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

Tanking

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

  • #61
    Re: Tanking

    Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
    lmao@NJ losing to the wolves...still in the 8th spot...lol this is awesome...I imagine tho the easy schedule NJ has coming up no way do we stay there. I suggest not watching the piston game it can only upset you so much.
    The Nets really are trying to tank. They have waaaaay too much talent to be where they're at right now.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Tanking

      No I really think the Nets are just a big ball of "un-chemistry". Jason kid may be a great assist man but if he isn't happy being there then it doesnt help others desires. Same for half-man half a season, he is never in a game mentally unless he is on the verge of having a big night, otherwise he could care less
      Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Tanking

        Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
        How old are you? just wondering
        16.


        Some people want it to happen, some
        wish it would happen, & others make it happen.
        ..Michael Jordan.

        Pressure is something you feel when
        you don't know what the hell you're
        doing.
        ..Peyton Manning.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Tanking

          For those rooting for the Pacers to get as high a draft pick as possible (aka the smart Pacer fans), the big game on tonights schedule is Bobcats @ Clippers. It really doesn't really matter who wins. We're closer to passing up (down?) the Bobcats, so one one hand you could pull for them. However the Clippers have a bigger lead on us, so you could also pull for them. Either way, one of these two teams is picking up a W, which is a good thing for us.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Tanking

            JOB will never actively TANK.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Tanking

              Originally posted by intridcold View Post
              JOB will never actively TANK.
              I doesn't matter really. We don't have the talent to win games. At our best, we're a 35 win team.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Tanking

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Maybe it's a good thing.....if Bird had the 10th pick...he may have picked Spencer Hawes
                That's not even funny, and I assume you weren't fully joking either.

                I guess my feeling is that this "go for the very bottom, toss everything out the door and get good and s****y" is not the way to do things. Utah didn't have to do that and look at their run.

                Portland did it but it was partially by accident and partially by horrible PR need. I don't think they expected the initial turn things took when they hired Nate, though it's obviously paying off now.

                With the Miami "1 shot" case I'm saying that I do believe in making moves for LONG windows with less moonshot potential. Maybe you take off some edge on the title chances but you extend the solid playoff run window.

                Some PD fans want the ring at all costs, they want solutions with extremely harsh consequences because they are sick of always "just making the playoffs". My view is you have to be in it to win it, and the craziness of the postseason means that you can't truly buy that certain shot anyway, so why risk such a harsh back end of failure for something so questionable.

                People cite the Miami title as proof of that strategy, but I think it overlooks all the other times it doesn't really work. You can be horrible and get the top pick and come up short like Cleveland. You can be steady like Utah and get shut down by Jordan. You can package aging superstars and fail like Houston or LA.

                Because of those risks I'd rather the team focus on something you can control somewhat, and that's just consistent winning.


                Right now it's a mess so they aren't really doing either. Playoffs at sub-500 is not "winning", so it's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't just dump JO no matter what, I'd certainly consider an option that keeps JO and makes this team a +500 legit playoff team, even if it lacks that top-end "title shot" aspect. You only shut down JO if it means next year he will be much healthier. That's more important than gimping along this year. That's not a tank, that's just the best overall strategy due to a lack of options.

                Get in the mix and you never know. That's better than tank to hell, really stink for awhile and still not know if it's going to work out.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-28-2008, 10:55 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Tanking

                  Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                  Took a look at the league's recent standings:

                  http://www.nba.com/standings/team_re...w_Std_Div.html

                  Didn't realize how many teams are doing worse, if not much worse than the
                  Pacers are right now. There are a few teams that look like they would be
                  lucky to get as many wins by the end of the season as we have right now (19).

                  I can't see us losing to the point of having a realistic chance of getting a top
                  five draft pick. Possibly a pick before #10, but it's going to take some awefully
                  hard tanking and tossing the rest of the season out the window altogether
                  to make it happen.

