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:
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

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

Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

    I know you are, but what am I

    I think I have been called more names by more people in the last week than even I thought possible. The beauty is in the irony of it all.

    In the first year I owned the team, I was called the same names and media wrote the exact same things they are writing today. Everyone then, like now, wanted to tell me what to do. How to do my job.

    Back then it was how the Mavs could never be turned around with someone like me owning the team. Then it was the Mavs could never win with someone like me owning the team. Then it was, The Mavs could never be real contenders, etc, etc, etc. You get the picture, and the irony of it all.

    My response ?

    No suprises. I dont expect anyone to say anything differently.

    To me, the proof is always in the details. No matter what business Im in, most people work in headlines mode. They think that if they say or write something that makes a good headline , then there must be substance to their point. That’s not the way business works. Which is why most people never get further than the middle.

    Substance comes from detail. Luck comes from detail. Winning comes from being willing to do the work on the details. Learning comes from investing in details.

    In the sports media world this past week, the most work I have seen someone do is Chris Sheridan going through 20 minutes or so of tapes looking to see what words I mouthed to fans in the stands after a game. Beyond that, it was all about deadlines, not substance. Thats fine. It is what it is.

    No one does the work. They do “their jobs”. Nothing more. Which is why , despite all “he is the best, he is the worst” commentary from people, none of it matters in the least bit.

    The easiest thing in the world for anyone to do is Tivo a game and then break it down. What any of the 13 participants on the court did and how they did it is pretty easy to document for 99.9 pct of the time on the clock. The other .01 can be grey. It doesnt really matter. Aggregate data from a lot of games over a lot of seasons, and all of the sudden you have a database with value.

    Once you have information, then you can add brainpower and try to do things better.

    Once you have information, then you can start to define excellence and strive for it, measuring your progress along the way.

    This certainly isnt a new concept. There are untold number of QC , Process Improvement and Optimization techniques out there. Pick one, pick them all.

    Excellence is defined is excellence demanded. Its not always easy to fulfill, but there is one constant in my approach to the Mavs that hasnt changed since the minute I walked in the door in January of 2000. That my job was to put every single one of our players, and the organization in a position to succeed. That I would work hard, continuously, to get better at doing so, and I think I have. I think we have become a much smarter organization. We have learned from what we have done right, and what we have done wrong.

    Its also why I get so angry when it comes to certain aspects of the NBA and how they do business. I think there is more politics that optimization. Thats my opinion from the data. And Im not talking about officiating.

    One of my favorite books is The Innovators Dilemma. It basically talks about how new technology can destabilize companies and industries if their impact isnt acknowledged and addressed early on.

    The NBA is at an interesting crossroads. There are unique situations today that can enable it to lever up and thrive and push its media customers to new heights, or that could destabilize it.

    Its all in the data. And I wish I could tell you about it. But i would get fined for it.

    And for the record, I have nothing to say about the finals. That was last season.
    For the record, Im not turning on comments, they have devolved to the point where they add no value.

  • #2
    Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

    Originally posted by my 2nd favorite owner, Cubes
    Its all in the data. And I wish I could tell you about it. But i would get fined for it.
    That'll be another 100 thousand

    08 and Beyond


    • #3
      Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

      I must say, I'm sick and tired of Cuban. yes I know he's a great owner, but I'm just sick and tired of him and his act. Enough.


      • #4
        Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        I must say, I'm sick and tired of Cuban. yes I know he's a great owner, but I'm just sick and tired of him and his act. Enough.
        He comes across in that blog entry as very arrogant. Not a very appealing guy at all.


        • #5
          Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

          I don't think Cuban gets that it isn't if he can run a franchise or what he thinks that makes him an ***. It is the way he conducts himself that makes him an ***.
          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."


          • #6
            Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

            His inane ranting and raving about the league is only going to make the relationship between the owners and the Sternmeister even more sour.

            He is accomplishing nothing here except making himself look a fool.


            • #7
              Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

              I've never liked the guy. Way to much "look at me" for my taste.

              I know a lot of people like him & people like him as an owner but for my taste I prefer the Simons & others like them.

              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13


              • #8
                Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                I really enjoyed that. I've always thought he was a fun guy, and that it would be great to play for him as an owner. He's not an idiot when he speaks out, like some people.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                • #9
                  Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                  Add Witlock to the list of people who think Cuban is distasteful, to say the least.


                  'Cuban Whistle Crisis'
                  By Jason Whitlock
                  Special to Page 2

                  Mark Cuban reminds me of Ron Artest.

                  You fall in love with his passion, energy and versatility, but you realize his mental instability very well could wreck your entire organization.

                  As commissioner David Stern contemplates how to deal with the "Cuban Whistle Crisis," a predicament that could totally undermine the public perception progress the NBA enjoyed this season, the commish would be wise to consult his Artest playbook.

                  Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Whinericks, won't be fined into sanity. *****ing about officiating and paying a couple of million dollars a year for that right is nothing more than a simple, tax-deductible business expense for the league's best blogger.

                  Nope. It's going to take a prolonged, arena-banning suspension to end the "Cuban Whistle Crisis," a nickname coined by Washington Post columnist Mike Wise.

                  Stern should begin with a symbolic 13-day suspension of Cuban to start the 2006-07 season, then go with a season-long ban if Cuban acts up again.

                  Cuban's behavior and the conduct of Dallas coach Avery Johnson and superstar Dirk Nowitzki during the just-completed NBA Finals warrant far more drastic action than the $250,000 fine Stern leveled on Cuban before Game 6.

