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

Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

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

  • #76
    Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

    =BillS;1489963]I would submit there are more bench threads because they are usually started by people who think the person on the bench is better than a starter, or at least some kind of hidden gem that the coaching staff are fools not to be using more. Then people come in to refute it, which is where the criticism comes from.
    Or because people think the bench is so important that they need to have a new thread to talk about it, bench players that don't average a double double = garbage, starters that don't average a double double = they are taking one for the team.

    I've seen threads criticizing Danny's shooting, Hibbert's ability to stay in position, West's defense, and distribution from whoever is starting PG in a given week. I've seen people make arguments against those criticizing, but you can't possibly be saying that the only valid opinion on a discussion board is that the starters are completely flawed in the exact way whatever original poster pointed out.
    Where are those threads? I can count with my fingers how many people criticize the starters and they are usually s*** on by the majority(you like to admit it or not).

    Not thinking Danny is as bad as you think he is does not mean thinking he isn't flawed and saying you can't criticize him. It just means disagreeing with you. Not thinking West is a horrible defender doesn't mean there are no flaws in West's defense, it just means disagreeing with you.
    Yes disagreeing with me or others is one thing, crying foul and calling people names because that person doesn't think those players are that great is different.

    Just because I don't think the starters are that great doesn't mean that I think they are garbage, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

    The constant "if you don't agree with me you aren't allowing my opinion" equivalency does get tiring after a while.
    The constant "crying and name calling because you don't agree with me" get's tiring after a while. (I don't mean you but the board in general).
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

      Before I opened this thread, I knew exactly how it was going to play out. PD did not disappoint me.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

        Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
        Danny and PG's skills/weakness may be the same on the offensive end, but I think they are almost a perfect compliment on the defensive end.
        Yeah, with PG playing great defense and Danny playing none at all.... ...

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

          Originally posted by Steagles View Post
          Paul George. Everyone thinks he's going to have a breakout year, and that he should. I don't think, however, that he will have a breakout year to the extent that most of you do. If he makes any sort of jump, I think I will be happy. He is still young.
          He's definitely going to be under the microscope around here, mainly because the future success of this team largely depends on how good he can become. If he plateaus and continues to be just a solid role player (his current basketball form), we won't be much better than a 3-4 seed with a second round playoff exit. If he lives up to his vast amounts of potential, then we could be contending for titles.

          Year three is an important year in development for NBA players. I hope he's working his *** off this summer, because the free pass he's gotten will be gone next year for a lot of us.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            Monta Ellis, Kevin Martin, and Tyreke Evans are the only three that come to my mind.

            The only thing is these types of players are normally NOT particularly good defenders.

            I'd be interested in hearing any other players that comes to anyone's mind.
            Tyreke interests me... good size for a SG, handles the ball well, passes well, and he's a guy you can run the offense through at times. His age matches up with the rest of the younger guys (22), too. A change in scenery might be good for him considering he hasn't had much to play for during his first few seasons.

            I'd love to get Iggy somehow and play him next to Paul. He's not the go to scorer we need, but the defense would be so good on the wings that we might be able to overcome not having a go to guy as long as our bigs and Hill picked up the slack offensively. That's probably a pipe dream, though. Iggy's stock is too high right now.

            Monta, of course, would be a gamble but one I'd be willing to take. I think even though it's undersized, a Hill/Monta backcourt compliments each other.

            I can't think of anyone else feasible not locked into a long term contract. That's kinda the problem... there's not a whole lot of options available.

            Here's to Lance becoming that guy...

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              He's definitely going to be under the microscope around here, mainly because the future success of this team largely depends on how good he can become. If he plateaus and continues to be just a solid role player (his current basketball form), we won't be much better than a 3-4 seed with a second round playoff exit. If he lives up to his vast amounts of potential, then we could be contending for titles.

              Year three is an important year in development for NBA players. I hope he's working his *** off this summer, because the free pass he's gotten will be gone next year for a lot of us.
              Very true. I am just saying that Paul needs to improve, but I don't think he will improve up to the standards that the board wants. That's why I voted for Paul George.
              Senior at the University of Louisville.
              Greenfield ---> The Ville

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                There's potential for numerous whipping boys this year. Frankly all five of our starters are likely going to get absurd amounts of bad commentary over the season. My top suspects are the ones who will be perceived as overpaid (Hill, Granger, Hibbert), followed closely by Paul George because of his high expectations/hopes, but then David West will continue to be nitpicked for what he does wrong in the face of what he does that's so right. I voted Roy because he's most susceptible to inconsistency and I think will probably be seen as the 'most overpaid' of those three because he 'got the max'.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                  At the end of the day people are going to criticize some of the starters but the big PD majority are going to criticize the bench once again for "not helping the starters win a championship and letting Lebron/Dwade destroy them", there should be a "whole bench option".
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                    Also, when it comes to player or team flaws, weaknesses, and/or criticisms, my point of view is that I think you must acknowledge them to get a more accurate feel for the player or the team. It has its time and place.

