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

picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

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

  • #31
    Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    Jemele Hill is kinda sorta cute, for a legit reporter.
    Jemele Hill sort of resembles Mark Price a little bit.


    And for the record, it's well over half, atc. We can run a poll in the Shout Box if you want. And so you know, Pinnacle in Vegas has set a floating over/under that coincides with W's approval rating. I've got $50 on the under.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
      Jemele Hill sort of resembles Mark Price a little bit.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Oh what the hell, I was bored.
        Ding ding ding.

        Without an antagonist, life gets pretty boring. Thank you, sir.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

          Who is this avoiding the clowns you speak of?

          I don't see any of his posts?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

            Originally posted by Mal View Post
            Is there a reason you feel the need to defend her? Do you know her? Are you attracted to her? Is it a form of chivalry because she's a woman? Are you simply bored? Do you hate avoidingtheclowns with the white hot passion of a supernova?

            I can't say that I care one way or another that you are, but I was sitting here thinking, "Why is he doing this?"
            Because his brain expects reasonable and fair thought from people? Just a guess. I don't think it has anything to do with her and everything to do with people attacking her quality as a reporter based SOLEY on her predicting the Pacers to do poorly. Einstein was an idiot because his science didn't match mine, not really a solid argument.


            I love the new "they hate us, that's why they predict so many losses" attitude around here. No they don't, that's just what they think. Did they hate the Blazers last year when they expected them to lose? Nope. Do they picks the Suns or Spurs because they have a huge bias for them? Nope.

            The team finished with the stench of scum last year, the flipping 2nd worst final 3 months in the entire NBA (by 1 win no less). So seriously, just for one second, defend ANY OTHER TEAM that finished as bad as the Pacers and made no serious moves to the roster. Tell me why Portland is a 45 win team, or why Memphis, or why Charlotte is.

            I mean some of these other teams did also change coaches. They can't all go to the top of the league. And few of you expect any of them to turn it around like you see the Pacers doing, despite these similar signs of impending futility.

            Something has to give to match reality. NORMALLY, barring surprises and cinderellas, its going to be the teams that weren't so hot the year before that remain at the bottom unless they've made major changes (ie, Boston).

            And looking logically at the situation in that manner has a full 100% NOTHING TO DO with hating the team being "dissed".

            If the Pacers get to 45 wins, JOB is likely to win COY. I'd call that a fact. He might not win, but he'd be in the discussion heavily. They would also be considered a huge surprise by nearly everyone outside of PD.



            A second rant for a big peeve of mine, the mixing of arguments.

            1) The Pacers are aging
            2) Older teams have won it all or come close

            These are NOT CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS! Please already, just argue the same point at least. Old or not old is based on the core minutes of the roster (as was suggested) and how their average age matches against the rest of the NBA's core rosters.

            It could very well be that running those numbers does dismiss this "aging" angle in a heartbeat, I'm not saying it was a correct assessment at all.

            But running out the VERY AGING, as in about to be dismantled even, 2000 Finals Pacers has nothing to do with proving whether this group is aging or not.

            All that is doing is suggesting that while aging is true, it shouldn't be a knock against the team. Fine, that could be legit as well, I won't argue against it either. But is it too much just to get the points lined up across from each other correctly? It's frustrating as hell and typically sends interesting debates off into irrelevent strawman territory.


            For example:
            "Buck thinks the Pacers are going to win it all"
            "Yes, but UB hates puppies and lemon drops"
            "Touche"

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

              There's always a couple teams that surprise you by being good, and a couple that surprise you by being bad. You can never put too much stock in to this stuff. Previews for the upcoming year always tell you a lot more about the previous season then the upcoming one.

              Technically Hollinger is correct, we are all aging afterall.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Because his brain expects reasonable and fair thought from people? Just a guess. I don't think it has anything to do with her and everything to do with people attacking her quality as a reporter based SOLEY on her predicting the Pacers to do poorly. Einstein was an idiot because his science didn't match mine, not really a solid argument.


                I love the new "they hate us, that's why they predict so many losses" attitude around here. No they don't, that's just what they think. Did they hate the Blazers last year when they expected them to lose? Nope. Do they picks the Suns or Spurs because they have a huge bias for them? Nope.

                The team finished with the stench of scum last year, the flipping 2nd worst final 3 months in the entire NBA (by 1 win no less). So seriously, just for one second, defend ANY OTHER TEAM that finished as bad as the Pacers and made no serious moves to the roster. Tell me why Portland is a 45 win team, or why Memphis, or why Charlotte is.

                I mean some of these other teams did also change coaches. They can't all go to the top of the league. And few of you expect any of them to turn it around like you see the Pacers doing, despite these similar signs of impending futility.

                Something has to give to match reality. NORMALLY, barring surprises and cinderellas, its going to be the teams that weren't so hot the year before that remain at the bottom unless they've made major changes (ie, Boston).

