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

NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

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

  • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

    The Bucks beat Denver... still waiting for them to come back to earth.

    Maybe they should trade Bogut and Redd. Charlie V, Session and Jefferson are clearly holding their own.

    haha I joke about trading those 2, but it does seem like the Bucks always have a big win, after I feel the Pacers have a big win

    Comment


    • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

      I attended games 1,2, and 5 of that series between the Pistons and the Pacers. I have to say there was some seething hatred between many of the players on that floor. The mutual admiration that you saw from Rip and Reggie during Reggie's final playoff series might as well have materialized out of thin air after the way they played each other at times during the ECF.

      However, here is why I can't say that I saw two teams that truly hated each other. Jermaine O'Neal and Rasheed Wallace clearly had so much bro love going on off the court that it probably would have made Charles Oakley and Dale Davis sick just to see it. You want to be friendly during the offseason? Fine. However, I think it's downright stupid to sit down and break bread with the man charged to stop you during the most crucial playoff series of your career. Which is IMO, essentially what JO did. Did Ron hate Big Ben? And did Big Ben hate Ron? Probably. I think Tins and Billups probably wished the other one would go play on some rail road tracks. However, JO and Sheed were buddies. So, I don't really think the two teams hated each other. Not when two of their biggest barometers of team success were being best of friends off the court.

      The defense that I saw was tough and often crossed the lines of basketball play, but I think you can say this of many of the playoff series played. The Pacers of the 90s themselves would be guilty of physical play. Was it the best basketball? Absolutely not. Was it the worst? I don't think so. I think the points scored by those teams stands as a tribute to two teams that functioned brilliantly as a unit.

      Those were the two best teams in basketball that season, and it was by such a large margin looking back at it with 20/20 vision that it wasn't even funny. Almost makes me want to laugh that everyone feared the mighty Lakers so much. And as much credit as I'd like to give Karl Malone, I don't think he would have made much of a difference out there against the Pistons or the Pacers.


      Comment


      • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
        The Bucks beat Denver... still waiting for them to come back to earth.

        Maybe they should trade Bogut and Redd. Charlie V, Session and Jefferson are clearly holding their own.

        haha I joke about trading those 2, but it does seem like the Bucks always have a big win, after I feel the Pacers have a big win
        You might be joking but all of them were rumored to be parts of trades. I would have had a cow if they'd traded Session.

        Comment


        • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          Speaking of the Pistons, they are now a .500 basketball team at 27-27. They have fallen into a tie with the Sixers for the #6 seed, with the Bucks not far behind. Hell, Detroit is only five games ahead of the Pacers right now.
          If the Pacers could somehow finish better than Detroit I would be happy with this season. Really though, it might be possible. Detroit is playing some horrible basketball.

          Comment


          • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

            Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
            If the Pacers could somehow finish better than Detroit I would be happy with this season. Really though, it might be possible. Detroit is playing some horrible basketball.
            There is really no excuse for a team with that much talent to be playing so poorly.

            Comment


            • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              There is really no excuse for a team with that much talent to be playing so poorly.
              Most people think it is the coaching, but they were a good team when they had Billups... He was perfect for that team.

              Comment


              • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                Thinking about Iverson, I was reminded about how much Dwayne Wade reminds me of him, except Dwayne dominates the ball even more than Iverson did back in the day.

                Comment


                • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                  Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
                  Thinking about Iverson, I was reminded about how much Dwayne Wade reminds me of him, except Dwayne dominates the ball even more than Iverson did back in the day.
                  And Wade is four inches taller and more athletic.


                  Comment


                  • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                    I wouldn't say he is more athletic than Iverson was. But yea the height advantage helps. Who do you think is the bigger ball hog, Dwayne now or Iverson in his prime?

                    Comment


                    • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                      Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
                      I wouldn't say he is more athletic than Iverson was. But yea the height advantage helps. Who do you think is the bigger ball hog, Dwayne now or Iverson in his prime?
                      I think Dwyane Wade is better now than Iverson ever was.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                        Iverson once took 28 shots a game while converting 40% of his field goals. I would shoot myself.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          Well, thanks for all of the kind words, folks. I appreciated them, and hope that I deserved them.