                  Not only did the "Cuban Whistle Crisis" overshadow the unveiling of Dwyane Wade as the league's most embraceable megastar since Jordan, but its fallout foreshadows a potential Artest-like eruption in the stands. Maybe you missed the American Airlines Center public-address announcer admonishing Mavericks fans not to throw objects on the court. Maybe you turned off your TV before witnessing Mavericks fans drown out with boos Stern's championship trophy presentation to the Heat. Cuban, Johnson, Nowitzki and the co-signing Dallas media turned Game 6 into a Rodney King-verdict powder keg. Mavs fans were convinced they had irrefutable video evidence of officiating crimes of the highest order. The paranoia of Dallas' out-of-control owner caused the normally classy and high-road-driving Johnson to lose his composure and melt into a world-class crybaby. Johnson's crying gave Nowitzki the out he needed to avoid eye contact with a mirror and instead kick chairs and exercise bikes rather than fourth-quarter ***.

                  You think Cuban's antics haven't planted the seeds of discontent that could blossom into a nutty Mavs fan going after a referee or sparking an in-arena melee?

                  Artest didn't hop into the stands without warning. When you heard that an NBA player ran into the stands and set off a riot, you were not surprised at all when you learned it was Ron Artest. You never suspected Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Shaq, Reggie Miller, Rip Hamilton or Kevin Garnett. The list of candidates was very short, and Artest was always the No. 1 suspect.

                  If an NBA ref gets attacked on the court or hit with an object, you won't be surprised when the story has a Dallas dateline. Cuban has created the environment. His complaints about officiating have some merit. There's a kernel of truth in every extremist's argument. A planted bloody glove might win an acquittal, but it doesn't clear a conscience. The fact that NBA refs are inconsistent doesn't justify the "Cuban Whistle Crisis." Stern isn't out to get Cuban. Stern is nowhere near that small or stupid. Cuban, the Mavericks and Nowitzki are three of the best things to happen to Stern's league in the past five years.

                  It would've been far better for the league had Nowitzki -- one of Stern's white, foreign imports -- won the title and shown the kind of heart and determination Wade displayed. Stern didn't want Nowitzki to choke at the free-throw line, dish to Erick Dampier in the clutch and refuse to drive anywhere near Shaq and the lane in the final minutes. Had Nowitzki gone to the hole as relentlessly as Wade, he would've received the same bogus calls as Wade. Refs can't help rewarding superstars for being aggressive. Beyond the "Cuban Whistle Crisis," Stern must crack down on Cuban because he's sabotaging the message about professionalism the league has been preaching to its players. You think Allen Iverson isn't sitting at home taking notes on Cuban thugged-out in his Mavs jersey sitting behind the bench and acting a fool? Cuban is as big an NBA star as all but a handful of players. He represents the league. But he can dress how he wants, drop F-bombs on refs, taunt fans, charge onto the court and question the integrity of the league pretty much without fear of significant reprisal. Meanwhile, Iverson needs to wear a sport coat on the bench and report to work on time on fan appreciation night. If you had to guess, what do you think Allen and his homies have to say about this bit of hypocrisy? Just take a guess. It's time for Stern to censure Cuban and back it with a suspension -- a ban from arenas. A ban during the Finals would've been a mistake. Cuban would've been viewed as a martyr.

                  Now Stern can call Cuban and Johnson into the commissioner's office and explain in detail why the NBA can't tolerate Dallas' continued whining. It's unhealthy for the league. If not stopped, the "Cuban Whistle Crisis" will escalate and turn into a Crimson Tide.

                  Jason Whitlock is a regular columnist for The Kansas City Star. He can be reached by e-mail at Sound off to Page 2 here.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


                  • #10
                    Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                    He is from Indiana and went to school in Bloomington during the Knight era, he has a passion for basketball. He measures success by a championship. He measures success as a businessman by his stock portfolio. The league would be better, much better if Cuban were running the show instead of a team.
                    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)


                    • #11
                      Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                      He's from Pittsburgh


                      • #12
                        Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                        Still love the guy.

                        The league would be boring without him.

                        That's not to say I'd want him as the owner of the Pacers, though -- Ron gave us enough negative attention to last the franchise a lifetime.
                        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05


                        • #13
                          Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                          Not exactly sure If I would want him owning the Pacers, but I love him as a person.

                          He's the Anti-Stern.

                          Cuban is not afraid to spend the money when needed, and undertands it's a business but does not forget the Fans are what drives it.

                          His antics and perceived arrogance I am sure turns off some, but you cannot deny his passion and will to win, not just turn a profit.

                          It's comical how many people where singing his praises just a week ago..

                          Why Not Us ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                            Originally posted by Cuban
                            What any of the 13 participants on the court did and how they did it is pretty easy to document for 99.9 pct of the time on the clock. The other .01 can be grey.
                            Wouldn't it be the other .1 can be grey?


                            • #15
                              Re: Mark Cuban speaks: June 22, 2006

                              Originally posted by Frank Slade
                              Not exactly sure If I would want him owning the Pacers, but I love him as a person.

                              He's the Anti-Stern.

                              Cuban is not afraid to spend the money when needed, and undertands it's a business but does not forget the Fans are what drives it.

                              His antics and perceived arrogance I am sure turns off some, but you cannot deny his passion and will to win, not just turn a profit.

                              It's comical how many people where singing his praises just a week ago..
                              I agree.

                              I love him to death, although at times he doesnt know when to keep his mouth shut.

                              If I owned a team I would hope I would be a mixture of both him and the Simons, although I would most. def want to be my own GM.