                  It may be depressing to think about now, but it looks like we need to make
                  some sort of sacrifice to help forge a brighter future to look forward to.
                  Put this in with Buck's POV and consider just how truly miserable it must be to spend 5-6 months watching teams lose at a rate FAR below what the Pacers have been doing so far. Just consider where our expectations are now at, we're disgusted at being a little below mediocre.

                  Heck, people were livid about only being a little over .500 last year prior to the trade. The only taste of top 5 pick losing we've had in decades was the final couple of months last year.

                  And then carry that out not just over 1 season but perhaps 2 or 3. Sure you are getting top picks. Maybe you pull a Dallas and put Kidd, Mashburn and Jim Jackson together and win...jack squat. Personally I don't want to go back to the 80's level of losing for anything.

                  The celebration used to be that the team made the playoffs, maybe even won a playoff game (wow!). I see your tank and I raise you a Wayman Tisdale.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Tanking

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    That's not even funny, and I assume you weren't fully joking either.
                    No.....I wasn't joking. Check out who NBADraft.net compares him to:

                    http://nbadraft.net/admincp/profiles/spencerhawes.html

                    You think that Bird wouldn't pass up drafting a player like that?
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Tanking

                      Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                      I doesn't matter really. We don't have the talent to win games. At our best, we're a 35 win team.
                      that looks good enough to make the playoffs right now
                      "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Tanking

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        I guess my feeling is that this "go for the very bottom, toss everything out the door and get good and s****y" is not the way to do things. Utah didn't have to do that and look at their run.
                        Sorry Seth but your facts are off here. Utah won 26 games in 04-05 which lead to their acquiring Deron Williams in the draft (although they did trade up a few spots). That draft selection, coupled with the Boozer signing, is what turned their franchise around. There were no major trades made.

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Portland did it but it was partially by accident and partially by horrible PR need. I don't think they expected the initial turn things took when they hired Nate, though it's obviously paying off now.
                        Accident? Not really. You don't accidentally trade your way into LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy. Their GM clearly knows what he's doing and recognizes talent. The only lucky part was winning the lottery this past offseason. And yet they're still a solid playoff team with that luck sitting on the bench in a suit for the entire season. Record-wise, they may end up as the best "really young" team in league history.


                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Some PD fans want the ring at all costs, they want solutions with extremely harsh consequences because they are sick of always "just making the playoffs". My view is you have to be in it to win it, and the craziness of the postseason means that you can't truly buy that certain shot anyway, so why risk such a harsh back end of failure for something so questionable.
                        Every move in the NBA is a gamble so I don't feel you have a valid point here. A bad trade (*cough* Golden State *cough*) will likely set your team back even further than a bad draft selection would. With a bad draft selection, you're not screwing with your cap. Make a bad trade, take on a mediocre player with a huge contract (*cough*Troy Murphy*cough*) and you're not only hurting yourself in the talent department but you're further crippling your chances of improving the team via trades and free agency.


                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        People cite the Miami title as proof of that strategy, but I think it overlooks all the other times it doesn't really work. You can be horrible and get the top pick and come up short like Cleveland. You can be steady like Utah and get shut down by Jordan. You can package aging superstars and fail like Houston or LA.
                        Either way, rather you're building through the draft or through trades, it all comes down to the competence of management. If you have incompetent management, you're gonna fail either way. The Cavs were dealt a perfect hand, landing a guy who could go down as one of the 5 best ever, and they've already screwed it up by surrounding him with overpaid, mediocre talent. LeBron in Cleveland is on it's way to being K.G. in Minnesota part deux.

                        As for Utah, they're situation was very similar to ours through the mid 90's to early 2000. Very good, yet not quite good enough. We all want a championship, but I doubt very many people here would turn down 5 Eastern Conference Finals and 1 NBA Finals appearance in 10 years.


