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

4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

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

  • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
    You're preaching this as a fan of the Pacers. For shame. The 90's team was built around trades and picks outside the top 10.

    So you think we should have tanked years ago, fine. That's over. Its been over. Why are you still complaining years later? Good lord. Let it go.
    a poster was stating there was no way for us to acquire a legit #1 option, when i was only stating the way championship winning teams have acquired thiers. also, you say let it go but understand that the pacers have never won an nba title. meanwhile, for the past 30 some years how much has actually changed in terms of the mindset on how to build a team? as you said, a bunch of outside the top 10 picks. history says top 3-5 picks win you titles with some exceptions (high schoolers primarily). meanwhile, the pacers continued to pick outside the top 10.

    Comment


    • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      HUGE difference that you are failing to understand. the heart and sole of oklahoma city's philosophy is a #2 draft choice.
      This is where that little guy named Paul George comes into play. He has shown potential to be a great player.

      There is more than one way to build a team. This team has a lot of young talent. What we see today is not what we will see tomorrow. I think this team has a lot of good pieces and has the ability to add even more. And they have done it without tanking.

      Comment


      • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        a poster was stating there was no way for us to acquire a legit #1 option, when i was only stating the way championship winning teams have acquired thiers. also, you say let it go but understand that the pacers have never won an nba title. meanwhile, for the past 30 some years how much has actually changed in terms of the mindset on how to build a team? as you said, a bunch of outside the top 10 picks. history says top 3-5 picks win you titles with some exceptions (high schoolers primarily). meanwhile, the pacers continued to pick outside the top 10.
        Yet that 90's team was a legit contender for how many years? If it weren't for Michael Jordan they could have won one or two.

        Comment


        • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          you think teams win championships without high standards? what drove all the greats to the successes they acheived are those exact insanely high standards.
          This post and the one about tanking clash. How can you set high standards for yourself and then do everything possible to lose?

          For the record, I tend to agree with you. Pacers should of played the young players high minutes the last few years, but whatever.
          Last edited by righteouscool; 04-11-2011, 12:49 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

            Probably should have went to Hibbert / Hansbrough more in the post.. Knicks really didnt have anyone that could stop them.

            Originally posted by Shabazz View Post
            Several times in this game, Hansbrough had Melo or a smaller wing guarding him in the post after a defensive switch.

            He only received two passes in those situations. The one where he scored on Melo, and the one where he missed late in the 4th quarter.

            Collison should have got him the dang ball in those situations.
            Well.. The Pacers have put Hansbrough back in the same position he was with JOB and thats a jump shooter.

            During his 20 point stretch not only was he getting ~33 minutes a game but also getting the ball in many different situations. (1) Pick n Roll (2) Low Post (3) 10-12 FT out in the Post where he could face up and drive or shoot.

            Since then he has gotten less minutes and has more or less just been a pick and roll player. Which is severely limiting him IMO.
            Last edited by JEM; 04-11-2011, 12:53 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

              Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
              This post and the one about tanking clash. How can you set high standards for yourself and then do everything possible to lose?
              no, they are not contradictory when your goal is to win a championship. in the nba you either have to go all in, or all out. there is no in between. if you lack the assets, you do whatever it takes to acquire the best assets possible for future success (tanking). people trying to argue this are arguing history.

              and there is indeed a HUGE difference between a college player of the year to #2 selection to rookie of the year averaging 20+ppg and paul george.

              Comment


              • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                This is what I have been asking. Disappointing lack of originality on Vogel's behalf.
                I thought I lip read Vogel say something like " If not kick it to Tyler ".. My guess is Danny was supposed to attack the rim and if the Knicks collapsed on him he would pass it to Tyler. But he ended up stopping at the FT line for a jumper.

                He must have really wanted to make the last shot on Melo.

                Comment


                • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                  Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                  no, they are not contradictory when your goal is to win a championship. in the nba you either have to go all in, or all out. there is no in between. if you lack the assets, you do whatever it takes to acquire the best assets possible for future success (tanking). people trying to argue this are arguing history.

                  and there is indeed a HUGE difference between a college player of the year to #2 selection to rookie of the year averaging 20+ppg and paul george.
                  Because Evan Turner looks so much better than Paul George...

                  Comment


                  • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                    Because Evan Turner looks so much better than Paul George...
                    as has been discussed for however many years here, there are bound to be drafts that don't live up to expectations. regardless, history still states that the vast majority of title winners and contenders acquired their #1 option via a top 3-5 pick (high schooler exception). plus, just because turner wasn't a world beater this year, doesn't mean he won't become a great player. you were trying to compare okc with the pacers, NOT philly with the pacers. durant was viewed by all as a vastly superior talent to turner coming out of college where i believe he averaged something like 25ppg and 10rpg.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                      That was a poop worthy 4th quarter.


