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

No identity

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

  • No identity

    The Pacers have nothing to hang there hat on. We've made too many changes for so many different reasons, that our team is just as confused as us fans! Carlisle is a grind out/defensive minded coach, but he doesn't have a team that can do that!!

    Traded best defender/headcase Artest for the shooting Peja

    Brought in the uptempo, non defensive playing Sarunas

    Brought back Al and brought in Quis hoping to be more athletic and play uptempo, but never really did.

    Realized it wasn't working, so you trade away Al (whom you use a trade exception and 1st round pick in a deep draft to get) Along with a solid yet "problem" player in SJax, Along with the PG experiment and Powell.

    In return we get 2 HUGE contracts of players that were stuck on a bench, neither really plays good defense. One shoots and rebounds pretty decent. The other seems to be trying, plays well for every now and then, but is a chicken with his head cut off otherwise. Another has "potential" but is starting to seem like a poor man's Zach Randolph. Haven't really seen the 4th. Seemed decent in the few minutes I saw tonight!

    So what do we do? We don't have the players (or don't play the players) that we need for Carlisle's grind it out style. Nor do we have the coach who's willing to loosen the leash and try new things?!

    What gives?

  • #2
    Re: No identity

    We need a point guard badly. I think we're pretty good 2-5, solid vets and some nice youngsters with ptoential, but our point guard play is terrible. Tinsley is terrible. The guy is so flawed it's scary. Ok, he can make some great passes. He's also a terrible shooter, defender, and turnover prone. 3 of the biggest flaws a point guard can have. And the worst part is, we dont have a young point guard prospect. Orien Greene isn't an NBA-caliber player. I wish we could've worked out a deal for Udrih yesterday, he's having a touh season but was very good last year as a 23 year old. He at least would have given us a good young prospect at by far our weakest position.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: No identity

      Originally posted by Quis View Post
      We need a point guard badly. I think we're pretty good 2-5, solid vets and some nice youngsters with ptoential, but our point guard play is terrible. Tinsley is terrible. The guy is so flawed it's scary. Ok, he can make some great passes. He's also a terrible shooter, defender, and turnover prone. 3 of the biggest flaws a point guard can have. And the worst part is, we dont have a young point guard prospect. Orien Greene isn't an NBA-caliber player. I wish we could've worked out a deal for Udrih yesterday, he's having a touh season but was very good last year as a 23 year old. He at least would have given us a good young prospect at by far our weakest position.

      As much as I like Shawne, I would like to know what could have been with Marcus Williams! I would also like to know what could have been if we just would have let GS sign Al, and would have saved our exception and 1st round pick! Ahhh good ole hindsight

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: No identity

        I remember a rumor back in the day, was the Pacers turned down

        Nash/Bradley for Artest/Croshere

        It was when we still had Bender and Harrington as well

        I liked Nash, but laughed hard at the trade!

        Every night when I sleep... that trade laughs at me now!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: No identity

          basically what the pacers have needed to do the past 2 years is start over. rarely do teams become championship contenders through trades. almost all become great with high draft picks and when you continue to be mediocre, you aren't getting those franchise players you'd get at the top of the draft. the pacers identity will come with players the fans can identify with and who have been here since the beginning.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: No identity

            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
            I remember a rumor back in the day, was the Pacers turned down

            Nash/Bradley for Artest/Croshere

            It was when we still had Bender and Harrington as well

            I liked Nash, but laughed hard at the trade!

            Every night when I sleep... that trade laughs at me now!
            I did not know that. And now I'm crying.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: No identity

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              basically what the pacers have needed to do the past 2 years is start over. rarely do teams become championship contenders through trades. almost all become great with high draft picks and when you continue to be mediocre, you aren't getting those franchise players you'd get at the top of the draft. the pacers identity will come with players the fans can identify with and who have been here since the beginning.
              Huh? Seems to me like teams become championship contenders by acquiring their final pieces through trades, not through the draft.

              LA and Miami both acquired Shaq.
              Detroit acquired almost everybody.
              Phoenix acquired Nash.
              ... and so forth.

              Practically every team that is a contender, and particulary those that have become champions, has primary pieces that they have acquired through trades.

              The difference between a contender and a non-contender is that contenders have three things that non-contenders don't. Players that other teams want, GMs that have a knack for recognizing the players that will compliment their teams, and the ability to find willing trading partners.
              -------------------------

              I applaud Walsh and Bird for pulling the plug on this team and making the decision to make major overhauls to it.

              Some say they should blow up the team. But those same individuals must have their heads buried in the sand... because the team has already been blown up.

              It's not like you start from ground zero by getting rid of all 15 players. You make a decision of who should remain as the cornerstones. In my opinion, the decision was made to keep Granger and O'Neal, with everbody else deemed expendable.

              I believe that priority #1 was to rid the team of Jackson and Tinsley, while also getting something useful in return. It was deemed imperative to do so to win back fans, if for no other reason. Part of that priority has been accomplished. Recent occurrences made the other part of that priority difficult to accomplish, at least for the time being.

