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

Will Pacers ever go "all in"? (and do they need to?)

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

  • #16
    somewhere around 2004 Pacers had the 2nd highesy payroll in the league, well well in the then luxury tax.
    they decided to keep the team together and the result was the malice at the palace. (which i still believe was 100% Detroit's responsibility)

    Don't say we never tried int he NBA years, we went into luxury tax several times
    Where are we if PG doesn't break his leg, where are we if Dipo doesn't go down, Ron Artest doesn't get pilfered with a bottle

    Naw, owners willing, chances much rarer.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post

      I mean, Durant was the difference between GSW being title contenders and a dynasty.

      LeBron/Wade/Bosh play made Heat a dynasty.

      LeBron got CLE a ring. (Though I guess you could argue it was LeBron and a drafted Irving doing the heavy-lifting.)

      I think the model is more suggestive of GSW/MIA types having success, than, like, DAL hoping Dirk Nowitzki just plays out of his mind for 7 games.
      I disagree. I think the way the Mavs won is probably the easiest way to build a contender. They had to trade for Dirk during the draft but the rest of the team that they took to the Finals were made of former All-Stars. However, they really stacked the team at every position. They were a top offensive team and they had a few rim protectors to help anchor the defense. They​​​They were able to make it to two Finals building this way.

      That's what the Pacers should try to do but they don't have a player as good as Dirk, who was a league MVP during his prime. If Vic was fully healthy it would be easier. Still, they need to add multiple All-Stars to the team, even if they are a year or two removed from their prime. Experience, especially playoffs experience is essential. Dirk, Jason Terry, Kidd, and Peja Stojakavic all had deep playoffs experience. The experience of losing in the Finals spurred Kidd, Dirk, and Terry in particular to exploit the inexperienced Heat.

      The Pacers need to find their next star. Is he on the roster or available through free agency? Is Sabonis the man to run the offense through or will it be Myles Turner's team. IMO, offering one of them in exchange for Anthony Davis would be a championship caliber move that would give the Pacers a chance to compete for the Finals next year. Then fill out the roster with experienced players like Mike Conley.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by able View Post
        somewhere around 2004 Pacers had the 2nd highesy payroll in the league, well well in the then luxury tax.
        they decided to keep the team together and the result was the malice at the palace. (which i still believe was 100% Detroit's responsibility)

        Don't say we never tried int he NBA years, we went into luxury tax several times
        Where are we if PG doesn't break his leg, where are we if Dipo doesn't go down, Ron Artest doesn't get pilfered with a bottle

        Naw, owners willing, chances much rarer.
        Yeah, shame this question never really got answered because NBA abdicated DET of all responsibility.

        Still, though, I'd argue adding SJax was the "next level" move the Pacers made. And I don't know that it really would have gotten them over the hump. To the Finals, sure, if you wanna argue that was the hump. But don't know that SJax was on the same level as adding, like, a Kevin Durant or Jimmy Butler to the mix.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post


          The reason GSW got a crack at Durant was because they drafted so well. If they didn't have the championship infrastructure in place, I very much doubt KD would have made his way to the Bay. For that matter, if Steph hadn't been on an $12M contract at the time, due to concerns about his ankle health and durability, it's not likely they would have had room for KD even with the spike in salary cap. (http://www.basketballinsiders.com/go...rchive-201617/)
          Other than draft well one thing Golden State did well which I don't think the pacers ever did well was move on from their players at the right time. They realized Monta Ellis and Steph wasn't going to work in 2012 and they moved on from him. They had a borderline all star 18 and 10 guy in David Lee and they realized very early that Draymond defense and overall game has more of an impact on the game then David Lee's stats. Their decision to not overpay for Harrison Barnes was also another good decision they made. I think that he turned down a 4 years 64 million dollar extension to roll the dice in free agency and it worked out for him which that money led them to get Durant.

          I don't think our front office has the balls to make these kinds of moves, which will always lead to us being an average team. To answer the original questions the Pacers all in moves have always been to sign players that haven't worked out somewhere such as Bynum or Scola. I guess you can call signing David west our best all in move or championship move. Granger for Evan Turner seemed to be our most risky all in move that didn't work. I will not blame Bird for that moved there. He tried and I wish we would have tried to make a move like that with our expiring at the deadline to see if we can get a key piece to make us better next year.

          Comment


          • #20
            The thing that disappoints me about the Pacers is that they puff their chest about how great the locker room is, the culture, the organization etc... If the only thing that nets you is Doug McDermot and Tyreke Evans....I'm not sure that its worth that much. I mean if that culture really stands out so much, then its time for them to put their money forward and go after a max level guy. Or make a draft trade to acquire a max level guy on his last year and rely on that team culture to work in your favor. If the culture is that good then guys should want to stay with a winning team.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post

              Why would he choose Indy over Golden State?
              Money. Cousins called the Warriors after nobody would offer him a big contract. Now you can debate whether the Pacers should have offered him that since they have Turner and Sabonis, but it would definitely be an all-in move.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Goose View Post

                Money. Cousins called the Warriors after nobody would offer him a big contract. Now you can debate whether the Pacers should have offered him that since they have Turner and Sabonis, but it would definitely be an all-in move.
                You think Cousins puts a team over the top ?? I guess I'll just disagree. Strongly. He's good - but the missing piece anywhere ??

