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

Vote of confidence: The Simons

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

  • #16
    Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

    Peck, I believe if Walsh and or Bird had gone to the Simons and said that Brad Miller was needed and the price to keep him was worth it - the Simons would have paid the luxury tax to keep him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

      Herb and Mel? YES!!



      I do worry that the family might become involved someday and how that would impact the franchise.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
        A tepid yes.

        They've been overly loyal to DW and that's a mistake right now IMO. OTOH they've been very loyal to Indy - maybe overly so there too. Plus they don't interfere too much with basketball decisions - they know they build malls and shopping centers, not basketball teams.

        And if you're going to be "overly" something I'd prefer people who are overly loyal to people who are overly fickle.

        Unless you're Jim Dolan who I wish would just haul Isiah off to an island somewhere and make him his butt-monkey already.
        While I understand everyone willing to fall on their swords for the Simons you have to ask how far will they let the team sink before taking action... or will they let it sink so far that they reach a point where they think the only thing left to do is move or sell the franchise to another city?

        As I've said, if the Simons think this team is being operated properly, and if things don't change (which so far they haven't been), then how can they believe anything other than Indy won't support NBA basketball any longer? They can blame the city government... blame the loss of control of the local media... blame the resurgence of IU and Purdue (along with recent Butler successes)... blame the city and state's love affair with the Colts and growing reputation as an NFL town... the loss of interest in basketball at the grassroots level since the inception of class basketball.... etc...

        There's just a lot of places they can put the blame if they don't want to look into the mirror.

        As said in this thread, the Simons aren't basketball people. They don't appear to have the overwhelming desire to see this team win a championship which has allowed the team to operate with the bar too low for too many years. It's an angle of this whole thing that has allowed Walsh to stay on as long as he has.

        Just as it's hard for many players to step away from the game even after it's passed them by, I'm sure it's hard for Walsh. Particularly when the media and fans have given him a pass for so long based on his moves 15-20 years ago.

        But how long can you keep giving all these people a pass for being loyal to each other? At what point does someone have to start thinking about being loyal to the fans and city... or even loyal to the NBA and not allowing a franchise to flounder like this and lose fans right and left?

        If the people you've hired to operate the team can't fix it, won't fix it, or move so slow via bad moves and no moves that things are snowballing, how long can you sit back and watch before needing to step in the forefront and make a bold move before it's too late?

        I think the Simons have allowed a snowball to start building whose end result will be the Pacers leaving Indianapolis. Something has to change to stop that snowball.

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

          Well I see that we are not interested in playing by the rules here.

          Yes yes we all know the Simons saved the city there is no doubting that, however that does not answer the question of can they get us out of this mess currently.

          Also Hicks, I know about the whole Brad thing. I just used that as an example. Remember I was the one who canceled my tickets until I actually heard Herb say he would have paid the luxuary tax if Donnie thought he should have.


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

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Well I see that we are not interested in playing by the rules here.

            Yes yes we all know the Simons saved the city there is no doubting that, however that does not answer the question of can they get us out of this mess currently.

            Also Hicks, I know about the whole Brad thing. I just used that as an example. Remember I was the one who canceled my tickets until I actually heard Herb say he would have paid the luxuary tax if Donnie thought he should have.
            I'm trying to stick to the rules....

            The Simons can only get us out of this mess now by doing something much differently than they've done in the past. I don't have a high level of confidence that they're willing to do that. IF they continue to hand out votes of confidence to those below them, then we're in trouble. Past history says they will continue to allow those under them to run the franchise in the wrong direction.

            It's not been that long ago that one of the Simons was quoted as saying he didn't want to own a team that didn't involve Donnie Walsh (or something similar to that). That's just not a comforting feeling that we're about to rearrange the team goals, develop a new vision for the franchise, and become a player in the 21st century NBA.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I'm trying to stick to the rules....

              The Simons can only get us out of this mess now by doing something much differently than they've done in the past. I don't have a high level of confidence that they're willing to do that. IF they continue to hand out votes of confidence to those below them, then we're in trouble. Past history says they will continue to allow those under them to run the franchise in the wrong direction.

              It's not been that long ago that one of the Simons was quoted as saying he didn't want to own a team that didn't involve Donnie Walsh (or something similar to that). That's just not a comforting feeling that we're about to rearrange the team goals, develop a new vision for the franchise, and become a player in the 21st century NBA.

              -Bball
              I wasn't talking about you.


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

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                I wasn't talking about you.


                WHAT??? Me then?????



                Peck...your original assertion is flawed, it doesn't all end here "at the top".

                There is one other....Der Furher....Da Commish....David Stern. Is the Pacer plight tied to the plight of the NBA? Has DS become so enamored with his vision of a Universal NBA that he has let the homeland fall to ruin? I leave it to you to pose that as another question in another thread.
                Last edited by indygeezer; 03-04-2008, 01:24 PM.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  Well I see that we are not interested in playing by the rules here.

