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

JJ Redick is right about the Pacers

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

  • #16
    F JJ he’s just a woke snowflake.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      The franchises overall w/l % is .511% Basically the definition of middle ground. But that really is somewhat skewered because it includes our ABA record which they won 427 and lost 317.

      Our NBA W/L record is 1848 wins 1856 losses. Again, middle of the road we win almost as much as we lose.

      Different people will view these numbers and interpret them differently. Interestingly enough it's this reason why I am not a person who just believes stats all the time. Numbers are numbers without a doubt but how they are interpreted can vary.
      .511 puts the Pacers as the 5th best record in the East all-time. The NBA only record drops us a grand total of 1 spot to 6th. I'm only looking at the East because all-time NBA records has a West bias where 6 of the top 7 are all western teams. Might have to do with the West having more historically putrid teams than the East.

      Maybe a more normalized way to look at this, and more relevant to the relevancy of the team, would be to look at percentage of seasons making it to the playoffs. The Pacers have made it to the playoffs in 64.3% of seasons. That is good for 4th all-time in the East and 10th all-time in overall.

      Numbers can be interpreted differently, but usually there is only one correct interpretation just our own biases lead us down incorrect or incomplete interpretations. If we actually look closely at the last 20 years, this team has been better than middling, but only slightly. This team has a nasty habit, going back to the 90's, of either losing in the 1st round or getting to the conference finals. That gives some people the feeling of irrelevancy, but the team has still gotten to the playoffs in 13 of the last 20 years. Including 3 conference finals appearances. That by definition is a bit better than middling, but I would call it above average relevancy. The feeling of middling is more likely informed by some recency bias where the past few years has really created a lot of apathy towards the Pacers. If we were to flip the last 20 years around, I think people would generally have a more positive feeling towards the Pacers right now, and would not be considering the past 20 years as middling.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Winngtime85 View Post
        F JJ he’s just a woke snowflake.
        Well, he's in a business now that requires site traffic. His various social media accounts, the podcast and whatever else he's into - that all requires traffic to survive. And the best way to get your name out there, the best way to get clicks, the best way to get that traffic is to be a controversial a-hole. Get people upset, get people talking about what an idiot he is. He's done that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

          .511 puts the Pacers as the 5th best record in the East all-time. The NBA only record drops us a grand total of 1 spot to 6th. I'm only looking at the East because all-time NBA records has a West bias where 6 of the top 7 are all western teams. Might have to do with the West having more historically putrid teams than the East.

          Maybe a more normalized way to look at this, and more relevant to the relevancy of the team, would be to look at percentage of seasons making it to the playoffs. The Pacers have made it to the playoffs in 64.3% of seasons. That is good for 4th all-time in the East and 10th all-time in overall.

          Numbers can be interpreted differently, but usually there is only one correct interpretation just our own biases lead us down incorrect or incomplete interpretations. If we actually look closely at the last 20 years, this team has been better than middling, but only slightly. This team has a nasty habit, going back to the 90's, of either losing in the 1st round or getting to the conference finals. That gives some people the feeling of irrelevancy, but the team has still gotten to the playoffs in 13 of the last 20 years. Including 3 conference finals appearances. That by definition is a bit better than middling, but I would call it above average relevancy. The feeling of middling is more likely informed by some recency bias where the past few years has really created a lot of apathy towards the Pacers. If we were to flip the last 20 years around, I think people would generally have a more positive feeling towards the Pacers right now, and would not be considering the past 20 years as middling.
          01 First round exit
          02 First round exit
          03 First round exit
          04 Eastern Conference Finals
          05 Second round exit
          06 First round exit
          07 No playoffs
          08 No playoffs
          09 No playoffs
          10 No playoffs
          11 First round exit
          12 Second Round exit
          13 Eastern Conference Finals
          14 Eastern Conference Finals
          15 No playoffs
          16 First round exit
          17 First round exit
          18 First round exit
          19 First round exit
          20 First round exit
          21 No playoffs
          22 No playoffs

          I've done 22 years so I'm sticking with that for the moment. But if we were to flip them around the first 11 years consisted of 1 EC finals 1 second round exit 5 first round exits and 4 times not making the playoffs. The second 11 years consists of 2 EC finals 1 second round exit 5 first round exits and 3 times not making the playoffs.

