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

Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

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

  • #46
    Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Yeah, damn those 16 titles. To hell with 6 rings led by the best guard ever!


    Interesting to note that both the 80's Celtics dynasty and the Bulls dynasty were founded on high picks but not #1 picks.

    Also interesting to note that the high picks they've had since the dynasty years have been hit and miss - but mostly miss.
    “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


    • #47
      Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
      Over half decade spent WAY below .500. Think about that for a minute.

      Pick after pick after pick after pick and you never seem to get out of it. Draft a big man, and he doesn't develop until the end of his rookie contract and then he bolts. Draft a backcourt man and he wrecks his motorcycle.

      I'm not even going to talk about the Celtics top pick curse, I've posted enough on that. Tim Duncan was going to be thier savior.

      There are no guarantees in life or the lottery.

      Being a fan is a curse in a way, and one that I will carry like an albatross - and maybe, just maybe one day I will wear it like a crown.
      If the Cubs do win the World Series this year, however, all three of those teams' fans will at least have championships to look back on.

      Thank goodness for the Colts.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        Preferring losing. Well, it will be hard for me to take anything you say seriously, because that's outright ridiculous.
        Depends on your competetive nature I suppose. Some people accept mediocrity (you) some people don't (myself and this Ike>Milsap>Maxiell guy). Making the biggest sacrafice (losing) in order to get better is as dedicated to winning as a person can possibly get. But hey, let's continue on with our sub-par talent-filled .500 teams for the next 5 years. After all, your pseudo-machismo wont let you accept losing even though it's the smart thing to do for the future of the team.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          If the Cubs do win the World Series this year, however, all three of those teams' fans will at least have championships to look back on.

          Thank goodness for the Colts.
          And that's the reason we have to feel for someone like UB or PD members who only follow the Ps here. Because the Colts did win the big one I've been able to shrug off this nightmare season. Doesn't mean I'm not concerned or don't care, but I'm still riding that euphoria thank goodness.
          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


          • #50
            Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

            Originally posted by RWB View Post
            And that's the reason we have to feel for someone like UB or PD members who only follow the Ps here. Because the Colts did win the big one I've been able to shrug off this nightmare season. Doesn't mean I'm not concerned or don't care, but I'm still riding that euphoria thank goodness.
            Ditto.

            I'd bet things would be much, much worse for most Pacers fans right now if the Colts hadn't won the Super Bowl.

            Like you, I'm more "meh" about the Pacers now than angry. Though I'm still very concerned about our future.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

              Originally posted by DaCoop View Post
              Depends on your competetive nature I suppose. Some people accept mediocrity (you) some people don't (myself and this Ike>Milsap>Maxiell guy). Making the biggest sacrafice (losing) in order to get better is as dedicated to winning as a person can possibly get. But hey, let's continue on with our sub-par talent-filled .500 teams for the next 5 years. After all, your pseudo-machismo wont let you accept losing even though it's the smart thing to do for the future of the team.
              Who said I accept mediocrity? You couldn't be more wrong about that, in fact people who know me best consider me to be one of the most nit-picking, never satisfied perfectionists they've ever met.

              I have to emphasize this part:

              Making the biggest sacrafice (losing) in order to get better is as dedicated to winning as a person can possibly get.
              Someone help me out here, every response I can think of comes out really 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


              • #52
                Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                The idea of the Pacers getting into the top 10 draft area is loony. They currently have the 13th best record in the NBA. The worst teams in the league would have to start winning for the Pacers to drop into the lottery. The mark you've set which is .441 is 36 wins, would require the Pacers to finish 7-17. It's safe to say these teams wont be able to claw their way out....

                Grizzlies, Celtics, Hawks, Bobcats, Bucks, 76ers

                These teams would have to play better than they have all season to get out of the lottery....

                Supersonics would have to play over .500 to reach the .441 mark.
                Blazers would have to play .500 ball to reach 36 wins.

                The Warriors may be able to stop the bleeding with all parties back from injury. They'd have to close the season at 9-11.

                The Wolves, who are 3-7 in their last ten would have to finish at least 10-13.

                Of course, the Kings (sans Artest), Hornets, Clippers, Nuggets, Knicks, Nets and Magic can't start losing.

                So the Pacers have to completely shut down and at least one really bad team has to turn it around and none of the teams still in the playoff hunt can falter, then the Pacers have a shot at keeping their 2007 1st round draft pick but then lose the 2008 pick.

                Which begs the question would the Pacers be better off without a 2007 pick or a 2008 pick? Considering we have 10 players on the roster with less than 4 years in the league, I'd rather miss out on this draft and get someone in 2008.
                I'm in these bands
                The Humans
                Dr. Goldfoot
                The Bar Brawlers
                ME

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                  I won't root for us to lose, but I'm really displeased with being a .500ish team.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                    Originally posted by Shade View Post
                    I won't root for us to lose, but I'm really displeased with being a .500ish team.
                    Bingo - there we are.

