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

10 Year Forecast Roundup

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

  • 10 Year Forecast Roundup

    I apologize to Cubs if they planned to do this but it'd been a few days and I was bored in a work meeting so I figured I'd tabulate.

    Teams the clear majority think the Pacers will have a better decade then
    Washington Wizards
    Sacramento Kings
    Toronto Raptors
    Philly 76ers
    Orlando Magic
    New York Knicks
    Minnesota TWolves
    LA Clippers
    Detroit Pistons
    Chicago Bulls
    Brooklyn Nets
    Charlotte Hornets
    Atlanta Hawks
    Dallas Mavericks

    This board thinks the Pacers have a clearly better future than 14 teams in the NBA. Here we have some teams that just have and probably will always suck, some teams that have gone all in and found their all in to be first round ceilings, and some teams that are probably rebuilding but the path forward isn't super clear.

    Teams the clear majority think will have a better decade than the Pacers
    San Antonio Spurs
    Phoenix Suns
    OKC Thunder
    Miami Heat
    Milwaukee Bucks
    LA Lakers
    Denver Nuggets
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Boston Celtics

    This board views 9 teams as a clear cut above the Pacers. In here we have a mix of teams with either current title aspirations, better front offices, better prospects, better markets, or a combination of those things that make the fans in Indiana envious.

    Team that were more or less toss up on who will have a better decade
    Utah Jazz
    Portland Trailblazers
    New Orleans Pelicans
    Memphis Grizzlies
    Houston Rockets
    Golden State Warriors

    Finally we have 6 teams that the board is fairly divided on. You could maybe also move Dallas to this field, I waffled on the 60.4% majority. Here are some teams that might be really good but also might be injured and some teams that have prospects that people aren't as sold on.

    In totality the board projects the Pacers to be in the 10-15th range for the NBA. C+. Markedly average. At least they weren't 25th, right Bill?

    I guess I don't know if we should have expected any different really. Hopefully there will be some years in the decade where the Pacers can be a tough out for the 9-15 teams above them.

  • #2
    Magic and Pistons may be better than people think
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Ha, I wrote in my last 2 messages that I had this planned for next Monday morning That's ok though. I am going to copy the text I had already done because I had gathered all the different threads so people could click and find any matchup they wanted. Here that is:

      Blowout win for other team (Pacers 0-24 percent of vote)
      Denver- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ver-or-indiana
      Boston- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ton-or-indiana
      Milwaukee- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...kee-or-indiana
      Oklahoma City- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ity-or-indiana
      San Antonio- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...nio-or-indiana


      Close Win for other team (Pacers with 25-49 percent of vote)
      Cleveland- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...and-or-indiana
      Golden State- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ate-or-indiana
      L.A. Lakers- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ers-or-indiana
      Memphis- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...his-or-indiana
      Miami- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ami-or-indiana
      New Orleans- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ans-or-indiana
      Phoenix- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...nix-or-indiana
      Utah- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...tah-or-indiana

      Tied
      Houston- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ton-or-indiana

      Close Win for Pacers ( Pacers with 51-75 percent of vote)
      Dallas- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...las-or-indiana
      Portland- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...and-or-indiana

      Blowout win for Pacers (Pacers with 75-99 percent of vote)
      Atlanta- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...nta-or-indiana
      Brooklyn- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...lyn-or-indiana
      Charlotte- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...tte-or-indiana
      Chicago- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ago-or-indiana
      Detroit- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...oit-or-indiana
      L.A. Clippers- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ers-or-indiana
      Minnesota- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ota-or-indiana
      New York- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ork-or-indiana
      Orlando- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ndo-or-indiana
      Philadelphia- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...hia-or-indiana
      Sacramento- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...nto-or-indiana
      Toronto- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...nto-or-indiana
      Washington- https://www.pacersdigest.com/forum/t...ton-or-indiana

      Comment


      • #4
        alright for fun...scenarios on how the pacers do better than the blowout loss teams:


        Denver: Being out of shape catches up with Jokic, suffers career ending injury; Bruce Brown steals coaching ideas that turn Turner into Jokic.

        Boston: Tatum and Brown cap out as "Robins" and they can only afford G-League guys for slots 3-12. Brown goes even more Kyrie/Kanye.

