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

This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

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

  • #61
    Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

    Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
    They are 3-11 against playoff teams since the trade.

    W: CHI, MIA, OKC
    L: GS, CHA, HOU, DAL, MEM, CHI, WAS, SA, TOR, ATL, MIA

    Yes, they've beaten Chicago and Miami, but they've also lost to them. So essentially, .500 ball against those teams and .272 against playoff teams. To paint the picture that they've played entitled, that they only show up against good teams and that lesser teams are their biggest problem would be gravely misleading. They haven't played well regardless of the competition.
    It's important to note that Golden State, San Antonio, Memphis, and Houston are good Western teams that we had already beaten. Losing against them meant that we were 1-1 on the season against them, which was very respectable and what you would have hoped for before the season started. Not making excuses, but it's fair to point that out. It would be very hard to go 2-0 against any of those teams.

    Toronto and especially Charlotte and Atlanta were bad losses. Can't get too upset about Chicago and Miami since we beat them at home.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Donnie Walsh's moves had 0 to do with the 12-13 team improving. The 12-13 team improved because the core that was already in place continued to get better. West was another year removed from injury and PG turned into an all-star.

      If we have a better bench, that team is likely in the Finals. Given that we actually had flexibility in that off-season, the complaints weren't off base.
      And this years bench is the reason why the Pacers have improved? Please.

      PD has spent the last 3 months *****ing about Luis' not being able to hit a shot, and CJ's whooping 6pts per game is really leading the charge. Ian? I won't even go there.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

        That is one great interview. The best thing that could have ever happened to this team happened when Larry came back.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          And this years bench is the reason why the Pacers have improved? Please.

          PD has spent the last 3 months *****ing about Luis' not being able to hit a shot, and CJ's whooping 6pts per game is really leading the charge. Ian? I won't even go there.
          Where did I say that the bench was "the reason" the Pacers improved? I said that Bird upgraded the team. That is a fact. But I didn't say that it was "the reason". Like the 2013 team, the 2014 team is mostly about the starters. But the other stuff is important.

          With little flexibility, Bird got us one of the better backup point guards in the NBA and then got us a guy in Scola who was one of the better backups in the league at the start of the season. Scola then slumped and CJ got hurt, but now CJ is healthy and Scola is playing better. Hopefully these guys are solid bench contributors in the postseason.

          Despite a lot of flexibility in 2012-2013 off-season, we were essentially a 5 man team by playoff time. No consistent offense whatsoever.

          That's the difference, though I've certainly come around on the Mahinmi signing.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

            Donnie Walsh upgraded the team as well, but that didn't end the constant whining about him. That's what I'm saying. I think it's funny to watch the same things get said about Larry that were said about Donnie, and the people saying them about Donnie now use the excuses people replying to them with about Donnie. It usually comes back full circle.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

              I'll stop being so vague and be specific.

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Turner has not been very good, but the guy he replaced isn't even playing right now. Turner did make some good passes today. If Bird made a mistake, it's that he overvalued the mental toughness of a five man starting unit that has played together for a while now, but that says far more about their weaknesses if that's indeed the case. Bird felt that there was still health concerns about DG, and he's exactly right given that DG was shut down by the Clippers for the remainder of the regular season.
              It could easily be said that if Donnie made a mistake, it was that he thought DJ and GG were mentally tough enough to handle a different role than what they were used too.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Donnie Walsh upgraded the team as well, but that didn't end the constant whining about him. That's what I'm saying. I think it's funny to watch the same things get said about Larry that were said about Donnie, and the people saying them about Donnie now use the excuses people replying to them with about Donnie. It usually comes back full circle.
                People whined about Walsh because we had flexibility in the off-season, yet came away with players who contributed virtually nothing in our 2013 playoff run. Bird OTOH had very little flexibility when he came back in 2013.

                I don't blame Walsh as much as I used to after seeing Green and Augistin play good somewhere else this season. And Mahinmi has been very solid this season. But in 2013, we very well might have made the Finals if we got anything from the bench. That was hard to gloss over.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  People whined about Walsh because we had flexibility in the off-season, yet came away with players who contributed virtually nothing in our 2013 playoff run.
                  I'm not disputing that. They didn't deliever. But as you then point out, those players who struggled last year in their bench roles are now producing, and you've lost some blame for Donnie in the process. That's exactly what I'm saying, just a little bit different. All I'm doing is going further back and pointing out that you weren't giving Donnie the benefit, until this year, that you're giving Bird from the get go.

                  Has Bird earned it? Maybe, because of all he's accomplished while a GM, but I think it should be pointed out that everything Bird has done as a GM........Donnie did it first.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    All I'm doing is going further back and pointing out that you weren't giving Donnie the benefit, until this year, that you're giving Bird from the get go.
                    Walsh had flexibility and his moves really didn't pan out at any point last season. Bird OTOH didn't have much flexibility, but his moves have helped nicely for large chunks of teh season. Scola was very solid at the beginning of the year and is once again playing well, and CJ is one of the better backup points in the league who fits very nicely.