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                  You think Cousins puts a team over the top ?? I guess I'll just disagree. Strongly. He's good - but the missing piece anywhere ??
                  I didn't say it would put us over the top. I am just following the topic of going all-in. There are no guarantees, and getting Cousins would potentially bring the Pacers closer to an NBA title. It could have also blown up in their face. Isn't that what an all-in move does.

                  Hey, I would like the Pacers chances to make the finals if Oladipo wasn't hurt and they had Cousins.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    The thing that disappoints me about the Pacers is that they puff their chest about how great the locker room is, the culture, the organization etc... If the only thing that nets you is Doug McDermot and Tyreke Evans....I'm not sure that its worth that much. I mean if that culture really stands out so much, then its time for them to put their money forward and go after a max level guy. Or make a draft trade to acquire a max level guy on his last year and rely on that team culture to work in your favor. If the culture is that good then guys should want to stay with a winning team.
                    I ask you who is that max level player that the Pacers truly can get that would put us over the top? Kemba Walker? Tell me exactly how having Kemba pushes over the top at the expense of DC, CoJo, and either BB or Thad?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I wonder if there comes a time when Simon develops an urgency to see the team contend. And by urgency I mean a significant trade/gamble.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think that we will only ever go all in to keep together a team that has already proven they can go far. And by that, I mean a team that has at least made the ECF.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by able View Post
                          somewhere around 2004 Pacers had the 2nd highesy payroll in the league, well well in the then luxury tax.
                          they decided to keep the team together and the result was the malice at the palace. (which i still believe was 100% Detroit's responsibility)

                          Don't say we never tried int he NBA years, we went into luxury tax several times
                          Where are we if PG doesn't break his leg, where are we if Dipo doesn't go down, Ron Artest doesn't get pilfered with a bottle

                          Naw, owners willing, chances much rarer.
                          The Pacers have rarely gone into the luxury tax. I honestly didn't think they ever had, but in a 11/16/2018 article by Frank Urbina, he stated that the Pacers were in the luxury tax three different times for a total of just 8.9 million dollars. I don't think they ever started the season in the luxury tax, but that is just going by my memory, I don't feel like looking it up. Regardless, they have tried to stay out of the tax, but have consistently been over the cap and near the tax.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post

                            I mean, Durant was the difference between GSW being title contenders and a dynasty.

                            LeBron/Wade/Bosh play made Heat a dynasty.

                            LeBron got CLE a ring. (Though I guess you could argue it was LeBron and a drafted Irving doing the heavy-lifting.)

                            I think the model is more suggestive of GSW/MIA types having success, than, like, DAL hoping Dirk Nowitzki just plays out of his mind for 7 games.
                            GS doesn't need Durant, though. They attracted him via the success of their drafted parts.

                            LeBron was drafted by Cleveland, lol. That, and he's from the area. Otherwise, there's no way they attract an all-time great player like him in free agency.

                            And Miami did win --- With LeBron. Who I mentioned as being an outlier along with Shaq as two players who have moved around and made their teams win championships. Other than those two guys, every championship team of the past two-three decades has drafted their superstars. Minus the early-2000s Pistons, that was a crazy team.

                            And yes, Kobe, Dirk and Kawhi were draft day trades.

                            The draft is where champions are built.

                            And because this ownership places more weight on just not losing, we don't get high draft picks.

                            About our only hope is... we gamble, like Dallas and SA and LA, on a high upside prospect that doesn't go high in the draft (Kobe was 13, Dirk was 9, Kawhi was 15). PG was about the closest to fitting that description, except we all know how that went.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-20-2019, 12:06 AM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by able View Post
                              somewhere around 2004 Pacers had the 2nd highesy payroll in the league, well well in the then luxury tax.
                              they decided to keep the team together and the result was the malice at the palace. (which i still believe was 100% Detroit's responsibility)

                              Don't say we never tried int he NBA years, we went into luxury tax several times
                              Where are we if PG doesn't break his leg, where are we if Dipo doesn't go down, Ron Artest doesn't get pilfered with a bottle

                              Naw, owners willing, chances much rarer.
                              Hmmmmmmmm....

                              I can't remember if the Pacers traded Brad Miller away to get out of the tax or to avoid going into it. either way it was a horrible mistake and honestly might have cost the team a chance to play in the finals.

                              The main reason Detroit was able to beat us was because they could put Rasheed Wallace on Jermaine O'Neal one on one and let Ben Wallace free lance because Jeff Foster had ZERO offensive talent. In fact he was a detriment on offense. Brad on the other hand would have forced them to defend him because he could hit a straight up jumper up to 16'' with a high % of accuracy.


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                somewhere around 2004 Pacers had the 2nd highesy payroll in the league, well well in the then luxury tax.
                                they decided to keep the team together and the result was the malice at the palace. (which i still believe was 100% Detroit's responsibility)

                                Don't say we never tried int he NBA years, we went into luxury tax several times
                                Where are we if PG doesn't break his leg, where are we if Dipo doesn't go down, Ron Artest doesn't get pilfered with a bottle

                                Naw, owners willing, chances much rarer.
                                Pretty much this. I believe if the opportunity presents itself we'd be more than willing to entertain the idea, it's just not something that is all that common.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X