        The following 3 aren't even that crazy:

        Milwaukee: Giannis' game falls off as he loses athleticism. Never learns to shoot. Middleton and Jrue get old, Bucks can't replace them.

        Oklahoma City: Miss on the draft picks, can't afford to extend all of their prospects after their rookie deals expire.

        San Antonio: Wemby's health doesn't hold up.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dal9 View Post
          alright for fun...scenarios on how the pacers do better than the blowout loss teams:


          Denver: Being out of shape catches up with Jokic, suffers career ending injury; Bruce Brown steals coaching ideas that turn Turner into Jokic.

          Boston: Tatum and Brown cap out as "Robins" and they can only afford G-League guys for slots 3-12. Brown goes even more Kyrie/Kanye.

          The following 3 aren't even that crazy:

          Milwaukee: Giannis' game falls off as he loses athleticism. Never learns to shoot. Middleton and Jrue get old, Bucks can't replace them.

          Oklahoma City: Miss on the draft picks, can't afford to extend all of their prospects after their rookie deals expire.

          San Antonio: Wemby's health doesn't hold up.
          I think the Milwaukee scenario is Giannis leaves in 2 years because Middleton, Jrue, and Brook Lopez are all old and they don't really have much of anything else.

          Completely agree with you on San Antonio's scenario.

          Boston has three injury prone players in key roles: Porzingis, Brogdon, and Robert Williams. If all three of them majorly struggle with injuries, they are going to be a first/second round team without much ability to improve. Not the most likely scenario in the world, but not a shocking one either.

          I think for OKC and especially Denver it would have to involve the Pacers hitting one of their best outcomes.

          Comment


          • #6
            How to accelerate the Pacers future? Trade Benn for Ant ? Fun time over

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post
              How to accelerate the Pacers future? Trade Benn for Ant ? Fun time over
              Benn, Nemby, Jarace, Sheppard, Nesmith, and picks still couldn't get it done

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                Ha, I wrote in my last 2 messages that I had this planned for next Monday morning That's ok though. I am going to copy the text I had already done because I had gathered all the different threads so people could click and find any matchup they wanted. Here that is:
                Ah my bad dude, I didn't see.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Interesting, I believe the Pacers will be in the top 6 in overall performance in the next 10 years in the NBA.
                  Go Pacers!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                    Interesting, I believe the Pacers will be in the top 6 in overall performance in the next 10 years in the NBA.
                    So essentially a run equal to what we did from say 93-94 to 03-04 which saw us make the playoffs every year except one and make the conference finals 6 times and the NBA finals once?


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                      So essentially a run equal to what we did from say 93-94 to 03-04 which saw us make the playoffs every year except one and make the conference finals 6 times and the NBA finals once?
                      I'll go on record as saying that once you make the conference finals it's a real crap shoot who wins the championship. Sure, we remember the blowout years, but a good 50% or more depend on injuries, luck, a single call, and one outstanding performance.
                      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


                      • #12
                        I'll take the under on the concensus. I think we'll be in the top 20 teams, maybe top 13-14. We'll end our drought and win a playoff series but I doubt if we make it out of the second round.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                          So essentially a run equal to what we did from say 93-94 to 03-04 which saw us make the playoffs every year except one and make the conference finals 6 times and the NBA finals once?
                          I would never suggest that the Pacers will not win a championship in ANY 10 year span. Life on the optimistic side is much more fun. Cheers!
                          Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BillS View Post

                            I'll go on record as saying that once you make the conference finals it's a real crap shoot who wins the championship. Sure, we remember the blowout years, but a good 50% or more depend on injuries, luck, a single call, and one outstanding performance.
                            I don't think that's quite true. If it were, the worst team of the four conference finals teams should win the title fairly regularly. But I could only find 2-3 possible instances of this in the last 30 years.

                            ​​​​

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                              I don't think that's quite true. If it were, the worst team of the four conference finals teams should win the title fairly regularly. But I could only find 2-3 possible instances of this in the last 30 years.

                              ​​​​
                              How do you define the "worst team" in this scenario? Lowest seed? Lowest position in previous years? Least number of previous championships? Fewest superstars?

                              I think there's also the automatic tendency to believe that a championship team couldn't possibly have been the worst team so there's already a bias involved.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X