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're easily the most boring team in the league

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I would have preferred the Pacer's try to cash out on some of their FA's but I'm not going to cry about the results. We could use more shooting which Matthews should provide. Our FA's also might get us something back with a sign/trade ala Miles/Cojo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
      Taterhead needs a vacation, a long vacation. Namecalling is unacceptable.
      Haha, eat one.

      Like I give a ****.
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

        If they are always in this position, then do they ever really "improve"?

        is it an accomplishment to stay in the same place for 25 years and never get over the hump?

        I refuse to take pride in that.
        Might close thread after this
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          The Pacers became relevant in the 93-94 season. In the last 25 years, the Lakers/Spurs/Warriors/Heat/Bulls/Rockets account for 21 of the last 25 titles! The Pistons, Celtics, Mavs, and Cavs were all one hit wonder outliers.

          Since the Jordan Bulls ended, the Lakers/Spurs/Warriors/Heat account for 16 of the last 20 titles!

          The NBA is great entertainment, but itís not much of a competitive sports league.
          And compared to the rest of the basketball leagues around the world, you've got it very well when it comes to parity.

          Liga ACB is widely considered to be the second best basketball league in the world. In its 62 years of existence (counting its predecessor), Real Madrid and Barcelona have combined for 52 of those 62 titles. Only 7 teams have won in total with 3 of them only winning once.

          My country, Greece, also has a pretty strong domestic league. Our league first started back in 1927. In 78 seasons (a season didn't take place 5 times due to external factors), only 9 teams have won a title. 3 of those 9 teams haven't won a title ever since 1937. A fourth team, that counts 6 titles, hasn't won a title since 1957. Aris, a team that has won 10 titles, won 9 of its 10 titles from 1978 to 1991. Only 3 teams have won a title in the new millennium. AEK won once in 2001-2002, Olympiacos won 3 titles (12, 14 and 16) and every other title has gone to Panathinaikos. Panathinaikos has 36 titles overall, followed by Olympiacos who is way behind and has 12.

          The LKL, Lithania's top league, is even worse. In its 25 years of existence, only two teams have won a title. éalgiris has won the title 20 times and Lietuvos Rytas has won it 5 times.

          And there's even worse than that. Israel's top flight. In 64 seasons, Maccabi Tel Aviv has won 52 titles in 60 Finals appearances.

          Basketball just isn't a sport that lends itself to so much parity. The best team will win more often than not, especially when you have a playoff format that includes a long series.
          People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post

            I do wonder what these people would do if they followed a team like the TWolves who until the last game of the season last year hadnít booked a ticket for the playoffs since the Bush administration.
            Now that is a boring team. Seriously, watching the TWolves play is the most disappointing basketball you could ever watch. How can a team with multiple lottery picks be so average at everything on both sides of the court? Theyíre probably gonna miss the playoffs again after their brief visit last year. They donít know how to develop talent or get their teams to play cohesive basketball.

            Iíd much rather watch the Pacers. Whether you like the way they operate or not you have to admit that they know how to develop talent. They have gotten so much out of players that they have drafted and theyíve done a good job of turning players that other teams gave up on into All-Stars. They have 5 players that have won the Most Improved Player award. Is there another team that can say that? If Bojan keeps it up, he could be #6 (I donít think he will, Iím just making a point)..

            Watching Myles Turner, Bojan Bogdonovic, and now Aaron Holliday and Edmond Sumner grow with their added minutes and touches hasnít been boring to me.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post

              I think Otto Porter could have been had but I can see the reasons why not. He'd be a good fit but he's overpayed no matter what angle you view it from. I would have been cool with it though.

              Aaron Gordon would be a good pickup but I don't believe we quite have the right mix of pieces yet. I'm hoping Pritchard scores again in the draft, when this team makes the leap it probably will be via trade so they need to keep slowly but surely expanding that war chest of assets. This is why flipping the pick for a rental or average veteran would have been criminal.

              Obviously I believe a Forward will be the answer, or possibly a point guard, but we already have some nice prospects there. If Conley was even just 2 or 3 years younger I think that could have been the move but he just doesn't fit the timeline.
              I didnít see many trades over the past week that I was jealous of. Porzingis doesnít fill a position of need, nor does Gasol.

              I donít think Harris is a max player, nor markedly better pound for pound compared to Bogie.

              I think Fultz has a lot of upside. Maybe Rodney Hood or Justin Jackson?

              Not many trades fit what we are trying to build for. The biggest trades were all ďtime to put all the chips inĒ and many of those were relatively high risk low reward moves.


              Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                If they are always in this position, then do they ever really "improve"?

                is it an accomplishment to stay in the same place for 25 years and never get over the hump?

                I refuse to take pride in that.
                I can see it both ways but to your point the Pacers default method doesn't appear to give the team better odds for a title. They never are bad enough to collect more than one all star for any meaningful amount of time.

                On the other hand I know Indy and the fans are fickle and wouldn't support multiple seasons with a 20 win column.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                  They have 5 players that have won the Most Improved Player award. Is there another team that can say that?
                  Actually, yes. The Orlando Magic. Scott Skiles, Darrell Armstrong, Tracy McGrady, Hedo TŁrkoğlu and Ryan Anderson. We have definitely have more of them lately, though.

                  Obviously, I agree with your overall post but I just wanted to point that out since looking it up was pretty fun
                  People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                    4 of the players you mentioned were not brought here by Kevin Pritchard. They were brought here by the awful Larry Bird. He isn't making any decisions around here anymore.
                    Not so fast, KP has had his hands all over this roster since the George hill trade. He was the Gm under bird, he brought Bird all the deals
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

                      Not so fast, KP has had his hands all over this roster since the George hill trade. He was the Gm under bird, he brought Bird all the deals
                      People donít want Pritchard to get his hands dirty but he has been all over that.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

                        Not so fast, KP has had his hands all over this roster since the George hill trade. He was the Gm under bird, he brought Bird all the deals
                        KP wasn't the one making the final decisions, though. Bird's deals fall on Bird and Bird alone, just like KP's deals fall on KP and KP alone.
                        People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                          KP wasn't the one making the final decisions, though. Bird's deals fall on Bird and Bird alone, just like KP's deals fall on KP and KP alone.
                          Itís funny you argue that point when you liked a post that defended KP for his Leaf pick because itís supposedly Birds fault.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post

                            Itís funny you argue that point when you liked a post that defended KP for his Leaf pick because itís supposedly Birds fault.
                            He Always does that lol
                            Last edited by vnzla81; 02-08-2019, 12:59 AM.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                              KP wasn't the one making the final decisions, though. Bird's deals fall on Bird and Bird alone, just like KP's deals fall on KP and KP alone.
                              I donít look at it that way. KP was the one working the phones most of the time, Dinwiddie was the Salary cap guy. Now Dinwiddie is the GM and KP is the president, they might have a different system under KP, but They both were right there hand in hand with Bird. Management is a team in the NBA.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post

                                Itís funny you argue that point when you liked a post that defended KP for his Leaf pick because itís supposedly Birds fault.
                                True. I do believe that the Leaf pick is an exception where Bird played an important role but that's because Leaf is 100% the kind of player that Bird would go after. I don't see our other main acquisitions as players that Bird would go after.
                                People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X