                    But ultimately, I'm here because my heart is with this team and I badly want to see them succeed and win, and that's only fun to me if my main fixation is on what they can do and what they are getting right and seeing how far it carries them/us. It would just be depressing otherwise unless the team is winning numerous championships because there are always going to be flaws and weaknesses.

                    I liken it to a couple of things. Let's take a good looking woman with a good personality. She has her flaws in both departments, but why would I want to spend most of my time pointing out her aesthetic flaws or imperfections or personality issues when I could just be enjoying the company of a good looking woman a good personality? What am I getting out of it by nitpicking her? As far as I'm concerned, pretty much nothing.

                    Or when it comes to my own life and health. If I walk out of a doctor's appointment with a generally positive report, I don't need some 'realist' troll hiding in the bushes to jump out and yell at me, "You're still gonna die someday! Never forget!" Well, no **** I'm gonna die someday. I'm mortal. My health will inevitably decline and one day I will die. Now tell me why the **** I would ever choose to invest most of my time dwelling on that when I could instead choose to focus on living my life and trying to enjoy it while I still can? It'd be ridiculous of me.

                    So bringing it back to the team I care about, this is an emotional investment for me. The more I focus on what's wrong, the more negative of an emotional experience it gets for me. So I have no interest in constantly mentioning what's wrong with this team. At a certain point it's a net loss for me. So I have my limit on how much I care to read or write about that stuff; I'm here to have a good time first and foremost. I want to make good assessments, but I don't need to over do it with negativity to do so.

                    There's always people who seem to get off on repetitiously mentioning the problems, but I am not one of them. And there comes a point where I choose not to read that anymore if I can help it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      There's potential for numerous whipping boys this year. Frankly all five of our starters are likely going to get absurd amounts of bad commentary over the season. My top suspects are the ones who will be perceived as overpaid (Hill, Granger, Hibbert), followed closely by Paul George because of his high expectations/hopes, but then David West will continue to be nitpicked for what he does wrong in the face of what he does that's so right. I voted Roy because he's most susceptible to inconsistency and I think will probably be seen as the 'most overpaid' of those three because he 'got the max'.
                      I'm guessing there will be a lot of *****ing this year. One can make a strong case for significant complaining about our new bench players too.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        When it comes to player or team flaws, weaknesses, and/or criticisms, my point of view is that I think you must acknowledge them to get a more accurate feel for the player or the team. It has its time and place.

                        But ultimately, I'm here because my heart is with this team and I badly want to see them succeed and win, and that's only fun to me if my main fixation is on what they can do and what they are getting right and seeing how far it carries them/us. It would just be depressing otherwise unless the team is winning numerous championships because there are always going to be flaws and weaknesses.

                        I liken it to a couple of things. Let's take a good looking woman with a good personality. She has her flaws in both departments, but why would I want to spend most of my time pointing out her aesthetic flaws or imperfections or personality issues when I could just be enjoying the company of a good looking woman a good personality? What am I getting out of it by nitpicking her? As far as I'm concerned, pretty much nothing.

                        Or when it comes to my own life and health. If I walk out of a doctor's appointment with a generally positive report, I don't need some 'realist' troll hiding in the bushes to jump out and yell at me, "You're still gonna die someday! Never forget!" Well, no **** I'm gonna die someday. I'm mortal. My health will inevitably decline and one day I will die. Now tell me why the **** I would ever choose to invest most of my time dwelling on that when I could instead choose to focus on living my life and trying to enjoy it while I still can? It'd be ridiculous of me.

                        So bringing it back to the team I care about, this is an emotional investment for me. The more I focus on what's wrong, the more negative of an emotional experience it gets for me. So I have no interest in constantly mentioning what's wrong with this team. At a certain point it's a net loss for me. So I have my limit on how much I care to read or write about that stuff; I'm here to have a good time first and foremost. I want to make good assessments, but I don't need to over do it with negativity to do so.