                      Comment


                      • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        a poster was stating there was no way for us to acquire a legit #1 option, when i was only stating the way championship winning teams have acquired thiers. also, you say let it go but understand that the pacers have never won an nba title. meanwhile, for the past 30 some years how much has actually changed in terms of the mindset on how to build a team? as you said, a bunch of outside the top 10 picks. history says top 3-5 picks win you titles with some exceptions (high schoolers primarily). meanwhile, the pacers continued to pick outside the top 10.
                        What championship teams from the past years have became champions because of tanking and winning the lottery for a top pick?

                        San Antonio Spurs? No, they're just unlcuky to have an injured Robinson and got so very lucky to win the lottery for the top pick in Duncan.

                        LA Lakers? No, Shaq was a top pick by Orlando. Kobe was a 13th pick. Pau Gasol was top 10 pick but of Grizzlies. Bynum was a 10th pick, but he played sparingly during their championship years.

                        Celtics? Probably yeah, by getting top picks and trading them for veteran All-Stars. They got lucky Rondo turned out to be a great PG. And their draft picks didn't do

                        Detroit? No. Billups was a former top lottery pick of the Celtics, Hamilton was the top pick of the Wizards, Rasheed was a top pick of Portland, Ben was from Wizards I believe. They formed the team through good trades.

                        The current Bulls? No, they had a very low chance of winning the overall #1 pick. Did they tank to get Rose? No. They just got extremely lucky.

                        All in all, no current and former contenders have won it all because they have tanked and got the best player in the draft and became their main man. Cleveland almost done it, but it didn't work for them. Orlando also almost won with their top pick Howard leading them, but still didn't work. The Sonics were just flat out bad and got lucky Portland didn't draft KD, and just remained flat out bad as a Thunder team to get another top draftee in Westbrook.

                        Yes, top draft picks can win teams championships. But it is not guaranteed that whoever picks them gets the fruit of their tanking. Shaq, Kobe, Gasol, Garnett and Allen are just a few of so many examples of top draftees winning it all on another teams.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                          as has been discussed for however many years here, there are bound to be drafts that don't live up to expectations. regardless, history still states that the vast majority of title winners and contenders acquired their #1 option via a top 3-5 pick (high schooler exception). plus, just because turner wasn't a world beater this year, doesn't mean he won't become a great player. you were trying to compare okc with the pacers, NOT philly with the pacers. durant was viewed by all as a vastly superior talent to turner coming out of college where i believe he averaged something like 25ppg and 10rpg.
                          And history shows us that great players also get taken later in the draft. History also shows a lot of these great players taken in the top 5 leaving the team they were drafted with because no one can do it on their own and they want to go to a big market or a team that has a solid team they can play alongside with.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                            thought the tyler posting melo was nice. good to see the pacers have a matchup they could go to other than danny. nice job of shoving melo under the basket and getting a decent shot. wonder if he could do something like that to taj gibson or not?

                            also, speaking of tyler. thought he had a couple of nice passes after he didn't get a good shot. he was looking for an open guy and made a decent pass out. at the beginning of the year, he would have jacked a shot up it was the end of the shot clock.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                              Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
                              What championship teams from the past years have became champions because of tanking and winning the lottery for a top pick?

                              San Antonio Spurs? No, they're just unlcuky to have an injured Robinson and got so very lucky to win the lottery for the top pick in Duncan.

                              LA Lakers? No, Shaq was a top pick by Orlando. Kobe was a 13th pick. Pau Gasol was top 10 pick but of Grizzlies. Bynum was a 10th pick, but he played sparingly during their championship years.

                              Celtics? Probably yeah, by getting top picks and trading them for veteran All-Stars. They got lucky Rondo turned out to be a great PG. And their draft picks didn't do

                              Detroit? No. Billups was a former top lottery pick of the Celtics, Hamilton was the top pick of the Wizards, Rasheed was a top pick of Portland, Ben was from Wizards I believe. They formed the team through good trades.

                              The current Bulls? No, they had a very low chance of winning the overall #1 pick. Did they tank to get Rose? No. They just got extremely lucky.

                              All in all, no current and former contenders have won it all because they have tanked and got the best player in the draft and became their main man. Cleveland almost done it, but it didn't work for them. Orlando also almost won with their top pick Howard leading them, but still didn't work. The Sonics were just flat out bad and got lucky Portland didn't draft KD, and just remained flat out bad as a Thunder team to get another top draftee in Westbrook.

                              Yes, top draft picks can win teams championships. But it is not guaranteed that whoever picks them gets the fruit of their tanking. Shaq, Kobe, Gasol, Garnett and Allen are just a few of so many examples of top draftees winning it all on another teams.
                              Not nitpicking but Sheed was drafted by the Bullets. He was traded for Rod Strickland a few seasons after.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 4/10/2011 Game Thread #81: Pacers Vs. Knicks

                                Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                                Not nitpicking but Sheed was drafted by the Bullets. He was traded for Rod Strickland a few seasons after.
                                Yeah, missed that one. Thanks!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X