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

Some insight into our current problems?

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

  • #46
    Re: Some insight into our current problems?

    Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
    I read Hicks' concern as Donnie Walsh still believes the key is the quality of players 4-9 in the rotation, not the top 1-3 players.

    I'm not sure that's what Donnie is saying though.

    Donnie continues to overvalue "depth" vs. elite players.

    I think the 1998 ECFs and 2000 NBA Finals should go a long way toward discrediting that approach. We were "deeper" than the Bulls and Lakers, but had no answer for their top two players. And we lost. It was competitive. But we lost.
    Jay, I think you are undervaluing just how effective the 98 and 2000 teams were, as well as how they lost. It wasn't Jordan and Pippen that ultimately did in the Pacers in 98, it was KUKOC. So depth even played a part for the Bulls. Guys like Kerr and Paxson also come to mind as well.

    And simply dismissing those teams as competitive overlooks the Pacers leading in Chicago midway in the 4th quarter of a game 7, something NO JORDAN TEAM EVER FACED. Mike never faced a final game of a playoff series except vs the Pacers.

    So that was as close as you can get without winning, and again Kukoc was the answer, not the big 2.

    Then the Pacers outscored the Lakers for the 2000 series and led in game 6 in LA, and lost game 5 in OT with Shaq out, which means they didn't have an answer for 1 guy, not 2.

    Plus, it wasn't Reggie or Rik that was key factor, but Croshere and his matchup with Horry. And think back to McKey defending Jordan when he tripped going to the lane to ensure a Pacers win in 98.

    So I disagree that having 2 greats gets it done over depth. The Pacers depth did lose those games, but no more than teams with 2 greats would have lost to them. When 2 top teams meet, an elite team will lose, there is no way around it. Doesn't matter how the teams are designed.


    The key you hit upon is that a team must have a MATCHUP it can exploit consistantly. Typically that is a star because that's how a player becomes a star, he wins most matchups. But winning ANY matchup can be effective unless the other coach can find a way to counter it.

    Having guys so generic and bland off the bench that they never really have a specific matchup advantage is a problem, but I don't think Donnie is talking about depth at that level of non-ability.

    If you are a 2 star team and one of those guys has a bad night or the other team schemes well to stop them, then you can get in trouble in a hurry. Teams with depth aren't as exposed to those kinds of concerns.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Some insight into our current problems?

      LA, what about the first Rockets championship, before Drexler joined the team?

      Mad Max and The Jet were at 5.1 and 4.2 APG respectively, only Dream went for more than 14 ppg and while Thorpe did average a double double (the 14 ppg and 10.6 rpg) he wasn't a shot blocker (about .25 per) or steals player. Thorpe only made ONE all-star team and it was 2 years prior (17.3 ppg, 10.5 rpg), and this was the last season he went beyond even 8.5 rpg for a season (ie, he was 31 and topped out).

      The teams that Houston beat out all had stronger 1-2 combos, including Stockton-Malone, Drexler-Cliff Robinson, Kevin Johnson-Barkley-Majerle-Ceballos (case for any of them as better than Thorpe that season), Payton-Kemp, and Sprewell-Webber-Mullin.

      And note that in all of these other cases you have a primary inside man AND a player that can work with the ball and initiate his own shot. Also, this is only the Western teams, Pippen-Grant, Price-Daughtery, Wilkins-Willis-Blaylock, Ewing-Oakley-Starks, Anderson-Coleman, and maybe even the team Houston beat Shaq-Penny all had more impressive pairs of stars.

      Dream was amazing, but after that it was strength by depth, not 2 stars. It was Horry, Elie, Max, Smith, Thorpe and Cassell all giving something here and there.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Some insight into our current problems?

        I stand corrected, there was one other team that didn't have the one-two punch. So that's the Rockets and (maybe) Detroit in that column. Next to that column imagine the list of teams that DID have top 30 talent at two positions.

        See what I mean?
        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Some insight into our current problems?

          BTW, while we are debating over how many teams one without having at least one player as arguably the best in the NBA, let's look at the flip side of it - how many teams with at least one player that is arguably the best in the NBA don't win titles every year?

          Kobe comes to mind. 2 time MVP Nash rings a bell. Duncan. James last year. KEVIN GARNETT. JO in the year before his 3rd place MVP vote (when most of us realize he was better). Karl Malone. Barkley. Robinson winning the MVP in Houston's 2nd title year.

          Teams go get elite players and still lose. Teams go get MVPs and still lose.

          Forget having top players, how about the more impressive stat. How many championship teams in the last 20 years weren't coached by Phil Jackon, Pat Riley, Gregg Popovich, Chuck Daly or Rudy Tomjanovich. I count 1 - Larry Brown. 5 coaches, 19 of the last 20 titles

          So it's more important to have one of the 3-4 greatest coaches in the game than it is to have the best player, at least going by relationship of coaches to titles compared to the relationship of the MVP winners to titles.

