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

NY, Cali, and Miami vs the league

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post

    No, I think itís a stupid thing to dwell on. Good GMs still put together the best teams. Look what the Lakers did last season putting together a team.
    There are a lot of good GM's that simply are not lucky winners of the talent lottery. The fact Magic was a particularly bad GM and Jeanie Buss a particularly bad owner does not change that fact.
    Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

      Iím not saying anyone has to do anything lol. Iím not against a players right to change teams when their contract expires.

      Since youíre so obsessed with the word ďrightĒ, Iíll rephrase it: the Raptors built a championship team and still couldnít even keep their best player. That doesnít exactly inspire confidence for flyover fanbases that their team can ever build up a perennial title contender. Maybe you can catch lightning in a bottle like Toronto did, but good luck keeping it.

      Letís go back to how we got here: you used the Raptors winning a title as an example of parity. Itís a poor example because they were a title team for ONE season and didnít even have the opportunity to defend their title. Somehow this spiraled into a nuanced debate about ďrightĒ.
      The issue is that you care about teams having a fair chance of competing for talent in the NBA. He doesn't care if the 5 best players decide to go play on the Lakers for half their going rate on the open market just so they can dominate the league. Then say they go play for Miami and win another title over there. It's just a different view about how we think the league should operate.

      Normal fans want to see continuity on their favorite team and they want to see a team develop and appreciate a guy like Reggie Miller who sticks with the team and becomes an icon in the city. Fans like that. At least the fans I know. They don't like their favorite player leaving the city especially when their team gets some junk player in return.

      This isn't hard stuff.
      Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        The issue is that you care about teams having a fair chance of competing for talent in the NBA. He doesn't care if the 5 best players decide to go play on the Lakers for half their going rate on the open market just so they can dominate the league. Then say they go play for Miami and win another title over there. It's just a different view about how we think the league should operate.

        Normal fans want to see continuity on their favorite team and they want to see a team develop and appreciate a guy like Reggie Miller who sticks with the team and becomes an icon in the city. Fans like that. At least the fans I know. They don't like their favorite player leaving the city especially when their team gets some junk player in return.

        This isn't hard stuff.
        Yea normal fans want a lot of things. Good owners, loyal players, draft correctly, never trade their favorite players, etc. I get that. What I don’t get is whining about not getting what you want. The championship is wide open this season, and as much as you complain you still consume NBA. So what’s the problem?

        Comment


        • #49
          This is exactly what the owners of small market teams want you to believe: That they do their best but no one wants to live there so they have no chance. Itís a lie. If Milwaukee payed the Luxury tax and got Brogdon theyíd have Bledsoe, Lopez, Middleton, Brogdon, and Giannis. That is an INSANELY good starting five. If the Pacers didnít trade a guy who played power forward in college for a back up and blame it on having too many small forwards then we would literally have the best players on the team that LAC worked so hard to acquire. And if you think they didnít know Kawhi would end up a better player than G. Hill Iíve got a bridge in Brooklyn Iíd like to sell you. He averaged 11 pts and 2.5 ast in 28 min his 3rd year in SA. Pretty awful for a pg. DeAngello said he wanted to go to Minnesota but they had no cap space because they maxed out Wiggins and donít forget Rubio over Steph. Almost every player on that list was in a role at a small market team at one point or another. Every small market team has had chances to build a championship team. Thatís why you have the lottery system. It completely levels the playing field because those teams never get picks once they are good. LAC wonít have a decent pick forever. And letís not forget Toronto couldíve gone all in and kept Kawhi, they didnít want to. In this case at least itís because they want to rebuild and enjoy building from scratch, thatís what itís all about. Teams like us and Detroit prefer the quick and ez paycheck and THAT is why we canít win. Donít blame location.
          Last edited by bumpercar3; 07-08-2019, 02:27 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by bumpercar3 View Post
            This is exactly what the owners of small market teams want you to believe: That they do their best but no one wants to live there so they have no chance. Itís a lie. If Milwaukee payed the Luxury tax and got Brogdon theyíd have Bledsoe, Lopez, Middleton, Brogdon, and Giannis. That is an INSANELY good starting five. If the Pacers didnít trade a guy who played power forward in college for a back up and blame it on having too many small forwards then we would literally have the best players on the team that LAC worked so hard to acquire. And if you think they didnít know Kawhi would end up a better player than G. Hill Iíve got a bridge in Brooklyn Iíd like to sell you. He averaged 11 pts and 2.5 ast in 28 min his 3rd year in SA. Pretty awful for a pg. DeAngello said he wanted to go to Minnesota but they had no cap space because they maxed out Wiggins and donít forget Rubio over Steph. Almost every player on that list was in a role at a small market team at one point or another. Every small market team has had chances to build a championship team. Thatís why you have the lottery system. It completely levels the playing field because those teams never get picks once they are good. LAC wonít have a decent pick forever. And letís not forget Toronto couldíve gone all in and kept Kawhi, they didnít want to. In this case at least itís because they want to rebuild and enjoy building from scratch, thatís what itís all about. Teams like us and Detroit prefer the quick and ez paycheck and THAT is why we canít win. Donít blame location.
            So location has nothing to do with it? Explain how the upper crust of players that had a choice in the matter all went to these three markets? Coincidence?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

