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

Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

    Ok, this might be tough. But I am going to try and make this as simple as possible.

    Whatever Donnie's role is on the team, do you have faith in him to fix the problem the Pacers are in at present.

    You can use past behavior as an indicator of what you feel like he would do but you can't use past behavior to totally justify your feelings on this.

    Example from each side.

    "Donnie drafted Reggie and had 20 years of great Pacers basketball so I will always give him a pass because he has earned it".

    "Donnie do nothing has never truely done anything worth maintaining his job and he should have been out of here years ago, I don't care if he can or can't get us out of this he needs to be gone.

    Both of the above are not what this vote is about.

    This is purely and simply can Donnie Walsh in his current capacity with the club help bring us out of this?

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

  • #2
    Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

    Years ago I was a devout follower of The Donnie, all wise and powerful. Then I saw that Scuzzy Cotton Candy Guy had been rehired. I don't care what Donnie's position is, you let that man back in the building, you've got to go.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


    • #3
      Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

      I don't think he's the guy who is going to get us out of this mess.
      "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."


      • #4
        Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

        What mess? I thought we were doing well...
        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


        • #5
          Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

          I have to say no because he needs to let Larry have the total control and go off somewhere and fish or do what old retired GM's do. Give larry the rope to hang himself or pull himself out of the **** that has been created.


          • #6
            Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

            VERY shaky confidence.


            • #7
              Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

              i don't think donnie's heart is in the job any more. after 20 years it's kind of understandable.

              remember those reports linking donnie to the knicks' (expected to be vacant) gm position? now that's the kind of challenge that will get donnie's adrenaline rushing. but rebuilding the pacers, again? why bother when anything less than success will just tarnish his legacy here.


              • #8
                Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

                Donnie won't pull us out of this mess. I have zero confidence in him going forward. He has done a nice job overall for the organization but it's time for a change.


                • #9
                  Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh


                  I think the organization just needs some fresh eyes to see the team for what it is and start to make the needed changes. I think Donnie is great but no longer the right man for the Pacers


                  • #10
                    Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

                    What is Donnie's title? CEO of PSE? Then he has no chance of pulling us out until he hires a Special Assistant to the CEO of PSE whose sole job is to fire Larry Bird, because I don't think DW will do it himself.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.


                    • #11
                      Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Whatever Donnie's role is on the team, do you have faith in him to fix the problem the Pacers are in at present.
                      No. It's my understanding he's only going to be here 4 more months.


                      • #12
                        Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

                        Every time I read a post about how sad the state of the Pacers is, one name comes to mind.

                        Who brought in the players who've created such a bad PR image?

                        Who's put the Pacers in a salary cap mess second only to the Knicks?

                        Who brought in a coach for a team with a skill set that totally mismatches his coaching style?

                        You can substitute Larry Bird for Donnie Walsh in many cases in which case my question becomes, "Who brought in Larry Bird?"

                        At one time I thought Donnie Walsh was one of the top 5 GM's in the league. He was able to keep the Pacers very competitive with a good salary structure for a lot of years - and we have to remember that winning a title was never his number 1 goal. The number one goal was always competitiveness on a long-term basis, to the point where he made moves that hurt the chances of winning a title in the short term in return for long-term stability and competitiveness.

                        Over the past 3-4 years I believe he's been one of the bottom 5 GM's in the league. Of course you may argue that Bird's been the real GM the last couple of years in which case I refer you to my question above.

                        It's been time for Donnie Walsh to be gone for a couple of years. The only GM who can rival him for overstaying is Isiah Thomas.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire


                        • #13
                          Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

                          Originally posted by Mal View Post
                          VERY shaky confidence.

                          (The closest they have is "diminished confidence", though.)
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                          • #14
                            Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh


                            Not because of Donnie's ability because I think he's still fine, but because it would require the removal of Bird from the picture and that ain't happenin'.

                            DW has made a lot of pretty savvy trades in the last 15 years, so he appears to have the smarts and the relationships to deal. But was it Donnie that really wanted Ike, or Troy, or Dun or whatever that deal was about?

                            Seems doubtful to me, and more so given the lack of push to make sure Ike gets PT right now.

                            I really think DW has stepped out already, at least effectively as the main guy, and has been maintaining a public sense of involvement to help the transition for Bird. "My bad" is a way to suggest Bird is just fine even if perhaps he's been making more calls than their public comments sometimes suggest.

                            There is just too great a string of pretty smart deals for this to suddenly fall off the map, just like I suggested with blaming the sudden losing on Rick last year (turns out it's the roster after all). When someone has a history of mostly doing Det/Herb or Pooh/Jax or Dale/JO or Rose/half-season Jax rental types of deals suddenly jumps the shark pretty badly I think you have to look at what changed.

                            When was the last great Pacers trade? Rose/Best for Ron/Miller. I know Ron flipped out, but before then he was DPOY, AS and the two of them clearly improved the team's ability to win and were low salary at the time.

                            DW avoided signing Brad to save money, but suddenly he's cool with the cost/length increase of the GS deal? Isn't that odd? The guy let Jax walk on a small amount of salary. The Dale/JO deal apparently started with Dale's salary interests too.

                            In short, it's never going to be just DW again and even if it was I suppose there could be an issue with DW that's turned him to muck.

                            I think he COULD turn this around but will never get the chance. He'll do that for NY instead, or he'll outright retire.


                            • #15
                              Re: Vote of confidence: Donnie Walsh

                              You can substitute Larry Bird for Donnie Walsh in many cases in which case my question becomes, "Who brought in Larry Bird?"
                              Valid point, but let's keep in mind that the fans have some say in this as do the Simons. If DW is telling the truth and it was his choice to move Jackson, then you must also believe his reasoning which was that the fans drove him to do it.

                              Well there is a reason why Larry is called Boomer for Adults.

                              On top of this my big "conspiracy" theory on Bird's hiring is this simple reason:

                              DW left Rick hanging and burned that bridge, and DW signed JO. DW wants to undo things and get Rick in and fire Isiah. How can he do that if JO will walk/operation shutdown and Rick isn't feeling it after the last time?

                              Larry Bird, buddy of Rick, enemy of Isiah. He's the olive branch to Rick, solved. He's the "out of my hands JO, these guys have history" for the Isiah problem.

                              Add to this that the Simons and DW wanted Larry to stay in the first place. It's the perfect solution. I just think like the Ron deal they were dealing with the devil ultimately. The short term solution had a big cost.

                              That is on DW...or the Simons if they were pushing that along.