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

  • #31
    Within the past 20 years, there have been two separate periods (of a few years each) when the Pacers were legitimate contenders. How many franchises can truly say they've had even one season in that span when they were legitimate contenders? Even for some teams like the Hawks who've made a few conference finals, was anybody apart from some sabermetric-obsessed contrarian dorks at some outlet like the Ringer seriously saying that they had a genuine chance to take home the title? No. Even when they finished first in the conference, they got stomped by Lebron. The Pacers on the other hand took the eventual champions to seven -- that gives them a legitimate claim to having been the second best team in the league. They lasted longer against the Pistons than the Lakers did too.

    That doesn't sound like the middle to me; if we're saying that the middle was the most common outcome over a long period of time, then for every franchise that isn't the Lakers, over a span of decades the results are inevitably going to average out to "the middle".

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ichi View Post

      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.
      The problem though is that one of those ECF’s was in 2004. So if you’re literally using a 20 year benchmark, that one will fall off in a couple years.

      Our 20 year success looked pretty good when it was framed in a 1994-2014 window. The problem is that the last 8 years have been extremely unimpressive and soon we will be at a full decade since our last playoff series win unless we turn things around quickly.

      Sure we’ve had some nice successes in the past, but it’s the recent history (which at this point has become a relatively long stretch of time) that is so unimpressive right now.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-26-2022, 10:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        It is all hindsight at this point but the return from the PG trade should have been focused on maximizing future draft capitol and committing to a reset process similar to what is happening now. Individual moves could be argued but prior to that it is tough to quibble too much with the team building process going all the back to the 90's.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

          The problem though is that one of those ECF’s was in 2004. So if you’re literally using a 20 year benchmark, that one will fall off in a couple years.

          Our 20 year success looked pretty good when it was framed in a 1994-2014 window. The problem is that the last 8 years have been extremely unimpressive and soon we will be at a full decade since our last playoff series win unless we turn things around quickly.

          Sure we’ve had some nice successes in the past, but it’s the recent history (which at this point has become a relatively long stretch of time) that is so unimpressive right now.
          Sure, but that's the benchmark Redick offered. If he had said the Pacers of the last five-eight years, I'd have said sure.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
            It is all hindsight at this point but the return from the PG trade should have been focused on maximizing future draft capitol and committing to a reset process similar to what is happening now. Individual moves could be argued but prior to that it is tough to quibble too much with the team building process going all the back to the 90's.
            Trade got us Tyrese, so I'm all good on it. I think if you get future value from a secondary deal, it also kinda counts. It's like the reverse of that horrible Orlando Magic trade tree from the last decade or so. Bad deals at face value that get worse the more you look into it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

              The problem though is that one of those ECF’s was in 2004. So if you’re literally using a 20 year benchmark, that one will fall off in a couple years.

              Our 20 year success looked pretty good when it was framed in a 1994-2014 window. The problem is that the last 8 years have been extremely unimpressive and soon we will be at a full decade since our last playoff series win unless we turn things around quickly.

              Sure we’ve had some nice successes in the past, but it’s the recent history (which at this point has become a relatively long stretch of time) that is so unimpressive right now.
              This is exactly the point of an average... it is not a selective stat. It doesn't care if you had 5 really good years or 5 really bad years.
              1994-2000 were our best years in the NBA with 5 ECF (and 1 finals). But 2014-2022 horrible, missed Playoffs twice, three sweeps, first round exits.
              2012-2014 contenders, 2005-2011 garbage.
              This trends repeats itself, garbage for a few years, then 1-2 ECF

              As long as we remain a part of the 11 ringless club... we will always be seen as average. Bad seasons cancel out the good
              Originally posted by Piston Prince
              Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
              "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                As long as we remain a part of the 11 ringless club... we will always be seen as average. Bad seasons cancel out the good
                And it's sad that this is all some people look at the franchise as. The Pacers are my team. They're not average.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Just to piggy back this thread,

                  JJ podcast- I think the Demar Derozan interview will be out tomorrow, and next week should be Bradly Beal or Victor Oladipo. Brace yourself for some for some more Trashing of the Pacers. Who knows maybe he will confirm a lot of the speculation around his falling out with the pacers.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    Just to piggy back this thread,

                    JJ podcast- I think the Demar Derozan interview will be out tomorrow, and next week should be Bradly Beal or Victor Oladipo. Brace yourself for some for some more Trashing of the Pacers. Who knows maybe he will confirm a lot of the speculation around his falling out with the pacers.
                    Oh boy, buckle up for that one folks...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The 21st century Pacers are a less glamorous (but actually more successful) version of the Blazers. Is it too much to ask for another player with half the charisma of Reggie Miller?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                        And it's sad that this is all some people look at the franchise as. The Pacers are my team. They're not average.
                        They're also my team, there's nothing wrong with rooting for an average team
                        Originally posted by Piston Prince
                        Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                        "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post

                          Oh boy, buckle up for that one folks...
                          The story of Vic fumbling the bag not once but twice with two teams then tearing his quad again a few weeks later will go down in history. I mean who fumbles the bag with two teams. What kind of idiotic yes men do you have talking in your ear.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Winngtime85 View Post

                            The story of Vic fumbling the bag not once but twice with two teams then tearing his quad again a few weeks later will go down in history. I mean who fumbles the bag with two teams. What kind of idiotic yes men do you have talking in your ear.
                            And yet, I suspect he will come out and tell everyone that somehow it is actually all the Pacers’ fault.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I'd like to say jj is full of it but, I find myself largely in agreement with him.
                              outside of two ecf appearances, most seasons have seen the pacers either just in or just out of the playoffs. and looking at the draft positions, have resulted in picking in the middle. the picks have largely resulted in acquiring mid-tier talent which gets us mid-tier results.
                              the pacers have been mostly mediocre these last 20 years.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I’m old enough to remember that we almost signed JJ to the Pacers, to the extent that he came out and said he thought he was coming here. I guess the team seems a lot more relevant when they are offering him $12 million.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X