                          I believe this will be more or less an "agree to disagree" topic, and I think dcpacerfan's post gets to the heart of the disagreement, and I'm appreciative of the sentiment.

                          I didn't see this section of Kstat's response, as he must have added it as an edit. I had originally planned just to let this drop because I didn't think minds were going to change, and it wasn't worth the long winded explanation. Minds still aren't going to be changed, but there's a lot about the below statement that I just have to address.



                          Let me clarify a few things about my feelings on this series.

                          First, my problems with this series have nothing to do with the fact that the Pistons won and the Pacers lost. (Well, to be honest, I'm pissed that the Pacers lost, but that has nothing to do with my views on the quality of basketball played.) Both teams were complicit in the things I felt damaged the quality of that series, and it was a series that I considered the culmination of more than a decade of slide that was going on in the NBA.

                          Second, I can see the beauty in a low scoring game. I don't need games in the 120's, and I often find them uncomfortable to watch because they are too chaotic. I think there is a proper physical nature of the game, and often get disenchanted watching College and High School basketball because I think they're often called like "a junior high dance." I can also respect and admire teams that scratch, claw, and fight with everything they have to get wins. This is not an attempt to diminish the Pistons' title. Had the Pacers survived that series, and won a title, I would have cherished it every bit as much as I'm sure Pistons fans rightfully do theirs. The Pistons are NBA champions, and that can never be taken away from them, and it is shameful and belittling for anyone to try.

                          However, even in the event of a Pacer victory, I would have still felt that it was bad basketball. Or, perhaps more ominously (and admittedly pretentiously), I would have worried that it was actually bad for basketball.

                          Which brings us to the problems I have with that series. Kstat states that it was the highest quality defensive series ever. Without looking, I have absolutely no doubt that it was one of, if not the lowest scoring series ever. I also think that anyone who watched that series would consider it one of, if not the most fiercely contested series ever. However, the reason I take issue with the defensive "quality" statement is because I believe much of the defense was predicated on the knowledge and ability of both teams to sense how far to bend, and in some cases, break the rules of the game.

                          To *******ize an old football saw, it is probably true that you could call a foul on almost every play of an NBA game, if you wanted. I think that would be wrong and counterproductive. There are plenty of infractions and physical contacts that have no real impact on the actual flow of the game. However, that 2004 ECF series was the only time that I watched a group of games and believed that a foul should have been called on almost every possession. There are a lot of words I'd use to describe the defense played in that series: ferocious, intense, relentless. However, I won't use quality, because I firmly believe that it was less about good smart plans, great rotations, fantastic help, and good positioning, and much, much more about which team was more capable of fouling and getting away with it.

                          The post play was closer to Greco Roman wrestling, and both offensive and defensive fouls were committed on most possessions . Both teams consistently fouled cutters. Both teams consistently set illegal screens. It was a clutch and grab meat grinder of a series at both ends. It was the literal application of Pat Riley's dictum of "they can't call a foul every time." I watched that series, and IMO, it was called differently from any other series in the playoffs that season.

                          It is true that calling a game too tight can be incredibly disruptive. However, I've always balked at "letting the players decide the outcome" as reasoning for loose officiating, because the officials will always have an impact, either by commission or omission.

                          The problem with letting a series get that physical is, first and foremost, it subverts the skills of the game. It negates the movement and passing, eliminates the beauty of the team game, and drags it down to a mud wrestling match, sans the bikini clad women. Second, it creates frustration and contempt on both sides. These guys know they're getting fouled, and they know that the no-calls, or, more correctly, the randomly selected calls, are affecting the outcome of the game. If they can't seek remedy in the rules and officiating of the game, then they take care of things themselves, which almost invariably creates the descending cycle of retribution.

                          This, as much as anything else, is why I had and have such a negative view of the way that series was played. I have an absolutely unshakable conviction that the grueling physical nature of that series created an atmosphere between the teams and the fanbases that directly contributed to the events of November 19th of that year. Now, that is not to say that the brawl was predestined after that series, but I have no doubt in my mind that the overall chippy nature of that game, and the visceral hatred that existed in some quarters of the rival fanbases, were fomented during that series, and exacerbated greatly by the way that series was called and played.

