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

2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

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

  • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Once Granger got hurt, there would have been plenty of room for Leonard. We begged Green, Granger, and Turner to produce in the backup wing role. Leonard would have had plenty of opportunities.
    yeah but who drafts a guy saying we are holding onto just incase someone gets hurt

    Comment


    • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

      Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
      yeah but who drafts a guy saying we are holding onto just incase someone gets hurt
      people that post on message boards that can't let things go

      Comment


      • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        people that post on message boards that can't let things go
        thanks x 100!

        Comment


        • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

          Man, Lebron really did go back in time to the Cleveland days. Dwyane Wade put on his best Larry Hughes disguise, with the rest of the team filling in for the irrelevant cast he rolled with for so many years.

          That being said, what a great Finals. The Spurs are just so much fun to watch when they're clicking. And click they did.

          Comment


          • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

            Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
            yeah but who drafts a guy saying we are holding onto just incase someone gets hurt
            I was a big fan of the trade at the time. I still understand all of the reasons behind it. We were a young team that needed some veterans after the Chicago series. GM's obviously can't use three year hindsight to make decisions.

            We got the safe guaranteed proven player. But at this point, it's undeniable that we traded away a guy who ended up being a much much better player than Hill. How would we have fit all of the pieces? I don't know, but it would have been a good problem to have. Like I said though, I get that GM's can't use hindsight to make decisions. Still, at the time you have to remember that Lance was still a guy at the end of the bench who wasn't anywhere near playing a heavy role. So the "wing longjam" is a bit overstated. It was Granger, PG, and what, Dhanty Jones? We could have easily started Granger and PG in 11-12 and given Leonard plenty of clock off the bench. Then when Granger goes down in 12-13, Leonard either starts or gets the role that we tried to give to Green. Same with this year. He either starts or has the sixth man role that we tried to give to Granger and Turner. Lance would have still had opportunities too. It's not as impossible as some make it seem.

            When you choose the safe route and go with the proven vet over the draft pick, sometimes you come out looking great because the draft pick is a bust. Other times, the draft pick wins a Finals MVP in his third season....

            Comment


            • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I was a big fan of the trade at the time. I still understand all of the reasons behind it. We were a young team that needed some veterans after the Chicago series. GM's obviously can't use three year hindsight to make decisions.

              We got the safe guaranteed proven player. But at this point, it's undeniable that we traded away a guy who ended up being a much much better player than Hill. How would we have fit all of the pieces? I don't know, but it would have been a good problem to have. Like I said though, I get that GM's can't use hindsight to make decisions. Still, at the time you have to remember that Lance was still a guy at the end of the bench who wasn't anywhere near playing. So the "wing longjam" is a bit overstated. It was Granger, PG, and what, Dhanty Jones? We could have easily started Granger and PG in 11-12 and given Leonard plenty of clock. Then when Granger goes down in 12-13, Leonard either starts or gets the role that we tried to give to Green. Same with this year. He either starts or has the sixth man role that we tried to give to Granger and Turner. Lance would have still had opportunities too. It's not as impossible as some make it seem.

              When you choose the safe route and go with the proven vet over the draft pick, sometimes you come out looking great because the draft pick is a bust. Other times, the draft pick wins a Finals MVP in his third season....
              How can you say Lance is going nowhere on the bench when he never had the opportunity yet say Kawhi would have had plenty of opportunities... your logic makes no sense.

              Comment


              • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                But at this point, it's undeniable that we traded away a guy who ended up being a much much better player than Hill.
                That much is true. However, that doesn't change the fact that the trade was a win-win at the time that we made it.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami



                  What the casual fan does lol...this is going to be a very interesting off-season now.
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                    Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
                    How can you say Lance is going nowhere on the bench when he never had the opportunity yet say Kawhi would have had plenty of opportunities... your logic makes no sense.
                    Lance didn't get many opportunities in his first two seasons because he was a very raw and immature young talent, which is why he was drafted in the second round. Leonard OTOH was obviously a much more polished rookie as is evidenced by the fact that he was a first round pick. He immediately got big minutes on an elite team.

                    My point is that the "Leonard would have run into a log jam at wing" isn't really true. Granger and PG started, but the bench wings were weak in 11-12. Leonard would have had an opportunity to establish himself.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      That much is true. However, that doesn't change the fact that the trade was a win-win at the time that we made it.
                      I agree. It was a good trade given the circumstances at the time. We needed proven vets after the Chicago series. Those of us on message boards can use three year hindsight, but GM's can't.

                      My only point is that it seems like wishful thinking at this point to try to convince one's self that Leonard wouldn't have done much here. Would he have been winning Finals MVP's in year three here? Probably not, but he is a very good player who would succeed anywhere. That being said, he's obviously in a perfect situation that is allowing him to thrive big time.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Lance didn't get many opportunities in his first two seasons because he was a very raw and immature young talent, which is why he was drafted in the second round. Leonard OTOH was obviously a much more polished rookie as is evidenced by the fact that he was a first round pick. He immediately got big minutes on an elite team.

                        My point is that the "Leonard would have run into a log jam at wing" isn't really true. Granger and PG started, but the bench wings were weak in 11-12. Leonard would have had an opportunity to establish himself.
                        if that is your reasoning then Lance would have never developed into what he is today... Your dream scenario with the polished players in PG, Kawhi, Lance would have never happened. You can't dwell on the past because who knows how Kawhi could have hindered the development of PG and Lance. You don't so you can't make fair comparisons with the player Kawhi is now with what he could have been on the Pacers

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Lance didn't get many opportunities in his first two seasons because he was a very raw and immature young talent, which is why he was drafted in the second round. Leonard OTOH was obviously a much more polished rookie as is evidenced by the fact that he was a first round pick. He immediately got big minutes on an elite team.

                          My point is that the "Leonard would have run into a log jam at wing" isn't really true. Granger and PG started, but the bench wings were weak in 11-12. Leonard would have had an opportunity to establish himself.
                          Leonard definitely would have played, but he is as good as he is now because:

                          1. Got to start from day 1
                          2. Plays with HOF players in a great system in a great organization.
                          3. Hes coached by Pop

                          He wouldn't have had any of those things going for him here. Would he have played and produced, sure. But is he a finals MVP coming off the bench and then eventually starting (maybe)? I don't think so. Hes in the perfect place in the perfect system and in the perfect role for him and his game

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                            Swear....there is already a freaking thread for this Kawhi as a Pacer ****.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Swear....there is already a freaking thread for this Kawhi as a Pacer ****.
                              Why would we discuss things within a thread that was made specifically for that topic? This is PD where we have the same argument/conversations within various threads damnit! /green

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2014 NBA Finals: (1) San Antonio vs. (2) Miami

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                Valid points but Jordan had help too people conveniently forget the years he didn't win NBA titles. Also a great coach in Phil Jackson.

                                And the Spurs are a team first concept and they have great players on that team. Obviously some matter more than others but they go as a unit. I mean there were years where Duncan wasn't much of a factor and now that he has Ring #5 he's in the GOAT conversation?

                                He's a great player but the Spurs don't live and die by him at this point. When any great team is dependent on one player they already lost.
                                Of course no one does it alone. But Jordan single-handedly took over sooooooo many times in the Finals and literally willed his teams to victories, which is why he is the GOAT. Look at that last game in 1998. Jordan hits a basket to get the Bulls within 1, gets a steal on the next Utah possession, then hits that classic game winning shot for his 45h point. That's why he's the best. Willed his teams to victories on both ends of the court.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X