games against bad teams. Not so much against good ones.
                              Excellent stat. Do you know the record for teams like Miami, San Antonio and OKC against teams 500 or better? That would give us some barometer.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Has the Indiana Pacers’ championship window closed?

                                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                                Your position would make more sense in a NCAA Football scenario where two conferences are only liable to meet in the post season. The East plays the West all year long. We have more data than just the championship game. The West regularly SLAUGHTERS the East. 23-57 is brutal. It didn't get much better from there: http://chickennoodlehoop.com/category/east-vs-west/

                                The West won 63% of their games against the East, 284-166. They were better, and by a wide margin.
                                Just having every team in the West beat up on the bottom feeders can have a lot to do with that skew. If 5 teams in the East completely suck, that's 2*5*15 = 150 games of those 284 victories. If they split with the other 10 teams, that's 150 each, which would give the E v W split that 10 teams were evenly matched with every team in the West while 5 truly stunk it up. As the West's record was NOT 300-150, it was actually not that good even in a year marked with the best record numerically.

                                Look, I agree that the top 8 in the West is generally better than the top 8 in the East. But the constant narrative that basically every team in the West is better than every team but one or two in the East is wearing.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X