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

Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

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

  • #76
    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

    My point is that tanking doesn't buy you a whole lot more overall than playing the games the way they fall without deliberately tossing away a season either from the FO or coaching perspective. Your chances of getting a top player or draft pick asset may be improved, but (in my mind) not by enough to overcome the risks.

    Teams are going to have cycles of being bad (well, teams not the Spurs). No need to extend them or make them deliberate.
    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


    • #77
      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I don't think many people honestly think the Pacers have a chance of finding a generational talent. It's more about finding a potential all star talent that could grow with PG.
      I wonder how many of those all stars are with the same team that drafted them. I bet a large chunk of them go the same way as ring winners, they do it with another team.

      Sure, there's all kinds of talent picking early in the draft, the problem is you have to wait for them to go from potential to impact players. If you're on a team that is missing that Robin to your already established Batman, how long is that window open?


      Do the Pacers have 3-4 years to wait? Probably not, the rest of their team outside of PG will be old or retired.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        I believe UB has subscribed to the notion that trading that high pick for a proven player is a solid play too.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I wonder how many of those all stars are with the same team that drafted them. I bet a large chunk of them go the same way as ring winners, they do it with another team.

          Sure, there's all kinds of talent picking early in the draft, the problem is you have to wait for them to go from potential to impact players. If you're on a team that is missing that Robin to your already established Batman, how long is that window open?


          Do the Pacers have 3-4 years to wait? Probably not, the rest of their team outside of PG will be old or retired.
          Well no matter what, the Pacers will be drafting and developing a rookie next season (unless we make a trade like with Hill). The only question is how good the rookie will be. Even if we make the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed in the East, we are still going to have a pretty decent draft pick since we obviously aren't going to have one of the better records in the league. A lot of times you really don't have to wait that long for guys to develop. PG, Hibbert, and Granger were all pretty good at a very young age. A talented player brought into our system with Vogel and a talented cast would be in a much better position to succeed than most highly drafted rookies who are going to teams that are trash. We're not trash - we're just temporarily weakened by a major fluke injury to our superstar and irritating injuries to some other important players.

          Whoever we draft will not be carrying the weight of the franchise on their shoulders. With PG and Hibbert, we are going to continue to be in contention for the immediate future. PG should make a full recovery by next season and Roy has looked awesome this year. Unlike most teams at the top of the lottery who are depending on rookies to save the franchise, we are in a unique position in that we already know that we have a superstar returning next season. Things are rough right now, but we're back in business next year. If you could add some really talented rookie to the PG/Hibbert core.....then wow.

          Sure, there's no guarantee that a player will stay with their team. But the Pacers have a pretty decent record at keeping their talent. PG/Hibbert/West/Hill all stayed, and most players would have taken the deal offered to Lance if they were advised by real agents instead of fools in over their heads.

          As mentioned above, you can't forget about trading a pick. Bird traded the 15th pick for George Hill, and even though the pick went on to become a Finals MVP, there's no doubt that Hill brought exactly what we needed at the time. Bird's buddy Ainge traded the 5th pick for Ray Allen, which helped them win a title. Bird is such a fabulous GM that I could definitely see him trading a high pick for a proven vet.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-19-2014, 04:45 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I think there is too much emphasis being put on Tim Duncan, Lebron James, and Kevin Durant. Most people who advocate tanking understand that the odds of coming up with a player like that are beyond slim. Instead, those who advocate tanking are simply putting their money on the fact that the odds of coming up with an all-star in the top 10 are much higher than they are outside of the top 10.
            See, this is the part where it would be helpful to define your idea of what tanking is. For instance, I would argue that no tanking is needed at all to land the 9th and 10th positions in the draft. Last season, these spots belonged to Cleveland (33 wins) and New Orleans (34 wins). Both teams tried hard to make the playoffs, and both teams traded future picks to land win-now vets (Deng and Holiday, respectively). That's not what I call tanking.

            The year we drafted Paul George, we had 32 wins. We had a pile of losses early, then made a late run that, according to some people, did nothing but damage our draft position. That's not what I'd call tanking either.

            I mean, even this season, no matter how hard we play, I still think we'd end up with a win total in the low 30s, which puts us pretty much in top 10 draft position. This is without overt tanking moves like trading West, etc. So by your definition, that would be a successful outcome, right?

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              See, this is the part where it would be helpful to define your idea of what tanking is. For instance, I would argue that no tanking is needed at all to land the 9th and 10th positions in the draft. Last season, these spots belonged to Cleveland (33 wins) and New Orleans (34 wins). Both teams tried hard to make the playoffs, and both teams traded future picks to land win-now vets (Deng and Holiday, respectively). That's not what I call tanking.

              The year we drafted Paul George, we had 32 wins. We had a pile of losses early, then made a late run that, according to some people, did nothing but damage our draft position. That's not what I'd call tanking either.

              I mean, even this season, no matter how hard we play, I still think we'd end up with a win total in the low 30s, which puts us pretty much in top 10 draft position. This is without overt tanking moves like trading West, etc. So by your definition, that would be a successful outcome, right?

              Coming into the season, I think I predicted 38 wins and said that they could win in the low 40's if they had a lot of things go their way. But then West and Hill got injured, which obviously severely hampered any playoff hopes. So I guess that my idea of "tanking" has been what they've done so far - give West and Hill all the time in the world to recover and play young guys like Allen and Hill who might make mistakes, but ultimately will learn things that can help in the long run. Would West and Hill have been able to play by now if this were a year ago when we were competing for a top record? I don't know because I'm not their doctor, but it does seem like they are waiting until they are absolutely 100%.