          Spend the money and hire Pop, Riley or Phil. Apparently there is no chance otherwise. I guess my hope is that with Rick already winning a COY and finishing top 5 in the COY voting his first 4 seasons, that perhaps the Pacers already have the next Pop or Phil. I know most don't believe it, but he's already had spectacular results compared to expectations.



          And LA, on this topic go re-read the Houston post and consider all those other 1-2 punch teams just in that season that didn't win. 1-2 punch gets you in the mix only, and the Pacers have already been there (if healthy). You need MORE than just a 1-2 punch, and in 2 cases teams did even need the 1-2 punch despite other teams having it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Some insight into our current problems?

            I read your post. Now try to win a championship without top-tier talent. The fact that you can only come up with 2 teams proves my point completely. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

            I see your point that it takes more than just that, but we were talking about wether or not this aspect is important, which it clearly is. In fact, it's pretty much an essential ingredient - like tomatoes in pizza sauce.

            If you want to talk about what else is important, then it's a new topic altogether.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Some insight into our current problems?

              Excellent posts Nap-Seth....

              I agree that while it seems that you always need a 1-2 punch to win, the fact of exactly why a team won is often revisionist history to prioritize the impact that the "Big Two" actually had. Of course, your two best players are going to be the ones that get you there, and of course, we give most of the credit for championships to "Magic/Kareem" "Bird/McHale," "Dr. J/Moses," "MJ/Pippen," "Shaq/Kobe" and "DWade/Shaq" but just having this doesn't guarentee you the rings.

              You need Big Shot Rob to hit that miracle three against the Kings. You need the Blazers to choke away a 20-point lead in the 4th Quarter. You need to get 7493 offensive boards against the Pacers in game 7 of the ECF. You need Paxson and Kerr to hit those open jumpers.

              In some of these cases, it's easy to say "You need luck", which is true, but moreso this "luck" comes in the form of having a very high-quality "3 through 6 punch."

              I mean the Knicks made two Finals with their 1-2 combos being "Ewing/Starks" and "Spreewell/Houston." Detroit won back-to-back titles with "Isiah/Dumars" and then again with "Wallace/Chauncey". How did they do it? Simple: "Oakley/Mason/Anthony/Harper," "LJ/Ewing/Camby," "Laimbeer/Rodman/Aguirre/Microwave/Sally" and "Rip/Sheed/Tayshaun."

              You need to be very solid at 3-6. That's a big reason why the Rockets aren't doing that much this year even if TMac is healthy and that's why the biggest challenge MJ ever faced post-1990 was "Miller/Smits/Jackson/Rose/Davis/Davis/Mullin/McKey".

              As Pacer fans, we should know how important depth is. But it only matters if it's high quality depth.

              So it is rare, but it can be done without a real 1-2 punch. It's just a lot easier the with one.

              With JO involved, we'll never have a historically elite 1-2. But we can put something very good out there with say the equivalent of JO/Pierce or JO/Vince. By themselves those guys would have no chance to do nearly as much as the "failed" 1-2s of Stockton/Malone, Shaq/Penny, Barkley/KJ, or Payton/Kemp.

              But you add Al/Danny/Tinsley/Quisy/and one of Harrison/Shawne to that mix, and you have a team that can at least be a Top 3-4 team in this league and maybe get into the Finals.

              Would they win? Who knows with all these historic greats like Duncan, Kobe and Lebron ruling the league....But I'd rather give that squad a chance than blow the whole thing up and hope for Greg Oden. And then hope Greg Oden actually does become a historic great.

              With JO/Al/Danny and the hope that Danny can really become something, we really do have a good base fort the next four years. We just need that one key-stone piece that gives us another near-elite player, and a couple of "Derrick McKey" or "Dale Davis" types that we know we can count on.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                You need to be very solid at 3-6. That's a big reason why the Rockets aren't doing that much this year even if TMac is healthy and that's why the biggest challenge MJ ever faced post-1990 was "Miller/Smits/Jackson/Rose/Davis/Davis/Mullin/McKey".

                As Pacer fans, we should know how important depth is. But it only matters if it's high quality depth.

                So it is rare, but it can be done without a real 1-2 punch. It's just a lot easier the with one.
                Very well thought out points JayRedd, but I think some of us have a differnce of opinion on depth. Simply after your five starters how many people off the bench have to be the high quality you're looking for? For some here they would rather spend the extra cash on proven impact players who will get meaningful minutes rather than laying out the cash at the end of the bench for those who don't play.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                  Can anyone think of an elite player we can aquire using maybe without trading JO, Al, or Danny that would actually work?
                  I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                    Originally posted by indyman37 View Post
                    Can anyone think of an elite player we can aquire using maybe without trading JO, Al, or Danny that would actually work?
                    If we are getting an elite player back then I am not sure why we wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't trade any of those players.... Maybe not all 3 but even 2 of them could be in the mix.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      If we are getting an elite player back then I am not sure why we wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't trade any of those players.... Maybe not all 3 but even 2 of them could be in the mix.

                      -Bball
                      I'm just thinking an elite guard with Danny, Al, and JO would one, solve a lot of problems at that position, and two, give us an excellent chance of a title.
                      I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X