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

sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

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

  • #91
    Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    They went 20-18 just by switching out coaches, let alone an upgrade on the roster.

    Sorry that we don't live in LALA land where everything can happen in an instant.

    It was the softest part of the schedule and teams were already in tank/rebuild/play young guys mode.

    I don't have a problem with us not being elite each and every year. My problem is that we've been largely gutless and haven't either gone all in or folded the hand.

    I'd have felt better about the future if we had gone 20-62 instead of 36-46 and gotten a Derrick Rose instead of a Brandon Rush.

    Ultimately the lack of a 1 and 2 option is going to put a glass ceiling on what this current roster can accomplish. Be it 40, 42, or 45 wins over the next 2-3 years?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
      I hope so, I just don't have as much faith as many other seem to have?

      As nice as the playoff appearance is. This is still a deeply flawed roster that only won 37 games.

      Hate to see us status quo into another 6 years of mid 30's wins.
      Well going into next year with the same exact roster this team is going over .500. We were 20-18 under a coach who understood what it means to play to your strengths. This isn't even adding in our young guys improving, which they will.

      Every post you make just seems to go off what this team has done, rather than what this team still can do as players develop. Hibbert will be better. Collison will be better. George will be better. Granger will be better just cause JOB is gone. Hans will be better.

      Then we can still add players because of all the cap room, whether it be via free agency or lopsided trades (our best bet). The roster you see now is only going to improve just by guys maturing. Then we get to add more pieces cause of cap room.

      This team is showing they can already play with anyone right now. They can't always win, but with time and a piece added here and there, I am very confident that they will be able to do so.

      Oh and look at that roster you posted last page:

      23 Ron Artest F
      24 Jonathan Bender F
      2 Jamison Brewer G
      27 Primoz Brezec C
      44 Austin Croshere F
      10 Jeff Foster F-C
      14 Tim Hardaway
      3 Al Harrington
      20 Fred Jones G-F
      5 Ron Mercer G-F
      52 Brad Miller C
      31 Reggie Miller G-F
      7 Jermaine O'Neal F-C
      21 Erick Strickland G
      11 Jamaal Tinsley G

      Half those guys aren't any good. Reggie retired, can't blame Bird for that. JO's body just broke down and bird turned him into Roy Hibbert. Pretty damn good trade considering the player and the cap relief it gave us. Ron Artest went ****ing crazy. Dude had next to no trade value. At least Peja was an expiring contract. Al Harrington is a nice player, but nothing to write home about. Tinsley liked to play with guns and get sinus infections.

      What were we gonna do with that roster? It peaked with the ECF trip. Then things started to fall apart. And I mean fall apart. So you rebuild. That's what Larry has done. And in the second half of the season we have finally seen what this team can do. Vogel would have been on pace for 42 wins if he coached the who season. That is a huge step forward. You dont go from ECF finals to rebuild to ECF finals. You have 30 win seasons while you rebuild and then make the playoffs and then start going further into them.

      Stop acting like this team is peaking at 37 wins, when they clearly would have done better with Vogel as coach for the whole year. And even 42 wins isn't this teams peak. They have so much room to grow still.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

        Why are you all waisting your time arguing with someone that just has an ax to grind with Larry Bird? No matter how many times & how many different ways that you tell him that the **** sandwich that Bird inherited is going to take at least 3 to 4 years to digest BEFORE he can make the moves that take you out of the 30 win category... He's just not going to ADMIT seeing it!

        I honestly don't buy that he is that hard headed...
        ...Still "flying casual"
        @roaminggnome74

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
          It was the softest part of the schedule and teams were already in tank/rebuild/play young guys mode.

          I don't have a problem with us not being elite each and every year. My problem is that we've been largely gutless and haven't either gone all in or folded the hand.

          I'd have felt better about the future if we had gone 20-62 instead of 36-46 and gotten a Derrick Rose instead of a Brandon Rush.

          Ultimately the lack of a 1 and 2 option is going to put a glass ceiling on what this current roster can accomplish. Be it 40, 42, or 45 wins over the next 2-3 years?
          All I have to say is Paul George. I truly believe he will be a superstar. He has all the tools and the attitude/work ethic to do it. And Danny Granger is a great number two option.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            Stop acting like this team is peaking at 37 wins, when they clearly would have done better with Vogel as coach for the whole year. And even 42 wins isn't this teams peak. They have so much room to grow still.

            What is a realistic and honest peak for this current roster? I'd say 45 wins if everything broke right and we stayed relatively healthy.

            I'm curious what everyone's number is?

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

              Originally posted by aaronb View Post
              It was the softest part of the schedule and teams were already in tank/rebuild/play young guys mode.

              I don't have a problem with us not being elite each and every year. My problem is that we've been largely gutless and haven't either gone all in or folded the hand.

              I'd have felt better about the future if we had gone 20-62 instead of 36-46 and gotten a Derrick Rose instead of a Brandon Rush.

              Ultimately the lack of a 1 and 2 option is going to put a glass ceiling on what this current roster can accomplish. Be it 40, 42, or 45 wins over the next 2-3 years?
              And Vogel's win percentage was higher than Jim's against teams with +.500% records.

              Next.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                What is a realistic and honest peak for this current roster? I'd say 45 wins if everything broke right and we stayed relatively healthy.

