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

Bad Decisions by the Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Bad Decisions by the Pacers

    As I sit and over-react to tonight's loss, I can't help but think about how much differently this season could've gone. There were so many decisions in the offseason and since that I cannot fathom. Just thought I'd list them.


    1. Promising to change the culture of the team.

    I think it was a great idea coming in. As the final buzzer sounded against the Nets, all I could hear was the sound of the Pacers roster exploding. We were promised a no-nonsense stance on player behavior and attitude. So what did we do? We traded away our best playoff performer and Austin Croshere, and we kept Jackson and Tinsley. NOBODY could've predicted these guys would've been in so much legal trouble, but based on their on-court antics alone these decisions are mindblowing. Raise your hand if you thought no nonsense meant getting rid of our problem players, not part of the solution. A lot of you will argue that AJ, Cro, and even Freddie were cancers, but I just have a hard time believing that. What I do believe is that Croshere and JO were at a difference in the lockerroom, one of them is a leader, and the other is annointed the leader. I also think what we got in return from those trades is great. Armstrong and MD's value is great, but it allowed the cloud that's hung over our city for two years to continue to hover. And now, as a result of keeping two players too long, we've done nearly irrepairable damage to the fanbase.

    2. Hiring Chuck Person as a defensive assistant.

    I was very happy to see Kevin O'Neil go, but Chuck Person? Defense? Maybe when Ruben Patterson retires we can hire him to run our offense. Why couldn't we get Dick Harter, or at least someone who knows what defense is? I honestly thought it couldn't get worse than the end of last season, but now we have no philosophy and every team we play is easily exposing each players' weaknesses. I've seen way too many 40 point quarter this past week.

    3. Extending Rick's contract.

    I thought this was a great decision at the time. In my opinion, it was the one remaining move our braintrust was going to make, and we needed the least amount of uncertainty we could have heading into the preseason. Well, that was ruined a few days into training camp at Rio, and the cloud remains. Rick, other than one occassion, has shown NO signs of discipline (in fact, I've seen multiple occassions where players would mouth off for being taken out of the game..i.e. Harrington, Jackson) or a more tightly run ship. We've brought in a lot of new players, all of whom seem to favor Rick's style, and nothing has changed. Why?

    Because Rick sends awfully mixed messages by playing favorites. Some players could never play themselves out of the lineup, and certain players walk on egg shells just to get playing time. It's very unfair, and it HAS to be a strain on the team dynamic. I cannot stand to watch Rick sub in guys that clearly did not bring their game with them, and you know he's going to do it. And what's worse is that he's taking out players who are hustling their a55e5 off. That's not how you motivate your players, or get the best out of them. I wish he'd stick to a philosophy of "whoever plays the best will get the minutes". You think Danny Granger's confidence hasn't been affected? Look at how he played tonight; easily his worst game of the season despite scoring 13 points.


    4. The Golden State trade

    I don't mind the notion of addition by substraction. It's still refreshing to never see our new guys complain, and to have them play like they want to be here despite having less talent as just as much inconsistency.

    What I do mind is how much extra money we've taken on, and the extremely difficult position it puts us in for the future. Fortunately, there are people like Isiah making decisions on other clubs that would be willing to take on a big contract or two, if we could make a trade. I really think that all of those guys needed to go, but was that really the best we could do?


    5. The continued support of our players regarding their off-court behavior.

    I was completely sickened by what happened this offseason and more recently at 8 seconds. The damage done to our franchise's image is the most painful part, regardless of innocence or being guilty. The fact that Boston could suspend Orien Greene for speeding but we haven't suspended our guys says it all to me. I understand that our entire organization has been put in a tough position, but supporting the players is not the best way to win back the trust of the fans. Winning might do it, but their bad decision-making may have ruined that as well.

    There are more factors, and I don't have time to count them all, but I think back at our decisions this year and I'm not surprised that only 12,000 fans attended a weekend game, which we lost after playing with no effort and a bad attitude.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

    Ok, We traded away Austin. Apart from that being a good move we got Marquis Daniels in return. Marquis was good enough to relieve Steve Nash at the point whilst he was injured and did a pretty good job. I know this was a while ago now but it does show some sort of potential. In my opinion Quis is a better aquitition than retaining Austin.

    What makes you so sure that the Pacers didn't try to offload Tinsley or S Jax at the end of last season? At the end of last season S Jax and Tinsley were less than desirable, S Jax due to his shaky behaviour on the court and Tinsley through his injuries. Teams just didn't want them. Croshere was desirable because of his expiring contract and AJ because of his modest contract.

    Although Anthony Johnson is a decent back up point he didn't really show that he regularly could perform as a starter whilst Tinsely was injured. Sure he scored 40 points against Jason Kidd and the Nets but that was only 1 game or 1 series.

    You are right about Chuck Person though. How a 3 point shooter can get a job as a defensive coach is beyond me but ever since we saw the back of Artest our defence has not been particularly strong.
    Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      1. Promising to change the culture of the team.

