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

Playoffs or John Wall?

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

  • #61
    Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

    Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
    Well, you made my point. Even if we somehow by the grace of the gods land Wall, he might end up being a bust anyway. I think that is a factor when rooting for a tank job vs playoffs.

    P.S. Thanks for tying alot of nothing about you thinking I typed alot of nothing. Way to be productive.

    P.S.S. Chris Paul went to Wake Forest.
    Actually I didn't make your point. I was making the point that the idea you were trying to put forth is an inherent risk of any draft pick. However that risk goes way down when picking at the top of the draft, and anyone posting here probably understands that risk and is willing to take it. Just figured the point you were making was so blatantly obvious it didn't need to be said. Even though a draft pick is never a guarantee, the probability of finding an impact player at the top of the draft is much higher than in the middle. So comparing the chance at Wall being an impact player, vs the impact of making the playoffs this year could have on the team's future .... I'll take Wall.

    Picking #1 has never guaranteed a team a good future, but getting swept in the 1st round certainly doesn't guarantee that either. So I'll take the chance on Wall since the potential returns on that choice is much higher.


    PS - Thanks for not comprehending the lot of "nothing" that I typed and then claiming that I wasn't the productive one.

    PSS - For some damn reason I always think he went to Georgia Tech .... no idea why. lol

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      It's more interesting to talk about the other angles even if you didn't expect us to. Your poll is lacking in depth so we made up for it. Sorry you didn't get that.

      Sorry, you don't get "it's not MY poll."

      I'm beginning to think some, if offered option A "wonderful night out" or option B tv re-runs you'd ask what's on tv!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

        I know that some guys here like to talk about porcentage so here I go:

        If the Pacers finish as one of the worse five teams in the NBA they would have from 20% to 30% changes that they get either the 1st pick or a top five pick.

        If the pacers go to the playoffs they have 100% changes to don't pass the 1st round of the playoffs.

        If the pacers in two years have huge cap space they have less than 90% changes that they get an All Star player and convince him to come here.

        If the pacers have cap space in two years they would have a 50% changes to sign more role players and over pay(just like Detroit last year)

        So in other words I know this is me thinking, I rather have a 20% change to get a guy like J Wall or have a bigger change to get a top five pick than have a 100% change that the pacers are not going to pass the 1st round and get kill by whoever the number one team is going to be.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
          I never said it was, it is obviously a hypothetical situation just for discussion alone. I'm not saying that if we don't make the playoffs we'll definitely get John Wall, I simply asked what fans would rather see happen. There is a huge difference.
          I understand the discussion, but both scenarios are highly unlikely.

          The same question could have been asked the last couple of years. Playoffs or Blake Griffin, Playoffs or Derrick Rose, Playoffs or Greg Oden/Kevin Durant.

          I can understand if it hasn't been discussed, but it's been brought up in other threads. You're actually one of the main posters that bring up the scenario, or act disgusted after the Pacers win a game as if all hopes of John Wall are vanishing in front of our eyes.... seriously?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

            here are some comments about this by Joel Brigham from Hoopsworld.com

            Omar in Evansville, Indiana:
            How impressive has Indiana's wins been the last 2 games? And also can u see pacers making playoffs with Granger back?

            Despite everything the Pacers are still only four games out of the playoff picture, so with Granger healthy and the benching of T.J. Ford apparently the epitome of "addition by subtraction," it's possible. But why would fans want the Pacers to make the playoffs? They do this every year, where they win just enough games to lose all prayer at a decent lottery pick, and if they do make into the postseason it's as a very low seed and they lose in the first round. There's no way to get better when you're stuck in a cycle like that, and let's be honest--how perfect would John Wall be for Indiana? I'm just sayin'...
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

              I think you guys hoping for John Wall are going to be dissapointed. This team is getting healthy and playing better and they just won't be quite crappy enough for a top 5 pick. Might as well start cheering for wins because better this team sneaks into the playoffs than spend another year in late lottery purgatory.
              "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