                    It's not that I wasn't giving Walsh the benefit of the doubt. Most of the critiquing was done as the season progressed and those players didn't give us much. My opinion of Bird doesn't really have much to do with benefit of the doubt either. I'm just analyzing them after an entire season. Scola and Watson were overall strong moves and Bynum was a cheap gamble that we couldn't turn down. The only question is whether he severely overrated the mental toughness of the team when he thought that we could make do without Granger. Now I think that the impact of the trade has been way overblown, but it's hard to argue that it didn't have some effect.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                      Walsh's moves didn't work out because he didn't utilize the flexibility, they didn't work out because DJ and GG stunk it up while they were in a Pacers uniform. Most of the critiquing happened as the season progressed, because a lot of the people complaining about the moves later in the season, liked them when they happened in the preseason.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Walsh's moves didn't work out because he didn't utilize the flexibility, they didn't work out because DJ and GG stunk it up while they were in a Pacers uniform.

                        Walsh giving Hill that contract was a mistake. But when you're warming someone elses seat for a year, you kind of don't wanna make any huge waves.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                          I think Walsh did a great job bringing in Mahinmi. Probably the most important addition to the team the past two seasons. While there is some weirdness around the trade, I think it just points to Collison wanted out.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            I think Walsh did a great job bringing in Mahinmi. Probably the most important addition to the team the past two seasons. While there is some weirdness around the trade, I think it just points to Collison wanted out.
                            I agree. I didn't like that move last year, but I've really come around on it. I've been very impressed with Mahinmi this season.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Must see TV! I hope he rips them all for the entire fanbase to see.
                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              I think Walsh did a great job bringing in Mahinmi. Probably the most important addition to the team the past two seasons. While there is some weirdness around the trade, I think it just points to Collison wanted out.
                              Collison wanted to start was the reason but yes he politely made it known he didn't want to warm Hill's spot.

                              Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
                              1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                              3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                              5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                              7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                                its a fact this team was not playing well prior to the granger trade either. the teams record was like 8-6 in dannys last 14 games. the team was playing well prior to Granger even suiting up. so in essense Dannys influence had an impact on this team starting the year like 20-4,, yet while he was on the court in his last 14 pacers went 8-6... then after the trade weve been like 12-13.
                                I think that using the last 14 games is a bit arbitatry. Why not using the last 20 games for example? If you used the last 20 games you'd see that our record with Danny was 13-7. Better yet, why not use our total record with Danny? We were 21-8 when Danny played.

                                No, I'm not going to accept that this team wasn't playing well prior to the Granger trade. The stats do not support that. We started out the season 20-5 before Danny suited up and we followed it up with a 21-8 run with Danny on the team. The difference between the two records is not big enough in order to justify a major shake-up.

                                Our season splits go like that:

                                Before Danny suited up: 20-5

                                With Danny: 21-8

                                After the trade: 14-13

                                One of them isn't like the others.

                                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                                im just not going to let these players off the hook for their poor play and attribute it all to the DG trade. hey it coulda had an impact for a week or two sure.. but not going on 2 months. long overdue we find a new scapegoat for this teams struggles or perhaps look directly at the issue itself..

                                poor offense.
                                I'm not going to let the players off the hook either. I'm not attributing it all to the DG trade. Read what I said again. Win as a team, lose as a team. Every single person that was involved with the team has to share a part of the blame for the team's struggles. It's as simple as that. I'm not saying that the trade is the only or the main reason that we struggled but it did play a part.

                                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                                explain to me how Danny in the lineup (presuming he is still healthy) helps at all with the offensive inconsistencies. does DG help Roy make a layup and stay on his feet, does DG demand GHILL shoot the ball more... is lance going to stop carelessly turning the ball over because DG says so.

                                yall act like DG just by showing up on the bench made this teams offense significantly better. that's simply a fallacy and a poor excuse for these players and coaches not taking responsibility for the poor play over the last month and a half.

                                Was Deng not a respected member of the Chicago Bulls,, hell Deng is in his prime ... if I was a Bulls fan I would seriously be pissed right now,, yet that team got better regardless of circumstances.

                                Unless were assuming its DG of 2012 semis I don't see him having an impact on offensive improvement.
                                The biggest part of our problems was that this starting 5 stopped dominating people like it did in the start of the season. When did this starting 5 stop beating the opposing team and giving us leads? Right around the time that Danny was traded. That's when the starting 5 started underperforming and caused the team to struggle.

                                Something changed in the chemistry of our starters and I believe that this could be averted if Danny was still in the locker room. That's why people say that you don't want to mess with a team's chemistry.

                                I'm not saying that DG would be performing better than Turner on the court. He would probably be performing in a similar level. But our bench was almost never the problem when we started struggling. The bench didn't get significantly worse. It was the starters who got significantly worse and I believe that this wouldn't happen if we had another veteran voice in the locker room.

                                I'm not trying to let anyone off the hook. Everyone will be praised if we succeed in the playoffs and everyone will be criticized if we fail. It's as simple as that. I'm not going to play favorites.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X