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

Front office direction?

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

  • Front office direction?

    I know there have been similar threads, but is anyone else terrified at the Walsh/KP tandem?

    I mean is there anyone in their right mind that think we upgraded our bench this offseason? I mean lord, people were ready to crucify Barbosa after the Heat series last year. Augustin, and Gerald Green make Barbosa look like Bernard King. Absolutely awful, terrible and pitiful.

    Anyone really feeling good about Ian for 3 more years for 12 million after this season? I mean his 0 pts and 3 rebounds over the past two games combined tell you all you need to know. I get the C position is at a premium, but good lord there has to be a better option. Thank gosh we got rid of Dhantay and DJ though. No way could we use Jones to guard the likes of John Wall or DC to backup at point.

    Anyone remember the discussion about Tyler and the QO a week or so ago? Anything left to discuss? Didn't think so.

    And before anyone wants to throw out the "get off the ledge" or "quit overreacting" card, spare me. We have a very, very good starting 5. It is just a shame they will not be able to compete in the playoffs because these guys are not capable of anything. Vogel can sub guys out for 2 minutes and it is a 10 point swing.

    Walsh can go, KP can go, Green, Ian, Augustin, Tyler, etc don't let the door hit you on the way out. Hopefully this summer we can trade our garbage for someone else's and pray for different results. I am sick of looking at this same crap game in game oue

  • #2
    Re: Front office direction?

    I agree to an extent.

    The bench is beyond defending at this point. There is a reason why D.J. Augustine was a mediocre player on a habitual loser team. There is a reason why Gerald Green was exiled to Russia (which, despite being a culturally rich place, is nowhere a former NBA'er wants to be). There is a reason why Ian has a token ring (a championship before LeBron James decided he was the best player on this planet -- by far). Okay, the "token ring" comment is out of line: Dirk played out of his mind (note: still nothing to do with Ian). These are all puzzlers to say the least, and they bring to mind the questions fans had about Walsh when he gave an unproven Jonathan Bender an absurd contract.

    I don't know what else to say, except that I wish Larry Bird were still here and Walsh a distant memory. Who knows what will become of the Granger Fiasco.
    Last edited by kidthecat; 04-07-2013, 02:53 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Front office direction?

      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
      Anyone really feeling good about Ian for 3 more years for 12 million after this season? I mean his 0 pts and 3 rebounds over the past two games combined tell you all you need to know.
      How good should anyone feel about having to pay PG almost $8 million over the next 2 seasons ?? I mean his 10 points on 3-19 shooting over the past 2 games combined tell you all you need to know.

      It's amazing what a 2 game losing streak can do to people.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Front office direction?

        No one coming into this season thought our bench would under play to this extent. Everyone had high hopes for our bench. In all reality, you can't blame our front office for the ways they're playing. The only thing you could look at is our bench on paper - that's what our front office can be blamed for.

        Anything beyond that may be a coaches fault.
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Front office direction?

          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
          How good should anyone feel about having to pay PG almost $8 million over the next 2 seasons ?? I mean his 10 points on 3-19 shooting over the past 2 games combined tell you all you need to know.

          It's amazing what a 2 game losing streak can do to people.
          Great point!!!!!!!

          The bench's lackluster play has been a complete aberration. They have been great all season long and just hit a rough patch these past few games. Instead of the QO lets extend Tyler at 7 mil per season. Ian has been so unbelievable lets add on another 4 yrs/50 mil. to the end of his contract.
          Last edited by joew8302; 04-07-2013, 01:00 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Front office direction?

            Ian and Tyler have had their ups and downs, but you kind of expect that from bench players.

            The bench problems start with DJ. He is just a terrible PG, who can't play defense. Then Green has been a let down this season, but he still shows some hope for next year. An offseason working with the coaches should be good for him, and Ian.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Front office direction?

              As long as they don't let West walk, I'm okay with them. I'm really curious to see what our team looks like without Tyler ad DJ. I want to see us fill out the bench with hungry veterans, as it's starting to become clear to me that we're just too young and inexperienced. Adding a vet to the bench that's been around can do wonders for us.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Front office direction?

                Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                No one coming into this season thought our bench would under play to this extent. Everyone had high hopes for our bench. In all reality, you can't blame our front office for the ways they're playing. The only thing you could look at is our bench on paper - that's what our front office can be blamed for.

                Anything beyond that may be a coaches fault.
                Oh yeah some people knew this bench was going to suck and that the off season was a fail, Sollozzo and Bball were two of those guys calling it way before the season started together with another guy .

                And only the sunshiners had high hopes for that bench.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Front office direction?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Oh yeah some people knew this bench was going to suck and that the off season was a fail, Sollozzo and Bball were two of those guys calling it way before the season started together with another guy .

                  And only the sunshiners had high hopes for that bench.

                  I never had a big problem overall with the players signed I had a problem with the contracts the FO gave the players. Unfortunately, the players haven't produced as we would like thus making the contracts look like what they are... bad FULLY guaranteed contracts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Front office direction?

                    Our new front office did the right thing by keeping Hibbert and Hill, but any GM would have kept those guys. Aside from keeping them, there's not a single move over the last year that you can look back on and say "hey, that was a good move." Virtually every move has been pretty bad.

                    I hated the DC trade last summer and I hate it now. Mahnmi is OK at times, but he certainly isn't worth a four year contract. DC did a lot of things to help us in the two years that he was here and I think that he would have had a really good season here this year since it would have been his third year playing with this team. He would have had two-three years worth of chemistry with these guys.

                    Thankfully Augistin is only signed for this season, but the three years for Green is terrible. Both of those two guys are textbook examples of players who were able to put up some phantom stats on garbage teams and make people think that they are better than they really are. I think most NBA players could put up decent numbers on terrible undisciplined teams where they have free reign to do whatever they want. However, there's a big difference between putting up numbers on a terrible team versus playing well within the confines of a good team like the Pacers.

                    I don't know what they tried to do at the trade deadline, but acting like we were getting an all-star back in Granger makes it seem like they weren't trying to do much. If fans on a message board had concerns about Granger which ended up being 100% spot on, then the team should have had them too.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X