              - ilive4sports

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                If the pacers go to the playoffs they have 100% changes to don't pass the 1st round of the playoffs.
                Really? Even if they make a trade before the deadline that adds a key player? I'll agree it's a slim chance, but impossible?
                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


                • #68
                  Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                  Playoffs. One hundred million percent of the time, without any question.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                    For this question, which I take as, "we either make the playoffs, or we are guaranteed to get the #1 pick and John Wall", with no in-betweens, I couldn't possibly fathom why anyone would pick the playoffs. Obviously, that is not a realistic scenario, and the most likely outcome is something in between, but if it's sacrificial lamb to the LeBrons in the first round or a potential franchise altering star...why would you pick the playoffs?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                      It's unfortunate that this has become an annual thread for Pacer fans on this forum. UNLESS Bird is no longer in the FO.....I think that many of you that are hoping for a Lottery pick will be disappointed. In the last couple of seasons....especially after DW left.....Bird has not strayed from the notion that he will always teach and cultivate a "winning culture" and that it is always important ( especially for a young core of Players that he expects to be around for awhile ) to always compete and not "tank" for a pick.

                      On a personal level.....although this Team doesn't have the necessary talent level to really compete and could do well with an infusion of a top Draft pick.....I ( just like over the last couple of seasons ) is not an advocate of "tanking" for the hope of drafting John Wall. I ( and probably many here ) think that there is VALUABLE experience in making it to the Playoffs even if it meant a "4 and done" run. It is important for young Teams to experience what it means to play in the "pressure cooker" environment of the Playoffs. It's something that should be learned and quickly gotten out of the way. I think that it also gives the Young Players ( and Fans ) a huge boost in confidence which is carried into the next season. If you look at what the Blazers and Hawks have done with their young Players ( and no, I'm not suggesting that the Pacers are anywhere near that level of talent now, just the fact that a young Team made it through the Playoff Gauntlet )....that is what I am hoping for over the next 2 years.

                      However, I, too am weary of the losing and do hope for better days. My "middle of the road" option is to continue to push for the Playoffs....but specifically ensuring that we maximize the # of minutes that the future core of Players will play together over the next 1.5 seasons. That means playing the vets that we have on our Team ( Foster and MurphLeavy ) while ensuring that core Players of AJ/Inferno/Granger/BRush/Hansbrough/Hibbert play as many minutes that they can together. Wherever that type of lineup leads us ( Playoffs or Wall ) is where I want to end up.

                      So the answer is to push for the "Playoffs" with the caveat that the Pacers figure out a way to give as many minutes to our young core of players....even if it means having AJ make mistakes at the cost of playing more minutes.....even if it means playing Hansbrough the most amount of minutes....even ( most of all ) having Hibbert foul out with 6 fouls every game while playing the most amount of minutes that he can handle......win or lose.....developing our young Players while pushing for the Playoffs.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 01-17-2010, 10:28 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                        I hate the idea of tanking but I hate losing more... so it hurts to stay John Wall....

                        I think we chose the wrong year tho, with the Nets sucking that much we need to get lucky if we want a good draft pick...
                        Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                          Playoffs!

                          Even if we tanked A. Your going to make the fan base mad. B. We are probably not going to get the first pick so no Wall. C. If we play and miss the playoffs we got 2 players to trade at next years trade deadline to reorganize if it's still not working.

                          It will always be playoffs for me even if we have to play Boston or Cleveland etc. If we can perform much better over the next 10-15 games we can be above 500 while everyone else tanks at the end. Remember we have only had DG,Dun and Troy for 10 games together over the last 1.5 years. Lets see what they can do. Way too early to throw in the towel.
                          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                            I understand the discussion, but both scenarios are highly unlikely.

                            The same question could have been asked the last couple of years. Playoffs or Blake Griffin, Playoffs or Derrick Rose, Playoffs or Greg Oden/Kevin Durant.