                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Because of those risks I'd rather the team focus on something you can control somewhat, and that's just consistent winning.
                        If they could control that, we wouldn't be in the position we're in now. It's been proven current management can't build a winning team through trades. The only hope is to rebuild through the draft. All succesful teams need a franchise player. We're not gonna find that player through a trade. It's not happening. It's either continue being an under-talented, 35-40 win team and hope to find our franchise player in the 8-15 range of the draft, our go all out, shed salary, bring in young (27 or younger) type talent, and land a couple of top-5 picks. Looking at the history of the draft, I'll gladly take my chances with the top-5 picks.

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Right now it's a mess so they aren't really doing either. Playoffs at sub-500 is not "winning", so it's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't just dump JO no matter what, I'd certainly consider an option that keeps JO and makes this team a +500 legit playoff team, even if it lacks that top-end "title shot" aspect. You only shut down JO if it means next year he will be much healthier. That's more important than gimping along this year. That's not a tank, that's just the best overall strategy due to a lack of options.
                        I could live with that, provided we landed an actual impact player in the draft and J.O. could come back to 18/10 47% (at least) form.


                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Get in the mix and you never know. That's better than tank to hell, really stink for awhile and still not know if it's going to work out.
                        Again, if they could" get in the mix" they'd be "in the mix". They can't. Believe me, Bird wants to be in the mix, as does Jim O'Brien and every single player on the roster. It's easier said than done. Every single team in the league wants to be in the mix. Considering that no less than 25 of these teams have more to work with than us, it's a hopeless cause. Again, we could try to improve via trades, but that's as risky as the draft with a far lower payoff. Not to mention, we have nothing other teams want outside of a small handful of players. We have such a talent deficit, that our best bet would be to go after young unproven talent with high upside. Jordan Farmar, Javaris Crittenton, etc.
                        Last edited by Kofi; 01-29-2008, 12:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Tanking

                          Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
                          that looks good enough to make the playoffs right now
                          That's at our best. With J.O. and Tinsley both banged up, we're far from at our best. As of right now, the difference between the playoffs and a top-5 pick is 3.5 games. So while 35-36 games may get you in the playoffs, 32 games could get you a top-5 pick, and a good shot at moving into the top-3.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Tanking

                            What I want is to have the team (since they're bad anyway) lose as much as possible (though NOT intentionally) but don't have a firesale of our roster. In other words, while I'm not thrilled with this roster by a long shot, if the only trades out there will immediately LOWER our talent level even more (), then just hold out, let the sucking land us some talent this June, and come back with this (or a similar) team + another talent.

                            I'm not interested in trading everyone away to be HORRIBLE in the talent department to get more picks, that's a lateral move even if it works out. No, I'd rather let a team under-achieve for a year, then come back next year with additional talent.

                            This is all if you assume we have no chance in the postseason, or if we don't even deserve to be there.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Tanking

                              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                              Last year all the teams picking 1-3 were 30-32 win teams and the three worst record teams in the league were all out of the top three. Given our recent play 32 wins is not out of reach.

                              Not to mention we can probably get Gordon with a number 3 or 4. I don't really care about winning the lottery, being a runner up would be fine.

                              If we get close, we should throw in granger and move up for Gordon anyway... This franchise needs to get butts in the stands more than anything else right now. Getting rid of Tinsley and adding Eric Gordon would do the trick.
                              problem is, 1) I'm not sold on gordon.
                              and 2) gordon doesn't solve our pg problem because hi isn't a pg
                              getting him wouldn't really help much with the logjam at the position he plays as a somewhat undersized 2 (which is where he would play in the nba)
                              there would likely be more useful players available if we got a pick good enough that he is still available.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Tanking

                                there is no one in the upcoming draft like lebron or oden and durant who would change a franchise...lets try to win now. Granger could blossom into a t-mac type star. Let him carry this team not i repeat NOT DUNLEAVY...
                                run the offense through danny and lets see what happens..
                                I think if we play boston in the first round with a healthy JO we can beat them...the only team we can't beat in the east would be the pistons...and even i think we give them a run for their money!
                                "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X