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

Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

    Originally posted by Pacers4Life View Post
    oh yea? name some more then. ok
    Carlos Boozer?
    Antonio Davis?
    Brad Miller (sorta)?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      Carlos Boozer?
      Antonio Davis?
      Brad Miller (sorta)?
      I'm willing to bet that there are less then 10 to 15 of these noteworthy second round guys over the period of the last 20 years. That is not very good odds for making this arguement considering the 600 plus guys that have been selected in the last 20 years.

      Needle in a haystack, indeed!
      Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-16-2008, 11:13 AM.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
        I'm willing to bet that there are less then 10 to 15 of these noteworthy second round guys over the period of the last 20 years. That is not very good odds for making this arguement considering the 600 plus guys that have been selected in the last 20 years.

        Needle in a haystack, indeed!
        Again, if your assessment is proven to be true it just goes to show how difficult it is to build strictly through the draft. It's the main reason why I don't put alot of stock in rebuilding through this avenue. Don't get me wrong; clearly draft picks are valuable. But I just don't covet them as much as others do.

        I'd much rather build using a combination of both but moreso through free agency rather than putting the majority of my hopes on the possibility of one or two draft picks rounding out to be future superstars. I'd hate to see how the Lakers and Bulls would have turned out, for example, had they not lucked onto some of the now famous players they acquired either through the draft but particularly through trades. Make no mistake about it! The main reason for their successes over the years has come moreso from trades than throught the draft!

        You just gotta think it through and not rely on "wishful thinking".
        Last edited by NuffSaid; 02-16-2008, 02:56 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
          I'd much rather build using a combination of both but moreso through free agency rather than putting the majority of my hopes on the possibility of one or two draft picks rounding out to be future superstars.
          How can we rebuild through free agency when we're over the cap? You don't really think that highly of the MLE, do you?

          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
          I'd hate to see how the Lakers and Bulls would have turned out, for example, had they not lucked onto some of the now famous players they acquired either through the draft but particularly through trades. Make no mistake about it! The main reason for their successes over the years has come moreso from trades than throught the draft!
          Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

          Can you tell me how the Bulls acquired Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, or even Toni Kukoc? Or how the Celtics acquired Bird and McHale? The Rockets with Hakeem? What about modern teams? The Spurs with Duncan, Manu, and Parker? The Mavs with Dirk and Howard?

          A whole lotta great drafting my draft-weary friend.

          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
          You just gotta think it through and not rely on "wishful thinking".
          Everything in sports is a risk. Sure, your pick could be a bust. But then again, you could sign that hot free agent to a big contract and he could be a bust. Larry Hughes, Erick Dampier, Kenyon Martin, Ben Wallace.....yeah. Or you could make a big trade, and that big trade could end up a bust. I'll leave that one alone.

          And you need to learn the difference between 2nd round picks and lottery picks. Their success rates are vastly different. In fact, my scientific studies have shown that, in the past 15 years, 50% of players drafted in the top-5 become All-Stars. And several of the non-All-Star's from that range still turn into solid players; Dunleavy, Mike Miller, Tyson Chandler etc. Sure there are busts, just like there are free agent busts and trade busts. Almost every move you make has risks. A good GM comes out on top more often than not in the moves he makes. And if he doesn't, he needs shown the door.

          As for the draft being wishful thinking, not the case. Players are measured, tested, and have previous production that can studied and analyzed. The truly great talent evaluators can pick out a stud from a dud 4 times out of 5. I know I can. It's certainly not the random event you make it out to be.
          Last edited by Kofi; 02-16-2008, 04:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

            The Spurs lucked into Duncan. Robinson hurt, got the #1 pick, that wasn't a bust. If he goes Bowie or something then it's a big flop. What if Duncan was simply Bogut? What if he got hurt like Oden?

            The Spurs didn't just get A pick, they got Robinson, Elliot and Duncan. Oh yeah, and they also got these guys Parker and Ginobilli...what pick did they draft them with? Whoops on the high pick solution.