          I mean say what you will but that seems incredibly consistent to me and if we are picking nits then in reality the second half we have made the playoffs more often (by 1) and have advanced further in the playoffs (EC finals x2).

          But lets take what you are saying about the overall w/l record. I'm going to take your word for it btw because right now I don't have time to look it up but I trust what you are saying. But let's exam what you said, you said it would make us 6th in the east but that the top 6 to 7 records overall were in the west. If that is the case then doesn't that drop the Pacers down to anywhere from 12-14 overall? Once again, by almost definition middle of the pack?

          I think there might be some confusion about what people are saying. I think that JJ was not saying we were a bad team, he's saying we have been a mediocre team and that is the one spot in the NBA that conventional wisdom says you should never be and that objectively speaking seems to be a large majority of the time where our club finds itself.

          We are not a bad team. Well last season we were and most likely this season we will be, but overall we are just an average team and as a person who follows a lot of NBA general podcasts, twitter feeds, writers, etc. I can tell you from my experience that the Indiana Pacers are absolutely irrelevant in the overall conversation of the league. Hell the running joke on the mismatch podcast is that they don't want to talk about Indiana because we are boring.



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

          Comment


          • #20
            More than 50% of the teams in the NBA make the playoffs. You can't point to making the playoffs as a sign of being better than average, the average team makes the playoffs every single year. First round playoff exit = average, and that's the most common Pacer result of the last 20 years... followed closely by missing the playoffs altogether. The Pacers are not a relevant franchise, no matter how bad you wish that were different.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Peck View Post

              01 First round exit
              02 First round exit
              03 First round exit
              04 Eastern Conference Finals
              05 Second round exit
              06 First round exit
              07 No playoffs
              08 No playoffs
              09 No playoffs
              10 No playoffs
              11 First round exit
              12 Second Round exit
              13 Eastern Conference Finals
              14 Eastern Conference Finals
              15 No playoffs
              16 First round exit
              17 First round exit
              18 First round exit
              19 First round exit
              20 First round exit
              21 No playoffs
              22 No playoffs

              I've done 22 years so I'm sticking with that for the moment. But if we were to flip them around the first 11 years consisted of 1 EC finals 1 second round exit 5 first round exits and 4 times not making the playoffs. The second 11 years consists of 2 EC finals 1 second round exit 5 first round exits and 3 times not making the playoffs.

              I mean say what you will but that seems incredibly consistent to me and if we are picking nits then in reality the second half we have made the playoffs more often (by 1) and have advanced further in the playoffs (EC finals x2).

              But lets take what you are saying about the overall w/l record. I'm going to take your word for it btw because right now I don't have time to look it up but I trust what you are saying. But let's exam what you said, you said it would make us 6th in the east but that the top 6 to 7 records overall were in the west. If that is the case then doesn't that drop the Pacers down to anywhere from 12-14 overall? Once again, by almost definition middle of the pack?

              I think there might be some confusion about what people are saying. I think that JJ was not saying we were a bad team, he's saying we have been a mediocre team and that is the one spot in the NBA that conventional wisdom says you should never be and that objectively speaking seems to be a large majority of the time where our club finds itself.

              We are not a bad team. Well last season we were and most likely this season we will be, but overall we are just an average team and as a person who follows a lot of NBA general podcasts, twitter feeds, writers, etc. I can tell you from my experience that the Indiana Pacers are absolutely irrelevant in the overall conversation of the league. Hell the running joke on the mismatch podcast is that they don't want to talk about Indiana because we are boring.
              You are missing the point of pointing out that 6 of the top 7 being western teams. It indicates that there is some kind of bias in the data meaning we shouldn't be making apple to apple comparisons between the conferences.

              Sent from my Nokia XR20 using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                You are missing the point of pointing out that 6 of the top 7 being western teams. It indicates that there is some kind of bias in the data meaning we shouldn't be making apple to apple comparisons between the conferences.