                        There's always people who seem to get off on repetitiously mentioning the problems, but I am not one of them. And there comes a point where I choose not to read that anymore if I can help it.


                        Well, that is a "bury your head in the sand" approach. I don't think anyone here is doing anything like saying "you are going to die" when you are at the doctors office. There is, however, an irrational exhuberance with some posters. Most have their feet on the floor and they say reasonable things. Then you have fools predicting 60+ wins for this team. Those are the ones who get the "realist" treatment. So, Hicks, believe whatever "pie in the sky" crap you like but I choose not to listen to people who think the Colts will go 13-3 this year or even be a .500 team when the team is complete tear down and rebuild mode. I have read people here say the Pacers have the best starting five in the NBA. Well, they are not and they are not even close to that. That doesn't mean that they aren't a good team that is getting better. Some folks think they can overcome the small market situation and win without a star. That could happen. Ron Paul could be the next President too....... ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          I'm guessing there will be a lot of *****ing this year. One can make a strong case for significant complaining about our new bench players too.
                          No doubt, I get the feeling that people are expecting way to much from the bench, they expect Lance to be the answer, they expect a lot from Green and by a lot I mean a LOT, Mahinmi should average a double double or he is crap, people don't expect much from Tyler so who cares?, Augustin should average 10apg or he is a bust, etc, etc.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            Danny and Hill'll catch plenty of flak. But it'll be Roy, I have no doubt. He's a "max" player now, I put it in quotes because I still don't think some people realize the difference between his max contract and a real max contract.

                            And if he doesn't step it up in terms on consistency and becoming a truly dominant weapon the criticisms will be earned.
                            His is a real max same max that all guys coming off of 4 years of service can receive. If he was a 10 year vet or 7 year yes it more but under the CBA he has a max deal. Same max deal LBJ and others would receive after their rookie deal only difference is the 4th year would be a player option or the 5th year depending on the player ala the max Kevin Love got.


                            I dont get why 10 year vets make more than 7 in the NBA most guys are in their prime by year 5 the way they give maxes really need to reverse younger guys can make what they deserve. The Drose exception helped in that regard I guess though.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Also, when it comes to player or team flaws, weaknesses, and/or criticisms, my point of view is that I think you must acknowledge them to get a more accurate feel for the player or the team. It has its time and place.

                              But ultimately, I'm here because my heart is with this team and I badly want to see them succeed and win, and that's only fun to me if my main fixation is on what they can do and what they are getting right and seeing how far it carries them/us. It would just be depressing otherwise unless the team is winning numerous championships because there are always going to be flaws and weaknesses.

                              I liken it to a couple of things. Let's take a good looking woman with a good personality. She has her flaws in both departments, but why would I want to spend most of my time pointing out her aesthetic flaws or imperfections or personality issues when I could just be enjoying the company of a good looking woman a good personality? What am I getting out of it by nitpicking her? As far as I'm concerned, pretty much nothing.

                              Or when it comes to my own life and health. If I walk out of a doctor's appointment with a generally positive report, I don't need some 'realist' troll hiding in the bushes to jump out and yell at me, "You're still gonna die someday! Never forget!" Well, no **** I'm gonna die someday. I'm mortal. My health will inevitably decline and one day I will die. Now tell me why the **** I would ever choose to invest most of my time dwelling on that when I could instead choose to focus on living my life and trying to enjoy it while I still can? It'd be ridiculous of me.

                              So bringing it back to the team I care about, this is an emotional investment for me. The more I focus on what's wrong, the more negative of an emotional experience it gets for me. So I have no interest in constantly mentioning what's wrong with this team. At a certain point it's a net loss for me. So I have my limit on how much I care to read or write about that stuff; I'm here to have a good time first and foremost. I want to make good assessments, but I don't need to over do it with negativity to do so.

                              There's always people who seem to get off on repetitiously mentioning the problems, but I am not one of them. And there comes a point where I choose not to read that anymore if I can help it.
                              All those things that you are talking about that you don't like are the things that make this forum one of the best NBA forums in the internet, do you want to change the original format and make it at "homer festival"? there is a reason why Indycornrows and those other Forums are not as good as this one.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Which Pacers will get the most criticism next year?

                                I'm going with Hill because he's probably the starting Pg and we have already shown our displeasure with having starting Pg's who aren't pure Pg's and that won't change with Hill. I like him a lot and am glad we kept him, but I don't think starting Pg is a good spot for him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X