              What I do agree with is that our present team is a "tweener". It's stuck between a rock and a hard spot... not really good at running and a player or two away from being a really good half-court team as well. So, yes... this team hasn't yet determined what its identity will be.

              Until this team gets an identity, I can't really say that Carlisle is not the right man to coach it any more than I can say that he is. And the same could probably be said for just about anyone who would be in his shoes at this time.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: No identity

                without wade and kobe do miami and la win the title? no. and even shaq was a #1 pick. look at history. outside of that detroit team and you can say laker teams, although kobe was just as much a part of those title runs, name a championship team who's star player WASN'T a high draft pick who was drafted by the championship winning team...and with phoenix, they haven't won it yet and are only recently a consistent contender. but they also have amare as probably their most talented player and marion whom they drafted top 10.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: No identity

                  You're changing your premise. You clearly stated that "rarely do teams become championship contenders through trades".

                  I take exception to that, and believe exactly the opposite.

                  In fact, teams put the finishing touches on their teams chances at making runs to championships by completing timely trades, NOT by drafting players.

                  Yes Shaq was a #1 pick. But not by LA, nor by Miami. Kobe would have empty fingers had it not been for LA acquiring Shaq. The same is true for Dwayne Wade in Miami.

                  And Amare being the most talented player on the Suns. Please! I suppose that's why Nash is now a two-time MVP.

                  Without the acquisition of Rasheed, the Pistons most likely would have lost to the Pacers, who probably would have gone on to win a championship.

                  In changing your premise to say that championship teams are made up of high draft choices, you are totally getting away from your reason for making the claim in the first place. And that was your implication that the Pacers should build through the draft as opposed to relying on trades.

                  My opinion is that the Pacers, by virtue of constantly picking in he 16-22 range, will NOT build their team through the draft. Instead, they will rebuild by trading for other players to fill out their team.

                  The only way for the Pacers to get a top 5 pick is to either sacrifice one of their top players in a trade, or to suck so bad that our lottery position would gain us the high pick. With a declining fan base, I feel confident in stating that I don't think Walsh or Bird would want to risk losing additional fans by allowing the Pacers to fall to one of the bottom 4-5 teams in the league just to be guaranteed of getting a high draft choice.

                  They have no choice but to attempt to maintain the competitiveness of the present team while trying to acquire the missing pieces through trades.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: No identity

                    nash is the better and more heady player but not the more talented. i guess it's a matter of opinion when teams become championship contenders so i'll put it this way...teams almost never win championships without their star player being a guy they selected very high in the draft. there is just no disputing that fact. and without kobe and wade the lakers and heat don't win it all (esp the heat). when is the last time, other than the pistons, a team won it all by trading for their top player? and only once recently did they sign him. history has proven that you just don't win rings by continually drafting in the middle of the 1st round. sure it may not be a great thing to say that we should tank the season, but without blowing this team up and aquiring those high picks, the pacers will NEVER go anywhere. and about losing the fans, getting rid of this core of players is exactly what the pacers need to do. throwing out a lineup with a young, high pick or two would certainly get the fanbase energized and give them hope.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: No identity

                      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                      As much as I like Shawne, I would like to know what could have been with Marcus Williams! I would also like to know what could have been if we just would have let GS sign Al, and would have saved our exception and 1st round pick! Ahhh good ole hindsight
                      I've thought about that alot recently considering how bad our point guard play is and how well he has played filling in for kidd. At the time Indiana could't pick him not for a team that was trying to change its image.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: No identity

                        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                        As much as I like Shawne, I would like to know what could have been with Marcus Williams! I would also like to know what could have been if we just would have let GS sign Al, and would have saved our exception and 1st round pick! Ahhh good ole hindsight
                        I've read a number of places that TPTB felt they couldn't chance Marcus after the computer stuff. Not coming off the fiasco of public relations that was last season.
                        Of course if they knew THEN...............

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: No identity

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          I remember a rumor back in the day, was the Pacers turned down

                          Nash/Bradley for Artest/Croshere

                          It was when we still had Bender and Harrington as well

                          I liked Nash, but laughed hard at the trade!

                          Every night when I sleep... that trade laughs at me now!
                          Pshhh, if we had gotten Nash, Carlisle would have started AJ over him.

                          [/my negative post of the day]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: No identity

                            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                            I remember a rumor back in the day, was the Pacers turned down

                            Nash/Bradley for Artest/Croshere

                            It was when we still had Bender and Harrington as well

                            I liked Nash, but laughed hard at the trade!

                            Every night when I sleep... that trade laughs at me now!
                            I think I recall that we could have had Tracey Mcgradey if we would have given Artest to Orlando as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: No identity

                              Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                              I think I recall that we could have had Tracey Mcgradey if we would have given Artest to Orlando as well.
                              Yeah they wanted Artest and Bender for Tmac. My buddy use to work for the Pacers, so he would hear the rumors, and that was nice!

                              He now works for the Orioles, which does me no good whatsoever!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X