              So location has nothing to do with it? Explain how the upper crust of players that had a choice in the matter all went to these three markets? Coincidence?
              Of course location matters. Thatís just the reality of things. You just canít pretend it makes things impossible. If anything, it makes even the smaller accomplishments a little more rewarding. If you want to hear that smaller markets have it tougher than big markets, yes they do. You canít say that itís a hopeless situation, though. You have fewer opportunities, but theyíre still there. IMO, odds are stacked against you so your best chance is to recognize your opportunity and swing big.
              Last edited by Kstat; 07-08-2019, 08:18 AM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Kstat View Post

                Of course location matters. Thatís just the reality of things. You just canít pretend it makes things impossible. If anything, it makes even the smaller accomplishments a little more rewarding. If you want to hear that smaller markets have it tougher than big markets, yes they do. You canít say that itís a hopeless situation, though. You have fewer opportunities, but theyíre still there. IMO, odds are stacked against you so your best chance is to recognize your opportunity and swing big.
                Agree, itís an advantage but not an impossible hurdle.

                But if people want to complain about that, why blame players? Maybe if small market millionaire owners didnít use billions in tax dollars to build their stadiums small market cities could use that money to build up more attractive cities.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post

                  Of course location matters. Thatís just the reality of things. You just canít pretend it makes things impossible. If anything, it makes even the smaller accomplishments a little more rewarding. If you want to hear that smaller markets have it tougher than big markets, yes they do. You canít say that itís a hopeless situation, though. You have fewer opportunities, but theyíre still there. IMO, odds are stacked against you so your best chance is to recognize your opportunity and swing big.
                  That's the worst way to do it. Small markets only really have a chance if they pull a Philly. Tank, accrue assets, play lots of young guys so other teams think they're good then trade them for more assets, hope you draft a superstar or two.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post

                    That's the worst way to do it. Small markets only really have a chance if they pull a Philly. Tank, accrue assets, play lots of young guys so other teams think they're good then trade them for more assets, hope you draft a superstar or two.
                    Yeah... no. The success rate of tanking is worse than teams that donít. Toronto swung big and it won a championship. Boston didnít tank, the Bucks didnít tank, and Utah didnít tank. Philly is just the easy excuse to fall back on while ignoring the fact there are no other Phillys in the NBA right now. Aggressive management improves in small markets much better than passive management or flat out tanking.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Tanking has such a negative connotation to it but what the Pacers have done is essentially lay up to steal a golfing term.

                      I mean there is certianly more than one way to get a championship but the Pacers way seems like a very low success rate. Maybe it is the only way to keep fans interested in coming to the games but it hasn't produced a championship and it probably won't.

                      I personally would of never had thought 15 years ago an expansion team like the Raptors would of had a championship before the Pacers.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 07-08-2019, 08:43 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        Tanking has such a negative connotation to it but what the Pacers have done is essentially lay up to steal a golfing term.

                        The certianly is more than one way to get a championship but the Pacers way seems like a very low success rate. Maybe it is the only way to keep fans interested in coming to the games but it hasn't produced a championship.

                        I personally would of never had thought 15 years ago an expansion team like the Raptors would of had a championship before the Pacers.
                        You assume the pacers are done. They can make more trades to acquire more talent. You just have to be willing to take risks.

                        the flipside of the constant player movement is that all stars are hitting the trade market it seems every other month when before theyíd be deemed untouchable. Small markets can bid on that just like big markets can. Yes, you could spend a small fortune on a major asset only to lose him in 1-2 years. Thatís also part of the business now. Canít be risk averse.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 07-08-2019, 08:49 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          Tanking has such a negative connotation to it but what the Pacers have done is essentially lay up to steal a golfing term.

                          The certianly is more than one way to get a championship but the Pacers way seems like a very low success rate. Maybe it is the only way to keep fans interested in coming to the games but it hasn't produced a championship.

                          I personally would of never had thought 15 years ago an expansion team like the Raptors would of had a championship before the Pacers.
                          Tanking in the past has not had a higher success rate and it will especially not be a good strategy with the new rules. Nola had 8th worst record and just landed Zion.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post

                            You assume the pacers are done. They can make more trades to acquire more talent. You just have to be willing to take risks.

                            the flipside of the constant player movement is that all stars are hitting the trade market it seems every other month when before theyíd be deemed untouchable. Small markets can bid on that just like big markets can.
                            That is essentially it though. I do not believe they are willing to take risk. For instance I doubt the Pacers make a trade like what the Raptors did for Leonard. They essentially would not trade a hometown all star level talent for a one year rental for a championship. I am not even sure they would of made the second trade for Marc Gasol.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              They did pretty damn good in fleecing Brogdon out of Milwaukee. Theyíre not far away at all from packaging Sabonis, Turner, Oladipo or Brogdon along with some future picks and getting a legit star to challenge for the east. In fact, packaging Sabonis for a wing would be highly encouraged at this point.

                              indiana isnít that far from where Toronto was a year ago.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 07-08-2019, 08:57 AM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post

                                Tanking in the past has not had a higher success rate and it will especially not be a good strategy with the new rules. Nola had 8th worst record and just landed Zion.
                                This is why I dislike using the word tanking since there are varying degrees of being a bad team aka tanking. For instance the Spurs tanked for Duncan but Philly is certianly is the extreme and I do not think they have proven anything yet. The piont is the Pacers could rebuild through the draft by being the eighth worse team in the nba. I mean the new rules just mean the odds have changed so play the odds to your favor especially in a rebuilding year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X