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

Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

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

  • #16
    Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

    Originally posted by Brian View Post
    I dont understand why everyone is saying sactown...
    Sac Ind
    C-Miller C-Jeff Foster
    PF-Reef/Thomas PF-JO (who we more than likely wont have
    SF-Artest SF-Granger
    SG-Martin SG-Daniels
    PG-Bibby PG-Tinsley

    So on a recap Sac
    C-Better
    PF-Not better (but who knows for how long,if we trade JO)
    SF-(Yes it is artest,but none would say granger is more talented)
    SG-Better
    PG-Better


    Final Score-Sac 4,Ind 1


    If you ask 9 out of 10 people which team is better id bet theyd say sactown.

    I like Martin. Do we mean head to head or is it record against the league because then the West teams are at such a disadvantage?

    Sac fitting together wise, thanks to a scoring PG and Ron is in trouble in my opinion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

      Sac plays in the West. They have no shot at the playoffs, whereas even the Fever have a shot to make it in the East.

      Unfortunately, most of the teams in the West that aren't very good (Grizzlies, Blazers, Sonics) have more upside than we do, so its tough to find teams that are in too poor of a position.
      2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

        Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
        You'd have to think the 76ers, despite their surge in the latter half of the season, are still worse than us. I mean, we totally sucked the last half, and we still ended up tied with a crappy record. I like what they can be, though. Still, I'm shocked Andre Miller is still there.
        Man, oh man, how I wish we could get our hands on Korver and Andre Miller. Carney as filler would just be greedy. I haven't heard any rumors in that direction, but I'd sure love for that to be the case. I think those are O'brien types of players, even though Miller isn't that great of a shooter. He's one of the best point guards in the game, in terms of orchestrating the offense.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

          Originally posted by paulomac77 View Post
          Im new to pacers digest and I hate for my first post to be so negative, but me and a couple friends were having an arguement on the Pacers struggles. We got to thinking that the team has little upside for the future other than Granger, Ike and Shawne with maybe a few others. I havent got to watch any of the summer league games although I was a bit pleased with the teams success despite a roster that I can hardly be excited about. Also I think we were all hoping for a big summer from the front office and .....Kareem Rush, enough said. So we tried to look on the positive side of things and think which teams in the NBA the pacers are in better shape than. Memphis is pretty bad and the Knicks are in bad shape, but who else?
          I don't know why people think that Memphis is bad at all. Bear in mind that Gasol was hurt for a large portion when the season started, and they never really recovered from that. But this is a team that was winning 50+ games, and they upgrade with Rudy Gay at small forward. Once Conley settles in at the point, they are going to be dangerous.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

            NO ONE ELSE IS WORSE, FACE IT THE NBA BALL STOPS HERE!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

              Orlando will be better in the near term, but I think they're gonna be hurting over the next couple of years. Yeah, they've got Dwight, which is nice. But 15mil for Shard was a big mistake.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                I'm not an optimist....so I'm not going to sugarcoat things.

                I think that we are in the overall worst position of any team. Teams that many of you suggest; the Hawks, Grizzlies...even the Sixers; are obviously in "rebuilding mode"....but in a position...at least IMHO...to improve in the coming couple of seasons. By next season, most of these teams will be in a better financial situation while developing their young players AND having the financial flexibility to improve their situation.

                Some have sited that the TWolves are in as bad as we are.....but they don't have as many "bad long term contracts" as the Pacers do....and if they do trade KG ( like we can trade JONeal )....they can get more then the Pacers can for JONeal.

                The closest team that I can think of that maybe even remotely close to us ( in terms being "worse off" ) is the Kings. They have similiar financial situation where they have some long term contract obligations and little room for overall improvement.

                The difference is that the majority of the Kings "huge contracts" come off by the 2009-2010 season ( down to 32 mil in salaries by 2009-2010 ), whereas the Pacers still owes about $44mil ( minus the team option for Marquis ) in the 2009-2010 season.

                In addition, the Kings FO recognizes that there is little room for improvement and appears to be heading towards a "rebuilding" effort ( with possible moves to trade Artest and Bibby ) as opposed to the unknown direction ( at least IMHO ) that TPTB are headed towards ( as in rebuilding or reloading ).

                To me...because our financial situation positively sucks....there is little room for improvement unless we make a major move
                Last edited by CableKC; 07-14-2007, 12:43 PM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                  KC's not only right, he's killed the last vestige of sunshine left in me.

                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    To me...because our financial situation positively sucks....there is little room for improvement unless we make a major move
                    But assuming we're open to a major move, then we're in better shape than the Kings. Because no matter how much he's downplayed, JO's a much more valuable asset than anybody on the Kings roster.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      KC's not only right, he's killed the last vestige of sunshine left in me.

                      Join the darkside with me.....
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                        I would argue that every other team is better than us, if not this year, than very soon due to their potential.
                        I see nothing but potential when it comes to the Pacers. I'm not making a joke. We've filled our roster with potential "break out" guys. At this stage, it puts us just below .500, but the potential is there. We've got 2 years and we'll be mostly out of the salary mess.

                        We have plenty if not too much "potential", what we don't have are proven stars. I just pray that O'Brien can bring up our young players without knee capping them with too much "system" play.
                        “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


                        • #27
                          Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          But assuming we're open to a major move, then we're in better shape than the Kings. Because no matter how much he's downplayed, JO's a much more valuable asset than anybody on the Kings roster.
                          I agree...to a certain extent. The only concern I had is that TPTB have to make the right deal in order to give us some financial flexibility...and the only way to do that ( realistically ) is to move JONeal....which they are obviously okay with.