      I think it was a great idea coming in. As the final buzzer sounded against the Nets, all I could hear was the sound of the Pacers roster exploding. We were promised a no-nonsense stance on player behavior and attitude. So what did we do? We traded away our best playoff performer and Austin Croshere, and we kept Jackson and Tinsley. NOBODY could've predicted these guys would've been in so much legal trouble, but based on their on-court antics alone these decisions are mindblowing. Raise your hand if you thought no nonsense meant getting rid of our problem players, not part of the solution. A lot of you will argue that AJ, Cro, and even Freddie were cancers, but I just have a hard time believing that. What I do believe is that Croshere and JO were at a difference in the lockerroom, one of them is a leader, and the other is annointed the leader. I also think what we got in return from those trades is great. Armstrong and MD's value is great, but it allowed the cloud that's hung over our city for two years to continue to hover. And now, as a result of keeping two players too long, we've done nearly irrepairable damage to the fanbase.
      Your point number is one is a big one, I think.

      Since Hicks got excited about quoting Scripture after the Rio incident (using it as his sig) I'll quote another verse very relevant to your point about keeping Jackson too long, and now Tinsley:

      "See to it that . . . no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many." Hebrews 12:15

      This may relate to the rumor that was posted after the Jax trade that he was starting to have a bad effect on Granger. I think Jax also contributed to Harrison's on-court behavior, arguing with refs.

      Waiting for "value" for Jax may have cost a lot of other value to deteriorate.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

        Originally posted by indricity View Post
        Ok, We traded away Austin. Apart from that being a good move we got Marquis Daniels in return. Marquis was good enough to relieve Steve Nash at the point whilst he was injured and did a pretty good job. I know this was a while ago now but it does show some sort of potential. In my opinion Quis is a better aquitition than retaining Austin.

        What makes you so sure that the Pacers didn't try to offload Tinsley or S Jax at the end of last season? At the end of last season S Jax and Tinsley were less than desirable, S Jax due to his shaky behaviour on the court and Tinsley through his injuries. Teams just didn't want them. Croshere was desirable because of his expiring contract and AJ because of his modest contract.
        Like I said, I think we got some great value in those trades. Croshere wasn't going to do much, and Darrell has been sorely needed.

        My issue is that our club didn't follow through with the plans they publicly set out, imo. How many of you thought "we should get rid of Croshere and Johnson" when we heard we were going to change the team, make it more likeable, and relieve our attitude issues?

        Also, I just don't think we tried to unload our players. Our purpose for trading away AJ was so Jamaal could be the clear cut starter. Besides having our management flat out saying that, we got rid of AJ pretty early in the summer. And before Rio, Stephen had high trade value. He is a very good defender and can score when needed, and definitely has a contract those most teams would be willing to take on. And then you have Rick's quotes about approaching Jax in the offseason and asking him if he wanted Rick to be the coach. Not exactly "looking to ship".

        Both guys had definite value, and neither was traded.






        Originally posted by indricity View Post
        Although Anthony Johnson is a decent back up point he didn't really show that he regularly could perform as a starter whilst Tinsely was injured. Sure he scored 40 points against Jason Kidd and the Nets but that was only 1 game or 1 series.
        I think he did. He didn't just show up during the playoffs. You could see his performance level steadily raise the entire second half of last season. I thought by March he was looking excellent, and then he just exploded in the playoffs. The thing I love about Anthony is that he is a true fan of the game; someone who plays for the love of it. He emerged as a leader last year after outperforming his competition, only to be traded away as a reward. And now we're left with the same issues we had as last season.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

          We traded away our best playoff performer Austin Croshere?

          Dude are you serious. Austin Croshere our best playoff performer. Where was I during these playoffs.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

            I'd understand the Croshere trade more if management didn't turn around and add two more albatross contracts 5 months later after trading Croshere for that same reason.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

              You do know what happened to AJ after we traded him don't you ?

              How this "starter" of yours with all his love for the game and badmouthing a franchise was traded again?

              And where to ?



              And he still doesn't start
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                I'd understand the Croshere trade more if management didn't turn around and add two more albatross contracts 5 months later after trading Croshere for that same reason.
                Austin Croshere was not traded because of his bad contract.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                  Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
                  We traded away our best playoff performer Austin Croshere?

                  Dude are you serious. Austin Croshere our best playoff performer. Where was I during these playoffs.

                  Who said AC was our best playoff performer? I was talking about AJ.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    You do know what happened to AJ after we traded him don't you ?

                    How this "starter" of yours with all his love for the game and badmouthing a franchise was traded again?

                    And where to ?



                    And he still doesn't start

                    Dallas traded AJ because they wanted cap relief. That's it.

                    Either way, he made Tinsley look like a JuCo transfer last year and still got traded.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      Who said AC was our best playoff performer? I was talking about AJ.
                      My bad I read it as "Our best playoff performer in Austin Croshere"

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                        I think Dallas trded AJ because he was giving them nothing on the court. The offense completely stalled when he played. Avery gave him his shot in the early going and he just killed the offense. Yes saving 9 million if you count the luxury tax was part of it but if had produced the Mavs would have stuck with him.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          I'd understand the Croshere trade more if management didn't turn around and add two more albatross contracts 5 months later after trading Croshere for that same reason.
                          Austin's contract was only bad when it was signed. By the time he was traded his contract started to not look so bad. Especially when you consider the crucial role he played in helping to hold the Pacers together during the brawl suspensions. I don't think it was ever a great contract by any means, but I don't think the Pacers minded paying hims what he was making and doubt that's what got him traded. Hell, if you throw in Bender, Austin didn't even have the worst contract on his own team.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                            I like Quis, but I think we could have done a lot more with Croshere's expiring contract.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Bad Decisions by the Pacers

                              Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                              I like Quis, but I think we could have done a lot more with Croshere's expiring contract.
                              pehaps, but alot more?- not really sure how.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X