                  Yes yes we all know the Simons saved the city there is no doubting that, however that does not answer the question of can they get us out of this mess currently.

                  Also Hicks, I know about the whole Brad thing. I just used that as an example. Remember I was the one who canceled my tickets until I actually heard Herb say he would have paid the luxuary tax if Donnie thought he should have.
                  I guess I didn't answer your question - yes they can get us out of this mess -If they don't, and sell the team it will be moved.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                    I am confident that they want whats best for the team and the city. I am not 100% sure they know how to do that. That is where management comes in and ownership leaves.

                    I would rather have them, then a Cuban. At some point you have to let the people do their job, and the Simons allow that.

                    So I say yes. Their past experience has shown this.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                      Why should Herb and Mel be pulling us out of anything? That's what they hire people to do. I doubt they confer with Slick or JOB about diminishing mall sales. Hell, if you can't depend on the people you hire what's the point?

                      Peck, you can't discount the civic aspect of this. They knew they weren't basketball people but they made a major commitment.

                      I'm sorry, but I don't point the finger at the Simons. I don't point the finger at Bird, I don't point the finger at Walsh. Moves were made that, on paper, were terrific for this franchise. Unfortunately, we had players who diminished their own stock quicker than Enron tying the hands of what could - and more importantly COULD NOT be done.

                      This has been a proud, respectable franchise that has been victimized by the likes of Artest, Tinsley, Williams, Harrison, Jackson none of whom gave a ***** about TPTB, the coach, the fans, the city. And I'm not above throwing our paper leader under that same bus.

                      Bball - I disagree with your assessment of the post brawl reaction of the Simons. I think they were livid and vociferous in their protest.

                      Can the Simons deliver us from this destructive path? Who knows? I say yes. The question is who else is going to do it? That's right - nobody - at least not in this city.

                      And last but not least, I'm not going to criticize an owner for making attempts to be fiscally responsible. I'm still on the fence about Brad. He was way overpaid on the market. But then, on the other side, we were too quick with Bender, too quick with Tinsley and paying franchise money to a non-franchise player.

                      Rewards and risks are a two-way street and we have just had too many players wear the mask until payday before revealing themselves.
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                        Uncle Buck

                        I have to disagree with you on one point.

                        If the Simon's sell the team I'm pretty sure they will make sure it remains in Indy.

                        I don't see the Simon's stabbing this city in the back like that. Not after all they have done for Indy.

                        I'll stick my answer to Peck's question too.

                        I don't think the Simons have it in them to turn this thing around. Its not in their MO. They would have to take some bold steps & let some people go. Walsh might go on his own, Bird will have to be pushed & I don't see any of the Simon's doing that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                          Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                          Uncle Buck

                          I have to disagree with you on one point.

                          If the Simon's sell the team I'm pretty sure they will make sure it remains in Indy.

                          I don't see the Simon's stabbing this city in the back like that. Not after all they have done for Indy.

                          I'll stick my answer to Peck's question too.

                          I don't think the Simons have it in them to turn this thing around. Its not in their MO. They would have to take some bold steps & let some people go. Walsh might go on his own, Bird will have to be pushed & I don't see any of the Simon's doing that.

                          But what if the Pacers stay in the Simon family and things continue like they are right now - I believe the younger Simons will look to sell the team and in that scenerio, it is more likely than not for the Pacers to leave Indianapolis. My guess is in about 3 years Seattle will make a very hard push for a team.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                            It pains me to say it but I agree with UB about what might happen when the younger Simons take over the team.

                            I'd like to have confidence in Mel and Herb, but IMO they need to get rid of Larry and Donnie. I just don't think they'll have the balls to do it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                              I agree with what ABA is saying.

                              As far as the whole Brad thing really can't blame them for not wanting to pay the luxury tax. The Pacers already had enough money tied up into players and considering the fact that we won 61 games with Jeff Foster as our center and damn near made the finals I really don't think that Brad was worth the money for the Pacers.

                              Anyways lets face it this is probably the lowest point in the franchise history since the Simions became owners. I don't think they have ever had to deal with a situation this badly before. As ABA pointed out it's really the players fault.

                              As far as the Simions getting rid of Larry/Donnie I don't think so. Especially Donnie. All the success Donnie has had and then you fire him now? Who the hell is going to want to work for the Pacers if they did that? They are running a business here and they don't want a reputation of treating employees badly.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Vote of confidence: The Simons

                                It strikes me that the Simons have been fairly hands off. However, they've proven to be very astute businessmen and have continued to see their company prosper despite a lot of change in the retail industry. That gives me confidence that they certainly have the capability to turn things around.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X