                Sent from my Nokia XR20 using Tapatalk
                That's why making the ECF multiple years is considered "mediocre."

                Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  It indicates that there is some kind of bias in the data...
                  The numbers are what the numbers are. No need to dismiss them just because you don't like them.
                  ​​​​​​

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I mean he’s not wrong if you literally say the last 20 years, which is 02-22 and doesn’t encompass The Finals season or any of the 90’s.

                    From 02-22 there isn’t much to write home about. A 61 win ECF’ season, the PG/Hibbert/Vogel era that was pretty short, some first round out years, quite a few crappy seasons, embarrassing Brawl/off the court issues, and no playoff series wins in damn near a decade. The modern NBA passed us by.
                    Even then he's wrong. 3 Conference Finals in 20 years isn't all that bad... It's not great, but it's a lot more than several other teams. There are way worse positions. Now the last 3 years were mildly infuriating for me, until the Domas/Hali trade. That was the treadmill to BS he was talking about. The epitome of striving to be middle of the pack.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Winngtime85 View Post
                      F JJ he’s just a woke snowflake.
                      Whatever you're talking about has nothing to do with his bball takes lol

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        More than 50% of the teams in the NBA make the playoffs. You can't point to making the playoffs as a sign of being better than average, the average team makes the playoffs every single year. First round playoff exit = average, and that's the most common Pacer result of the last 20 years... followed closely by missing the playoffs altogether. The Pacers are not a relevant franchise, no matter how bad you wish that were different.
                        Far less than 50% of the teams in the NBA advance to the second round though. First round exit doesn't necessarily make you an average team, unless you are the 13th-16th best team in the NBA range. If you're closer to 9th or 10th, then you're still in the top 33% of the league, which is still higher than average. I'm not using this to advocate for the Pacers, just BSing using your standard of logic from the first line.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          You are missing the point of pointing out that 6 of the top 7 being western teams. It indicates that there is some kind of bias in the data meaning we shouldn't be making apple to apple comparisons between the conferences.

                          Sent from my Nokia XR20 using Tapatalk
                          But does it though? Isn't it also kind of a fact that over the past 22 years the Eastern Conference has had significantly worse teams? I mean haven't there have been years that teams in the west did not even make the playoffs with winning records while several of the bottom of the east playoff bracket were sub .500%?

                          Meaning since the pacers played in the East they played in a majority weaker conference and schedule and thus had an easier time?

                          I guess I don't know why I'm continuing on this point, to me I don't see it as an insult to say we have been mediocre because IMO our record is what our record is. There are teams that would kills to have the record we have had and there are teams that would laugh at us for even thinking we had a decent record.


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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            This is news ? Reddick can suck it. So the alternative was what. Tank like Philly. That got then how many championships. How many ECF appearenaces.

                            how many busts did Philly draft in the top 3. By my calculation Philly sucked for what 7 + seasons to end up with Embiid a player that’s window will be extremely short lived much like AD fragile. Even if .. Philly has placed many of its eggs in hardens fat ***.

                            just sayin. Sacramento is another example as well. Lottery after lottery selections yet have sucked. Unlike Philly and sac town Indiana is a fan base that requrirs the team actually try.

                            tuff breaks with granger pg dipo brawl have way more to do with anything. Thread is waste. Tell reddi k ask Simmons how tanking for a decade worked for Philly.

                            **** is baseless. We had to tear it down after brawl. Last but not least unless it’s Lebron James or Shaq #1 picks are not a guarantee recipe for punching nba finals ticket.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Say what anyone will it litterally took a big 3 choreographed team of James wade bosh to roadblock team built by bird from reaching nba finals.

                              it’s been Jordan. Shaq. James. 3 of the greatest players of the modern era and a brawl from how many Banners raised in Fieldhouse rafters.

                              All a sudden jj thinks he is Auerbach since works espn as analyst

                              who gives **** what reddick has got to say. reddick sucks b***s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Didn't we try and get JJ at one point? Hard feelings maybe?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X