                And looking logically at the situation in that manner has a full 100% NOTHING TO DO with hating the team being "dissed".

                If the Pacers get to 45 wins, JOB is likely to win COY. I'd call that a fact. He might not win, but he'd be in the discussion heavily. They would also be considered a huge surprise by nearly everyone outside of PD.



                A second rant for a big peeve of mine, the mixing of arguments.

                1) The Pacers are aging
                2) Older teams have won it all or come close

                These are NOT CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS! Please already, just argue the same point at least. Old or not old is based on the core minutes of the roster (as was suggested) and how their average age matches against the rest of the NBA's core rosters.

                It could very well be that running those numbers does dismiss this "aging" angle in a heartbeat, I'm not saying it was a correct assessment at all.

                But running out the VERY AGING, as in about to be dismantled even, 2000 Finals Pacers has nothing to do with proving whether this group is aging or not.

                All that is doing is suggesting that while aging is true, it shouldn't be a knock against the team. Fine, that could be legit as well, I won't argue against it either. But is it too much just to get the points lined up across from each other correctly? It's frustrating as hell and typically sends interesting debates off into irrelevent strawman territory.


                For example:
                "Buck thinks the Pacers are going to win it all"
                "Yes, but UB hates puppies and lemon drops"
                "Touche"
                You took my post much more seriously than I meant it.....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Saying the Pacers have an aging roster just isn't accurate.
                  Its only accurate in so far as every team in the NBA is aging.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                    Trading jermaine o'neal seems like all we can do. We are bound to suck for years to come...damn
                    lol
                    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                      Seth, I wish I had a dollar for every time you've referred to yourself as "reasonable". Paint yourself as the only person here who "gets it" all you want, in the end it's just your opinion. Not fact. Not truth. Opinion.

                      On the positive, of all the posters here, you have perhaps the most acute sense of numerical analysis. I am really entertained and sometimes in awe of your ability to dice up the digits.

                      But while we're airing our peeves, I have to say that as an artist, nothing pisses me off more than hearing an analitical guy claim that there is only one way to solve a problem or see a situation.

                      Don't discredit people who see a different side of things, in the end you may just be discrediting yourself.

                      Cheers, and keep on rockin,

                      LA



                      EDIT: by the way, this is not a direct response to what you wrote above, just a reaction from seeing the word "reasonable" in your post (albeit out of context).
                      Last edited by Los Angeles; 10-25-2007, 09:49 PM.
                      “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


                      • #41
                        Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                        Based on what we did last season I can't blame anyone for not having faith in the Pacers. However I believe in this team and the new coaching staff so I expect to be in the playoffs and win in the playoffs as well.

                        I think that in the Central the Bulls will win the division. The Pistons are going to be very good, probably number 2 in the Central but I won't be suprised if they win it. Then I think the Pacers are right there in the middle. The Bucks have a nice team and the Cavs made the Finals last year but I don't believe they have Sasha Pavlovic or Anderson Varajeo returning as of right now. Without these two I think it will really hurt their team.

                        In the Atlantic you have the Raptors, Nets, and Celtics. I think these three will make the playoffs. The Knicks could but I don't have much faith in them. Very talented but I don't know that they will have good team chemistry.

                        The Southeast has the Magic, who could make the playoffs. And then the Wizards who I think win this division. The Heat should make the playoffs but I don't think they are a lock. The Hawks are another year from making the playoffs IMO.

                        I really think the Pacers can be as high as 5th in the East. No lower than 8th.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                          I think we'll be better than projected. Don't know why, I just like this team more than last year's team.

                          And as much as I hate to agree with KStat, I do like Jemele Hill. Some of her columns are a little wacky (ie: Kobe better than MJ) but I think she's a fine writer.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                            I read the Pacers version of the dime and I can understand why the prognosticators are so negative on the Pacers. Watching our team finish off the season last year was brutal, but I don't think it was indicative of what is to come this season, as many pd people feel. However that is what the analysts have analyzed and then based their predictions on.

                            I was though shocked at the back handed comments that were prevelant throughout the Pacers dime. This isn't some media hates the Pacers conspiracy but it does seem like a lot of people are getting their shots in while they can. Look over the entire dime and its full of insults to the roster and management.

                            So I hope the Pacers go out there and make everyone eat crow 5 months from now.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                              Jamell Hill is from Detroit, that's why Kstat is defending her. She's decent. I can't say I ever went out of my way to read her, but I didn't think poorly of her either. She covered the Michigan State Spartans most predominantly IMO. She's not a moron but she's sure to be given subjects she's not the most fluent in with the national perspective of ESPN.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: picks by 10 ESPN analysts: Pacers 12th- 14th in the East

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                Jemele Hill sort of resembles Mark Price a little bit.
                                hmm...




                                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

                                Working...
                                X