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

We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

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

  • #76
    Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

    Stars? Wow - looks like anyone that makes the rotation is a "star"!?

    By my count, there are about ten stars in the NBA (in no particular order): Iverson, LeBron, Duncan, Wade, KG, Kobe, Dirk, Steve Nash, Shaq, and, well, I need one more but if I put JO there all the Pacers fans will think I'm crazy.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

      Originally posted by Jay View Post
      By my count, there are about ten stars in the NBA (in no particular order): Iverson, LeBron, Duncan, Wade, KG, Kobe, Dirk, Steve Nash, Shaq, and, well, I need one more but if I put JO there all the Pacers fans will think I'm crazy.
      Yao, Amare, Bosh, Arenas, Howard, Billups, and Anthony are all comfortably ahead of JO in that line (probably most of them are ahead of Iverson too).

      I'll refrain from putting T-Mac up there, mostly due to his playoff woes.

      A case could be made that Boozer, Kidd, Brand, Deron Williams, and Chris Paul are also further up in the line of stars than JO.

      If there are 10 stars, he ain't one.
      If there are 15 stars, he ain't one.
      If there are 20 stars, he might be one.
      If there are 25 stars, he is one.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

        I left Iverson on the list because he's still one of the most marketable players in the NBA. To be a "star" (IMO), you've got to be one of the very best players and also be marketable.

        I thought about Anthony for the tenth position. I thought about Amare but I'd like to see what he does when he's not playing alongside Nash before I overrate him as much as the rest of PD overrates Bosh. I thought about Kidd but I think he's declining faster than AI. Billups doesn't strike me as a top-ten caliber player.

        I don't really have JO in my top-ten, currently. I'd agree that based on the past three seasons he's probably in the 15-20 range. He could get back there easily with a 75+ game 20/10/3 season for a playoff team season, though. But probably not while playing for Jim O'Brien's offensive scheme. That's just scaring the hell out of me. (And Bynum would be worse).

        Its time to bite the bullet and trade JO for Paul Pierce.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          I wouldn't get too excited over the idea of us being bad enough to be in the lottery. We'd probably wind up in the 7-11 pick range, enough to get a good player, but not a potential star that we need.
          And if we had drafted Acie Law this year you'd be looking at Atlanta taking a 9 or 10 pick rather than just 11+. The main reason I was so anti-tank last year. Sooner or later ATL was going to get paid, at least it was in a draft spot that didn't appear to strongly help the Pacers.

          And apparently they could have bought there way into 24 to get Rudy, so you certainly did need the 11 to get him or Almond (and it would have been considered a terrible reach).


          That's the good news, if they can't fix this situation they will at least still have high picks in the next couple of seasons rather than having the "we need to tank even more this year to save ourselves" hanging over their head.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            Stars? Wow - looks like anyone that makes the rotation is a "star"!?

            By my count, there are about ten stars in the NBA (in no particular order): Iverson, LeBron, Duncan, Wade, KG, Kobe, Dirk, Steve Nash, Shaq, and, well, I need one more but if I put JO there all the Pacers fans will think I'm crazy.
            All depends on your definition of a star I suppose. To me there are stars, all-stars, superstars. Three levels. I think all the guys I labeled stars deserve it in my view.


            Comment


            • #81
              Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Sooner or later ATL was going to get paid, at least it was in a draft spot that didn't appear to strongly help the Pacers.
              Good point. May as well get that out the way now.

              Aside from Law, most of the best players taken in the teens, IMO, were SFs anyway, of which we clearly have enough.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                LOL - I'm not in the "we" crowd but when you're above .500, you make a big trade, then the team absolutely nosedives, I'd say the good record BEFORE the trade gives the illusion that your team doesn't suck quite so abominably as it actually does. I was waiting for someone else to bring this up first though.

                From 29-24 you went 6-23. I THINK you were 29-28 when the trade happened and you went 6-19 from that point.

                (Pulls out calculator, pushes a few buttons).

                Yup - in reality you were a 20-win team the last 2 months of the season. (19.68 actually)

                Think of it - if DW/LB make that trade at the start of the season you could have had Oden!
                As I've pointed out elsewhere this team spent the final 3 months playing 25 win pace basketball. That's not a few flukey weeks or a tough month. That's half a season. At least with Isiah you saw issues popping up and it was the SAME TALENT that had the best record in the East going into the AS game.