                          So, that is why I hold that series in such low regards, in terms of basketball and the way I believe it is meant to be played. I am well aware that many won't agree with me. I already knew that two posters I respect a great deal, Rexnom and dcpacerfan, would not agree with me just from this thread. I strongly suspected that Uncle Buck would disagree, and I wondered how others like Seth, melliflous, Will, ChicagoJ, and JayRedd would land on the issue. I hope some agree, and I hope all will see some merit in my statements and at least understand, fully, my point of view, even while rejecting my conclusions.

                          Not for one second had I considered something so insulting and puerile as to claim they lack respect for the game.

                          Now, I may have been flip in the way I described the series, presenting my POV perhaps overly forcefully. However, I did not make a single comment about the people holding the opposing point of view.

                          I am well aware of my many flaws, but what is silly is charging that I have a "real lack of respect for the game" because I saw what I saw, and I believed what I believed. Kstat, disagreeing with you isn't a character flaw. I have done nothing to be dismissed in this manner, and I am at a complete loss as to why you felt the need to go straight to that instead of actually arguing your point.

                          Again, I was skating past this because the argument itself was purely a matter of opinion and something of a waste of time. Now, I'm more or less done with it. I've explained why, and people are free to agree, disagree or completely ignore my whole POV. Again, it is a matter of opinion.

                          What is a matter of fact is that it is complete and utter bull**** to claim that my views must be based in a lack of respect for the game.

                          You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.
                          good god, half a dozen paragraphs attempting to come off as eloquent, and all it boiled down to was whining about the offiicals.

                          See, this is why I said you have a lack of respect for the game. I don't care that you said you're not trying to take anything away from the pistons victory. You're using it to take away from the overall quality of the series, which is no less silly.

                          No, disagreeing with me isnt a character flaw by any means. But if you're going to use the officials as a crutch for your argument, it's an insult to the nuts and bolts of the game itself, and you're damn right I'm going to point that out. Boogyman arguments don't fly with me.

                          You can compose a 15-page essay on the subject if you'd like. You certainly stretched out what could have easily been two paragraphs with ease.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 02-23-2009, 05:04 AM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            good god, half a dozen paragraphs attempting to come off as eloquent, and all it boiled down to was whining about the offiicals.

                            See, this is why I said you have a lack of respect for the game. I don't care that you said you're not trying to take anything away from the pistons victory. You're using it to take away from the overall quality of the series, which is no less silly.

                            No, disagreeing with me isnt a character flaw by any means. But if you're going to use the officials as a crutch for your argument, it's an insult to the nuts and bolts of the game itself, and you're damn right I'm going to point that out. Boogyman arguments don't fly with me.

                            You can compose a 15-page essay on the subject if you'd like. You certainly stretched out what could have easily been two paragraphs with ease.
                            OK. I don't particularly think either team got an advantage from the officiating, and we clearly have a different idea as to what the nuts and bolts of basketball are. However, if that's all you've got, then I do agree that we've both wasted each other and everybody else's time.
                            Last edited by count55; 02-23-2009, 07:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              That is uncalled for.

                              I think it's pretty on the mark and I really don't care how much of a PD legend the guy is. I'm not calling him an idiot or without any knowledge at all. I'm calling him ignorant in this case.

                              Always fun to watch you guys get all indigent.

                              As for me being a slappy, Yes it's very slappy to think an incredibly hard fought series won by a razors edge was great and to think the team that won the championship and the team that had the best record in the league were the two top teams that year. Especially after watching one of them utterly destroy the team the other guy held up as the best that year.

                              You guys have always seemed to think the lack of a being concise was a virtue.
                              Last edited by Fool; 02-23-2009, 08:22 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NBA Random Thoughts 2008-2009

                                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                                There is really no excuse for a team with that much talent to be playing so poorly.
                                Except that they're old and miss Chauncey more than they thought they would.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X