                            I can understand if it hasn't been discussed, but it's been brought up in other threads. You're actually one of the main posters that bring up the scenario, or act disgusted after the Pacers win a game as if all hopes of John Wall are vanishing in front of our eyes.... seriously?
                            I don't think we'll get John Wall, your putting words in my mouth. Also, as I have said in other threads, I love to see the Pacers win - especially those 2 comebacks, those are always fun to watch.

                            At the same time, with mid draft picks, we will stay in the middle of the pack. I see it as we can either stay in the middle for the next 3-4 years or get a top pick - even if not John Wall a top 5 pick is very valuable in this draft and have a chance at a much better future. Heck, I wouldn't care if we traded the draft pick to get someone next to Granger - the fact is we need someone else who is a difference maker and its not often you find that guy in a mid round pick.

                            As for you saying I'm getting my hopes up on John Wall, is everyone whos hoping we'll make the playoffs getting there hopes up on signing someone in 2011? I'll say this, we have a much better shot at John Wall than we do signing a top notch FA in 2011.

                            Playoff experience is valuable, I agree with a lot of what CableKC said - but playoff experience won't make a difference at all if we don't have the talent to get us anywhere outside the first round anyway. The teams we will be playing will all have playoff experience in the future too - and much better talent.

                            But again, please don't put words in my mouth - I realize we have a very small chance of getting Wall, but I still think a top 5 pick is more valuable at this time than playoff experience. Even that is irrelevent because the question was playoffs or John Wall, not playoffs or a chance at John Wall. I simply wanted to know what people thought was more important if John Wall was a guarantee, because that had not been discussed before, only the tanking option for the chance at him had been.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                              Bird's building this team around Granger; he's not going to throw Granger away for Al Jefferson, who makes more than Granger (and Murphy too), and is only 3 points a game better than Murphy. It's just not going to happen. Yahoo Sports isn't exactly the AP...

                              I've made this point before, but it needs to be repeated every so often...

                              It is MUCH more important for this team to reach the playoffs than it is to get a top 5 draft pick. If Bird gives up on this year, before the team gives up for the season (and I've seen nothing to indicate that is the case), then he might as well trade EVERYBODY. And that's not gonna happen, either. Bird's as adamant about that as he's been about O'Brien getting fired.

                              Granger needs to lead a team to the playoffs, even if it is to an eighth seed sweep. Especially if it's with a team that nobody expects to make it. He's good enough to do it, if he works at it.

                              And then what? He gathers the experience from making the playoffs and builds on it! The next year, it gets a little easier for the team to succeed, because they've done it before. All the young guys have another year under their belt, the team gets a mid-first round pick, and Bird makes a trade that helps (as opposed to one that dumps salary or, like in years past, moves a guy who MUST be moved. Then you do it again.

                              Talent by itself is nothing; it's the Clippers, year after year. Look back through the years of teams with lots of good, young talent, and virtually every one of them ended up not going anywhere, instead getting traded away as rookie contracts expired.

                              While I agree with Bird that Granger is good enough to build around, I want to see him prove it, by making the playoffs with what we've got right now. There's enough talent on this team to make the playoffs. Even if it means a sweep at the hands of Cleveland.

                              The difference in draft picks between making the playoffs and not making it is not that great. More importantly, the certainty of a draft pick's ultimate success in the NBA is not all that reliable, so does it really matter whether you're picking from 4 to 10? I say no.
                              Here's something that was posted at www.espn.com (Indiana boards) that made sense to me. I wouldn't mind a Top 5 pick, but it's not within my competitive nature to tell a team to tank the season. Man, I find out it hard enough to turn off my X-Box in the middle of a NBA 2K10 game just because the kids are hungry, lol.


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Playoffs or John Wall?

                                A good day today. Washington wins. Minnesota wins. Golden State wins.
                                The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X