                    That's different than what Mr. Split Personality thinks. Evidently losing eventually means winning - just look at World Champion teams like the Hawks and the Warriors.
                    “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


                    • #55
                      Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      Who said I accept mediocrity? You couldn't be more wrong about that, in fact people who know me best consider me to be one of the most nit-picking, never satisfied perfectionists they've ever met.

                      I have to emphasize this part:



                      Someone help me out here, every response I can think of comes out really mean.
                      *yawn* You have the same generic cookie-cutter can't-think-outside-the-box personality that 99% of the worlds sports fans have. Go root for your mediocre (with no way of improving for 16 months, minimum) Pacers. Maybe at the end of the season you can help them hang their "We Almost Went .500" banner up at Conseco Fieldhouse.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                        The idea of the Pacers getting into the top 10 draft area is loony. They currently have the 13th best record in the NBA. The worst teams in the league would have to start winning for the Pacers to drop into the lottery. The mark you've set which is .441 is 36 wins, would require the Pacers to finish 7-17. It's safe to say these teams wont be able to claw their way out....

                        Grizzlies, Celtics, Hawks, Bobcats, Bucks, 76ers

                        These teams would have to play better than they have all season to get out of the lottery....

                        Supersonics would have to play over .500 to reach the .441 mark.
                        Blazers would have to play .500 ball to reach 36 wins.

                        The Warriors may be able to stop the bleeding with all parties back from injury. They'd have to close the season at 9-11.

                        The Wolves, who are 3-7 in their last ten would have to finish at least 10-13.

                        Of course, the Kings (sans Artest), Hornets, Clippers, Nuggets, Knicks, Nets and Magic can't start losing.

                        So the Pacers have to completely shut down and at least one really bad team has to turn it around and none of the teams still in the playoff hunt can falter, then the Pacers have a shot at keeping their 2007 1st round draft pick but then lose the 2008 pick.

                        Which begs the question would the Pacers be better off without a 2007 pick or a 2008 pick? Considering we have 10 players on the roster with less than 4 years in the league, I'd rather miss out on this draft and get someone in 2008.
                        Nah. The Pacers have played worse than every one of those teams over the past month, and team chemistry gonna get much, much worse before it gets better. All they have to do is keep unraveling, and they're guaranteed a top-10 pick in a once-in-a-lifetime draft. I actually think 7-17 is a bit on the optimistic side. Well, for those of you who wanna see the Pacers swept in the 1st round of the playoffs.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                          Originally posted by Shade View Post
                          I won't root for us to lose, but I'm really displeased with being a .500ish team.
                          I guess this is what I don't understand. So you would rather win 25 games instead of win 41 games. Yes I know so we can get a lottery pick. My best guess is the average length of time a team spends in the lotterry in order to get that one or two players who will make them into a 50 plus win team - is likely 4 or 5 year. Half the lottery picks down turn out. 25% are decent rotation players. About 10% are real difference makers. And what about those teams that are in the lottery 4 or years, finally get out and only improve to a .500 team and stop there. There are more teams like that then teams that move up to contender status.

                          There is a reason they call it a lottery - like those things people buy at the gas stations.

                          If I had the time I'd love to do a 20 year study to really analyze how the top contending teams become top contending teams. Where did they start from.

                          let me take a very quick look at the current top teams

                          Dallas - yes they got Dirk - through a draft day trade. They got Josh through a late 1st round pick. But their current team isn't built through the draft. In fact all those lottery picks they did get in the 90's were traded away and their current team is built through trades and a little luck - a great coach.

                          Suns - Marion and Amare were late lottery picks - but nash was a free agent pickup and I guarantee you he would not have gone to a team that had been a lottery team for 4 years or if the team hadn't been in Phoenix.

                          I believe it is much easier to attract free agents and to make trades when you are a .500 team than a lottery team.

                          Spurs - They won the lottery when they got Duncan - they were bad in the right year and they beat the odds to get the right pick. But Parker and Manu were late, late 1st round picks.

                          I could go on, but the idea that we could be bad for 1 year or 2 years get a lottery pick and just like that we are a 55 plus win team isn't supported by history - and those pacers fans who "want to get bad" those fans for the most part either have never been through being a fan of a really bad team or maybe they just forget what it's like.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                            Originally posted by DaCoop View Post
                            *yawn* You have the same generic cookie-cutter can't-think-outside-the-box personality that 99% of the worlds sports fans have.
                            I don't think you'd say this to me in person. At least you wouldn't say it twice.

                            AGAIN - somebody help me out here.
                            “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


                            • #59
                              Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                              Originally posted by DaCoop View Post

                              Making the biggest sacrafice (losing) in order to get better is as dedicated to winning as a person can possibly get. But hey, let's continue on with our sub-par talent-filled .500 teams for the next 5 years. After all, your pseudo-machismo wont let you accept losing even though it's the smart thing to do for the future of the team.


                              Losing is never the smart thing to do. Would you rather be a .500 team for 5 years or a lottery team for 5 years.

                              LA, I'm trying to help you out, I just made a long post refuting the theory that 2 or 3 years oin the lottery and then just like that contender here we come.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                                How many usernames will this guy go through?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X