            I know everyone loves Dunleavy, but consider this: how many playoff games has he played so far? Now add to this that the first year he left GS they did make the playoffs and the year before he came to Indy they did too. That's a 3 pick.

            And the Mavs, look at who was picked BEFORE Dirk or Howard.

            MVP 2 years in a row Nash? Traded first, then signed back to PHX as a FA. Um, I'll take MVP FA over 2nd pick in the draft please.


            The ODDS are better that higher picks will have more value. But it's still odds, not fact. It's not that a pick is worthless, it's just is it's value on par with a proven commodity or even a better coach?


            For everyone's interest 82Games has a thorough investigation of relative pick value. The result is that you have an exponential decline in value. This backs the love of top picks.

            The problem? COST vs value is actually sub 1.00 in the top picks. It turns out that the real value is in picks 6-12 or so, that's where teams typically get more production from guys than they are paying for, and production vs salary is ultimately how you win big (if you've put enough money into the team.)


            http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

              pretty favorable schedule coming out of the break...

              Cle @Home
              NJ@Home
              NJ on the road
              Toronto and Chicago at home
              @Toronto and then Millwaukee at home!

              I can see us winning 5/7 in this stretch to put us right back in the thick of things. Not to mention NJ is who we are chasing for a playoff spot. And if kidd gets shipped out we might be in better shape!
              I like the enthusiasm of the original poster...me and him might be the only ones who want to make the playoffs.
              "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

                Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                How can we rebuild through free agency when we're over the cap? You don't really think that highly of the MLE, do you?
                No. Of course not. And as I've stated, I understand the value of the draft/draft picks. They're "cheap" bodies with either potential or highly recognized talent, and if groomed properly can very well become that diamond in the rough! Nevertheless, very few teams actually find that gem and are able to cultivate it to build their team upon.

                Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

                Can you tell me how the Bulls acquired Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, or even Toni Kukoc? Or how the Celtics acquired Bird and McHale? The Rockets with Hakeem? What about modern teams? The Spurs with Duncan, Manu, and Parker? The Mavs with Dirk and Howard?
                Obviously some of those players were drafted by their respective teams, i.e., Bird, MJ, McHale. But others were acquired via trades. Such as:

                Kobe Bryant - Drafted (13th overall) in 1996 by the Charlette Hornet; traded immediately to the Lakers for Vlade Divac. (Won 3 championships)

                Robert Horry - Traded in 1997 from Suns to Lakers. (Won 3 championships)

                Scottie Pippen - Drafted (5th overall) in 1987 by the Sonics; traded to Bulls. (Won 6 championships)

                Dennis Rodman - Traded from Spurs to Bulls (summer 1995). (Won 3 championships)

                A whole lotta great drafting my draft-weary friend.
                I don't know...seems like some good trades were mixed up in there, too...trades we forget actually happened because some of these players have been with their respective teams for so long it just "seems" as though that's where it all began, but in retrospect their path to glory began elsewhere.

                Everything in sports is a risk. Sure, your pick could be a bust. But then again, you could sign that hot free agent to a big contract and he could be a bust. Larry Hughes, Erick Dampier, Kenyon Martin, Ben Wallace.....yeah. Or you could make a big trade, and that big trade could end up a bust. I'll leave that one alone.

                And you need to learn the difference between 2nd round picks and lottery picks. Their success rates are vastly different. In fact, my scientific studies have shown that, in the past 15 years, 50% of players drafted in the top-5 become All-Stars. And several of the non-All-Star's from that range still turn into solid players; Dunleavy, Mike Miller, Tyson Chandler etc. Sure there are busts, just like there are free agent busts and trade busts. Almost every move you make has risks. A good GM comes out on top more often than not in the moves he makes. And if he doesn't, he needs shown the door.