                Imagine Isiahs final year if they had traded Ron and Al for Peja and Kurt Thomas or something and then dropped like a rock. It would be a lot harder to expect a turnaround the next year no matter who the coach was. They became a MUCH worse team (by results) and it was associated pretty closely with a change in the roster rather than some outside force.

                You have Quis injury, that's it. That did seem to have a big impact I'll admit, but it's tough to buy that he is a 15 win difference or that he'll play 75 games even.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  You have Quis injury, that's it. That did seem to have a big impact I'll admit, but it's tough to buy that he is a 15 win difference or that he'll play 75 games even.
                  You also had JO hobbling around out there a lot of the time and/or missing games sporadically. But I agree that there's no reason to think that the post-trade team will be significantly better than that 25-win pace in the second half if we do "stand pat".
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                    Good point. May as well get that out the way now.

                    Aside from Law, most of the best players taken in the teens, IMO, were SFs anyway, of which we clearly have enough.
                    Exactly. PF/SF is not something we are fixing. Heck, I'd argue that the 3pt style of DG and Shawne combined with their ability to play PF somewhat (certainly better than swinging to SG is for either of them) fit better than any PF they would have drafted even if JO is moved or plays only center.

                    Also considering JOBs approach I think there was probably something to them trying to deal Ike for the #26 (and a player I assume) because I'd bet that JOB would love to see 30 mpg from both Danny and Shawne with JO and Troy at C most of the time. Ike in my guess fits the JOB plan less than JO does because he simply can't go to C, he's just too short to defend it at all.

                    JO at least plays a face up game too and is a very strong help defender (thus the blocks and charges taken).

                    So if you were thinking about moving Ike you certainly weren't in the market to draft another post PF.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      You also had JO hobbling around out there a lot of the time and/or missing games sporadically. But I agree that there's no reason to think that the post-trade team will be significantly better than that 25-win pace in the second half if we do "stand pat".
                      Sure there is. Didn't you get your list of good luck superstitions to follow? I've already got a variety of candles, jerseys, autographs, lucky coins, abnormal flora, equine footing, and bunny apendages all set up in appropriate configurations. It can't miss.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Exactly. PF/SF is not something we are fixing. Heck, I'd argue that the 3pt style of DG and Shawne combined with their ability to play PF somewhat (certainly better than swinging to SG is for either of them) fit better than any PF they would have drafted even if JO is moved or plays only center.
                        I honestly don't see anyone in the teens that would have really helped us in a long-term way that didn't duplicate Danny/Shawne.

                        12. Thaddeus Young - Love him, but a SF.
                        13. Julian Wright - Same as Thad.
                        14. Al Thornton - Never saw much of him. Crazy upside, but SF.
                        15. Rodney Stuckey - Could have used him. Doubt he's ever a Top 15 PG in this league.
                        16. Nick Young - Probably the most "useful" guy for us in the teens.
                        17. Sean Williams - Defensive beast, but attitude ?s. We don't need that at this point.
                        18. Marco Bellinelli - Never seen him play, heard really good things. We could have used him
                        19. Crittenden - We weren't taking him at 11 anyway.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          You also had JO hobbling around out there a lot of the time and/or missing games sporadically. But I agree that there's no reason to think that the post-trade team will be significantly better than that 25-win pace in the second half if we do "stand pat".
                          I actually think O'Brien will help. Whether he helps enough to get you into the playoffs is something else. Not wild about his 3-ball emphasis but the guy even got Antoine Walker to play defense.

                          Still, you need better players. And Kareem Rush doesn't count IMO.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: We arent as bad as last year made us out to be

                            While some of these guys weren't immediately stars and some have faded....

                            1996:
                            AI
                            Kobe
                            Nash
                            1997:
                            Duncan
                            McGrady
                            1998:
                            Vince?
                            Dirk
                            Pierce
                            1999:
                            Stevie Franchise
                            2000:
                            Brezec!
                            2001:
                            2years in a row w/o a legit star unless you count Parker
                            2002:
                            Yao
                            2003:
                            King James
                            Melo
                            Wade
                            2004:
                            Noone as of yet
                            2005:
                            Noone as of yet
                            2006:
                            Adam Morrison's shine faded quickly
                            2007:
                            Remember that year Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Shane Battier, Pau Gasol, Jason Richardson all came out? This year hasn't proven to be any better yet.

                            It looks like there's usually a bonafide star or two every year, at least 2 out of 3 times.
                            I'm in these bands
                            The Humans
                            Dr. Goldfoot
                            The Bar Brawlers
                            ME

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X