                I'm curious what everyone's number is?
                If every player peaks on this roster its somewhere in the 50's. One, I think Paul George is gonna be that good. Hibbert peaking and would be huge for this team. He would just be tough to match up against. Danny playing like he did in his all star year along side George would be really nice. Hansbrough and Collison peaking will be good players at their positions too, especially considering the players around them.

                This doesn't even factor in the players we can get with our cap space.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                  This was Chad Ford today. Take it for what it's worth.

                  Josh (Indianapolis)

                  Can we agree that the Pacers have made the Bulls look really bad?

                  Chad Ford
                  (1:13 PM)

                  I don't see it that way. I think the Pacers are much better than people have given them credit for. They're deep, balanced and play really, really hard. They're just young, lost a lot of focus under Jim O'Brien and they lack a true superstar to take over in the 4th Quarter. They should be up 2-0 on the Bulls -- but that's not because the Bulls have played poorly. If Pacers could find a way to get a true star who could get his own shot ... they'd be title contenders in the East. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of talent in the FA market or in the trade market to see exactly where that guy is coming from.



                  Kyle (almond, ny)

                  How close to contending do you think the Pacers are? I really like their young pieces. Everyone they have is still young.

                  Chad Ford
                  (1:35 PM)
                  They need more help on the boards. A long athletic rebounder would help them a lot. And they need a guy who can create off the dribble and get his own shot. Down the road, Paul George may be that guy. But that's probably another year or two away. What's crazy is all the talk that the Pacers need a front office change with Larry Bird and David Morway's contracts up. It's nuts. They've done a terrific job of building a team with middling draft picks, smart contracts and an eye toward depth and chemistry. Few GMs resumes will stack up to what they've done.
                  Last edited by BPump33; 04-20-2011, 04:27 PM.
                  Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                    Originally posted by aaronb View Post

                    I didn't say he was 30th. I said he was bottom 1/3rd in terms of Front office accomplishment.

                    Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate for Bird.

                    Bird didn't take over in 03, Walsh was still here, but took over after Walsh left the spring/summer of 08 season. What amazed me was at the time he took over who was on the rooster and who isn't now when you look at the roster he inherited. Granger, Dunleavy, and Foster are what's left. 80% of the players that were here 3 years ago are gone. That's 12 new players now on the roster. After the season is over, only Granger will be left, and the Pacers are playing in the playoffs. I, personally, never thought the Pacers would make the playoffs this year.

                    It's obvious this team needs help in numerous areas to really go further. I really feel good about next season with the young'ns, some right additions, and a coach who can coach, this team has a bright future. I haven't been crazy over some of Bird's picks, Rush and Stephenson, yet Hans and Hibbert seem to be working out ok. I just don't see where you think Bird is in the bottom 1/3 of FO accomplishments. I feel he's in the middle 1/3 and has a great opportunity to go higher this upcoming off season with some cap to finally work with for a change. We'll see if his future moves can put him in the top 1/3 or drop him to the lower 1/3 where you think he is now.

                    Comment


                    • Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                      Why are you all waisting your time arguing with someone that just has an ax to grind with Larry Bird? No matter how many times & how many different ways that you tell him that the **** sandwich that Bird inherited is going to take at least 3 to 4 years to digest BEFORE he can make the moves that take you out of the 30 win category... He's just not going to ADMIT seeing it!

                      I honestly don't buy that he is that hard headed...
                      Like Ive said before, stop arguing with a guy who doesnt even watch the team play. Anyone who has followed the Pacers over the last few years will respect the heck out of what Bird has done. Ric Bucher stated it perfect. Bird had almost nothing to work with, no money or talent, and yet put together a team that just took the best team in the NBA to the brink at THEIR place for two games. All this with a ton of cap space and a 1st rd pick for sale to the highest bidder. Things are looking up for the Pacers big time!

                      Comment


                      • Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                        Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                        This was Chad Ford today. Take it for what it's worth.

                        Josh (Indianapolis)

                        Can we agree that the Pacers have made the Bulls look really bad?

                        Chad Ford
                        (1:13 PM)

                        I don't see it that way. I think the Pacers are much better than people have given them credit for. They're deep, balanced and play really, really hard. They're just young, lost a lot of focus under Jim O'Brien and they lack a true superstar to take over in the 4th Quarter. They should be up 2-0 on the Bulls -- but that's not because the Bulls have played poorly. If Pacers could find a way to get a true star who could get his own shot ... they'd be title contenders in the East. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of talent in the FA market or in the trade market to see exactly where that guy is coming from.



                        Kyle (almond, ny)

                        How close to contending do you think the Pacers are? I really like their young pieces. Everyone they have is still young.

                        Chad Ford
                        (1:35 PM)
                        They need more help on the boards. A long athletic rebounder would help them a lot. And they need a guy who can create off the dribble and get his own shot. Down the road, Paul George may be that guy. But that's probably another year or two away. What's crazy is all the talk that the Pacers need a front office change with Larry Bird and David Morway's contracts up. It's nuts. They've done a terrific job of building a team with middling draft picks, smart contracts and an eye toward depth and chemistry. Few GMs resumes will stack up to what they've done.
                        Few = Larry has done one of the best jobs of any NBA front office guy!

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X