                As for the draft being wishful thinking, not the case. Players are measured, tested, and have previous production that can be studied and analyzed. The truly great talent evaluators can pick out a stud from a dud 4 times out of 5. I know I can. It's certainly not the random event you make it out to be.
                I don't think I've made a contrast between lottery picks and 2nd-round draft picks. Obviously, lottery picks are far more coveted. Teams who pick from the lottery get "first dibs" from within the new talent pool. And while the odds are good that those first chosen will be better players, there's no guarantee that they'll significantly change their team. Case and point, of the four players mentioned above only three are clear HOFers, but that doesn't mean that all four didn't help move their respected teams forward. Just know that in all four examples given not one helped the team they were initially drafted by win a championship. That didn't happen until they were traded. Why? Because their talents/skills were recognized and meshed well with the team who acquired them. That doesn't mean that a solid draft pick can't do it. Bird, Jordan, McHale and several others did it, but in most cases that success didn't happen until all the right pieces came together and most of those acquisitions are made either through trades or through free agency. But since so many are focused on trades right now w/the trade deadline fast approaching, I thought it best to emphasis the importance of making the right trade at the right time.
                Last edited by NuffSaid; 02-17-2008, 05:25 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

                  kobe bryant really shouldn't be in the list since he let the hornets know before they drafted him that he was going to play for the lakers.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

                    For all intents and purposes, both Kobe and Scottie were drafted by the Lakers and Bulls, respectively. Both players were acquired on draft day, thus they support the notion of building great teams through the draft. It's fairly common to find great players in the draft, particularly the lottery. What's not common is trading for great players when you have nothing worthwhile to offer. The draft may be this teams only hope, unless we sucker someone into giving us something nice in a J.O. deal.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

                      Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                      For all intents and purposes, both Kobe and Scottie were drafted by the Lakers and Bulls, respectively. Both players were acquired on draft day, thus they support the notion of building great teams through the draft. It's fairly common to find great players in the draft, particularly the lottery. What's not common is trading for great players when you have nothing worthwhile to offer. The draft may be this teams only hope, unless we sucker someone into giving us something nice in a J.O. deal.
                      WRONG!

                      A trade is a trade. Doesn't matter if it occurred on draft day or 365 days later. It's still a trade. I agree in part that draft-day deals are made...one team will do another team a solid by giving up a player just to get the player they want or (perhaps) in the case of Kobe (and as Yi tried to do this year) players sometimes try to strong-arm the team who drafted them into releasing them to another team, but it still doesn't discount the fact that a trade did take place.

                      Neither player helped make their respected draft-day teams better did they? It was only through being traded to their subsequent teams did those teams actually reap the benefits of their talents and skills. It just happens that the teams who acquired them via those trades had a far better idea of what they were getting than the team who drafted them. But it's still a trade no matter how you slice it.
                      Last edited by NuffSaid; 02-17-2008, 05:29 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers Playoff Hopes Slim, but I'm not in Panic Mode...Yet...

                        Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                        WRONG!

                        A trade is a trade. Doesn't matter if it occurred on draft day or 365 days later. It's still a trade. I agree in part that draft-day deals are made...one team will do another team a solid by giving up a player just to get the player they want or (perhaps) in the case of Kobe (and as Yi tried to do this year) players sometimes try to strong-arm the team who drafted them into releasing them to another team, but it still doesn't discount the fact that a trade did take place.

                        Neither player helped make their respected draft-day teams better did they? It was only through being traded to their subsequent teams did those teams actually reap the benefits of their talents and skills. It just happens that the teams who acquired them via those trades had a far better idea of what they were getting than the team who drafted them. But it's still a trade no matter how you slice it.
                        Regardless of whether it's their own pick or picks acquired via trades, it's still building through the draft. You're not gonna get a player like Scottie Pippen once he's established. Not through trades, not through free agency. You want those types of players, you're gonan have to recognize their talents and get them through the draft when their stock is still relatively low. Whether it's using your own pick and making moves to move up and get them is pretty much irrelevant.

                        Speaking of Pippen, do you even know how Chicago acquired him? Via the 8th pick in the same draft (Olden Polynice) and "future draft considerations". That's as good as drafting him, anything else is just tedious semantics.
                        Last edited by Kofi; 02-17-2008, 04:10 PM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X