                          Assuming that no deal comes along that blindsides up like normal ( that comes out of the blue )....looking at the 2 potential rumors of recent months......the Nets and the Lakers deal.....one offers a chance to rebuild ( with a clear path towards rebuilding with a trade geared towards getting us some financial flexiblity ) and the other allows us to reload ( as in try to compete with RJeff and Krstic ). Assuming that we don't immediately trade RJeff for Expiring Contracts....the problem with the Net's deal is that it does get us a near-All Star starter like RJeff while providing little financial flexiblility in the next 3 seasons ( due to RJeff's 14+ mil a year contract until 2010-2011 season ) to resign all ( or even most ) of our young prospects...like Ike, Granger, Shawne and Krstic....when they are up for renewal.

                          My thought is that Bird/JO'B thinks that we can compete in the LEastern Conference. Compared to the Lakers rumored deals ( assuming that the best we can hope for is a Odom-less trade ).....the Nets RJeff/Krstic deal will allow us to be more competitive compared to some Kwame/Bynum/Farmar ( or Crittenton ) deal.......unfortunately, I don't think that we would get any further with an RJeff/Krstic trade then keeping JONeal.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I agree...to a certain extent. The only concern I had is that TPTB have to make the right deal in order to give us some financial flexibility...and the only way to do that ( realistically ) is to move JONeal....which they are obviously okay with.

                            Assuming that no deal comes along that blindsides up like normal ( that comes out of the blue )....looking at the 2 potential rumors of recent months......the Nets and the Lakers deal.....one offers a chance to rebuild ( with a clear path towards rebuilding with a trade geared towards getting us some financial flexiblity ) and the other allows us to reload ( as in try to compete with RJeff and Krstic ). Assuming that we don't immediately trade RJeff for Expiring Contracts....the problem with the Net's deal is that it does get us a near-All Star starter like RJeff while providing little financial flexiblility in the next 3 seasons ( due to RJeff's 14+ mil a year contract until 2010-2011 season ) to resign all ( or even most ) of our young prospects...like Ike, Granger, Shawne and Krstic....when they are up for renewal.

                            My thought is that Bird/JO'B thinks that we can compete in the LEastern Conference. Compared to the Lakers rumored deals ( assuming that the best we can hope for is a Odom-less trade ).....the Nets RJeff/Krstic deal will allow us to be more competitive compared to some Kwame/Bynum/Farmar ( or Crittenton ) deal.......unfortunately, I don't think that we would get any further with an RJeff/Krstic trade then keeping JONeal.
                            Although I would much rather see Baby Bynum in a Pacer uniform, I think the RJeff/Krstic trade would result immediate improvement....and if offered, there is NO doubt at all that we will take that deal.

                            RJ is an all-star level talent in his own right and would average 18-20ppg for the Pacers playing SG. He is probably a top 30-40 player in the league.

                            Krstic has already proven that he will be one of the better centers in the east and will easily average 15-18ppg. Just in his 3rd season at the tender age of 23, he averaged 16.4ppg after increasing his production nicely each year since the beginning of his career in the NBA. He is already better than Brad Miller ever was and will make a fine center.

                            No, neither of these players are as good as JO. JO is a top 20 player if healthy. However, I think they fit our needs better right now and particularly in the future as JO ages. BTW, RJ and esp. Krstic are much younger.

                            The only concern I have is our interior defense. We really do need a shot-blocking presence in there...not shotblocking, just the threat of it. Ike, Murphy, Foster and Krstic are NOT shot-blockers at all. Harrison cannot be relied upon.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Although I would much rather see Baby Bynum in a Pacer uniform, I think the RJeff/Krstic trade would result immediate improvement....and if offered, there is NO doubt at all that we will take that deal.

                              RJ is an all-star level talent in his own right and would average 18-20ppg for the Pacers playing SG. He is probably a top 30-40 player in the league.

                              Krstic has already proven that he will be one of the better centers in the east and will easily average 15-18ppg. Just in his 3rd season at the tender age of 23, he averaged 16.4ppg after increasing his production nicely each year since the beginning of his career in the NBA. He is already better than Brad Miller ever was and will make a fine center.

                              No, neither of these players are as good as JO. JO is a top 20 player if healthy. However, I think they fit our needs better right now and particularly in the future as JO ages. BTW, RJ and esp. Krstic are much younger.

                              The only concern I have is our interior defense. We really do need a shot-blocking presence in there...not shotblocking, just the threat of it. Ike, Murphy, Foster and Krstic are NOT shot-blockers at all. Harrison cannot be relied upon.
                              If Jefferson can play SG and Kristic is healthy like when he tore up the pacers int he playoffs a few years ago I would do that trade. We do not get a player back that will ever be of JO's Caliber but it does give us two players that will fit much better into JOB's system. I feel we will get much better production out of the 2 players than we will JO. That would give us flexibility to one of our SG's for a expiring contract or a pg.

                              I would rather have the laker deal with bynum and critt but I wouldnt be opposed to the JO deal.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                                to quickly answer the topic:

                                I think our record last season stated clearly that we are in the lower class nowadays. I can't really pin point clear cut teams that are worse than us... maybe the Celtics, Bobcats, Wolves, Hawks, Kings, Sonics and the Grizzlies.

                                The Wolves however at least have a high value superstar in KG so anything can happen with them depending on how they play their cards.

                                Sonics have Durant, so I guess that helps generate excitement for their franchise, but overall we are still superior than them I think.

                                The Griz may climb out of this group though. They will have a healthy Gasol (if they don't trade him) and a great draft prospect in Conley.

                                We stink not just because of our record and history, but also because of the lack of identity and excitement with the way our team plays. Maybe JOB can bring that this year but as of now, we're definitely one of the least interesting teams to watch in the league from a regular fan's persperctive.
                                Last edited by denyfizle; 07-14-2007, 06:11 PM.
                                http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X