              I've enjoyed the team's impressive efforts, but once Hill and West went down, our hopes of fielding a good team were pretty tiny. Whenever he comes back, I don't want to run an old David West into the ground in an effort to get the 8 seed. Instead, I want a fresh David West for next year when PG comes back.

              People get caught up in the now and want to see their team win, I get that. But in June, no one will care much about the games played this season and everyone will be looking forward. The 7th pick wouldn't look too shabby with a freshly returning PG, would it?
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-19-2014, 10:02 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                The 7th pick wouldn't look to shabby with a freshly returning PG, would it?
                Of course. Once PG went down, I think everyone realized that our consolation prize is going to be a good draft pick. What people get hung up with, I think, is the idea that say getting the 7th pick is so much better than the 11th pick or even the 15th pick. I mean, clearly 7 is better than 11, but not significantly better, I'd argue. (And then we'd argue about how much difference is significant or not.)

                Here's a breakdown of players by picks that is a bit more comprehensive than the one you posted earlier (by count55).

                http://8points9seconds.com/2010/05/1...ber-crunching/

                So at least we'd have some numbers to argue over

                This was posted before the 2010 draft, and I found this section to be very prescient:

                If the Pacers draft at #10, history says that getting a solid starter or a rotational player should be considered a success. However, that doesn’t mean that should be the target. The reason that some good players fall to later draft picks isn’t because some drafts are deeper than others (though that can and does have an impact). It’s because talent evaluation is subjective, and not every GM comes to the table with the same view of the prospects.

                Because of this, the intuitive belief that the higher the pick, the better, isn’t always true. The human factor plays heavily in how a draft flows. There will be good players available at the tenth pick. It is no stretch at all to say that at least one of them will end up being better than some of those taken before him. If a team is prepared, can understand what the players offer and how that fits into their plans, then they can change their team from the late lottery.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                  With this team's winning attitude, the Pacers are going to screw around and squeeze into the playoffs for a first round exit and a 15-20 draft pick. By the start of next season, this team will be a complete 360 turn around from this years team!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Potential = Paul George's return and a high draft pick
                    I see your point about a high draft pick adding potential. I don't think we need it. The guys we have are playing hard and actually starting to win, despite the perceived talent level. I get that we lost twice in the ECF with Lance and now he is gone. Who is going to fill the gap, Solomon, a combination of players? I'm not sure and maybe we could really benefit from a high draft pick but I prefer not to watch a season that leads to a high draft pick. I thought I was going to not like watching this team without PG but I am having a blast.
                    Do...or do not. There is no try - Snagglepuss

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                      Originally posted by IAmHoosier View Post
                      With this team's winning attitude, the Pacers are going to screw around and squeeze into the playoffs for a first round exit and a 15-20 draft pick. By the start of next season, this team will be a complete 360 turn around from this years team!
                      I hope not. 360 degree turn means we're in same spot

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                        Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                        I hope not. 360 degree turn means we're in same spot
                        I know.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                          Pacers should have tanked in 2010-2011 instead of getting the eighth seed. O'Brien was doing it right before he got fired.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Would you tank for a 30% chance at one of those players...with the understanding that Paul George is returning? That's where we are at. The odds are probably longer than that. But the odds of winning a championship without taking risks are even longer.

                            ...and you would think people would have learned this lesson from the Colts. Peyton and Andrew were both #1 picks.......

                            ...and the Colts fanbase? Are you kidding me?
                            We aren't in this situation, my friend. There is no TD, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Durant in this draft class.

                            And even if there was we just aren't bad enough to aim for the #1 pick. Heck, 4 of last year's starters have not played a single game yet and we're still in the playoff picture.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              We aren't in this situation, my friend. There is no TD, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Durant in this draft class.

                              And even if there was we just aren't bad enough to aim for the #1 pick. Heck, 4 of last year's starters have not played a single game yet and we're still in the playoff picture.
                              Are you serious! We need to follow the model of the Clippers (of the 90's and 00's), Bucks and Sixers and tank away!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Is it pointless to try and win in a season where you can't win a championship?

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Well no matter what, the Pacers will be drafting and developing a rookie next season (unless we make a trade like with Hill). The only question is how good the rookie will be. Even if we make the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed in the East, we are still going to have a pretty decent draft pick since we obviously aren't going to have one of the better records in the league. A lot of times you really don't have to wait that long for guys to develop. PG, Hibbert, and Granger were all pretty good at a very young age. A talented player brought into our system with Vogel and a talented cast would be in a much better position to succeed than most highly drafted rookies who are going to teams that are trash. We're not trash - we're just temporarily weakened by a major fluke injury to our superstar and irritating injuries to some other important players.
                                Who were picks the Pacers got, WHILE making the playoffs. Which goes into my next point, you can get developed players later in the draft. Early draft selections are usually young guys with the p-word attached to them, potential. The further in the draft you get, the more you see older players selected.

                                Pacers aren't trying to find a Robin, that much is crystal clear. They're trying to do this as a committee. So why hamper the development of the players you do have, like Solomon Hill, and "root" for them to lose so we can get a better draft pick, when you can root for them to win, and watch players get experience they need to help fill holes when the rest of the squad gets back?

                                Let me ask this, was Jim O'Brien right or was Frank Vogel? Remember, one of them was perfectly happy to just lose and get a better draft pick. The other stood up from day 1 and said "We will win, we will make the playoffs." Which one developed players better?
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X