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

Rays of Sun in the Offseason

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

    I was shocked when Paul was not the consensus number 1 at the time, and I didn't see the hype with Deron and I thought he'd bust.


    • #17
      Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

      Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post

      Your first guarantee is crazy and unlikely to come true. Bayless will be counted on for less because he has far superior teammates than Rush has. Despite that, Bayless has a good chance to become an NBA star, while Rush is a Rush, meaning that there's a good chance that he won't live up to his pre-draft hype, just like his brothers..
      Reading comprehension is hard. He very specifically stated the 08-09 season, not career. Seems fairly likely that he will be correct considering the two teams rosters. You need to let your anger at the trade chill, it is clouding your cognitive abilities.


      • #18
        Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
        I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot. Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.
        I know you don't want to hear it, but Rush has Kobe Bryant skills with a better shot. Bayless has "Dajuan Wagner" written all over him.

        Just because I say it doesn't make it true.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie


        • #19
          Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

          Originally posted by Isaac View Post
          This may be one of the most ignorant things I have read on a message board.

          Chris Paul is a pure point guard, the hope is that Jerryd Bayless can become a point guard. The best aspect of Bayless' game is his jumpshot, while that was the main concern (other than size) surrounding Paul when he was drafted.

          They couldn't be more different players, other than the fact that they are both fast.

          TJ Ford is a heck of a lot more like Paul than Bayless.
          I trust Kevin Pritchard's ability to evaluate players a lot more than I trust Larry Bird's ability. If Pritchard thought Bayless was the fourth best player in the draft, I expect that he'll be pretty good.

          And for that matter, I trust Pritchard's evaluation skills a lot more than I trust yours. Come back at the end of the next season and remind me how ignorant my statement was.


          • #20
            Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

            I'm not saying Bayless won't be a good player, I think he'll be excellent.

            The point is that he's nothing like Chris Paul.


            • #21
              Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

              1. The Pacers are no longer relying on injury-prone/unreliable players.
              You'll definitely be relying on one who's injury prone. He's your starting PG.

              Also, Troy Murphy is arguably 2nd best PF in the Central division right now, behind only Rasheed Wallace.
              That's quite the argument

              1. Brandon Rush will be more important to the Pacers in 08-09 than Jerryd Bayless will be to the Blazers.
              2. Jarrett Jack will be more important to the Pacers in than Ike Diogu will be to the Blazers.
              Given the fact that the Blazers already have the likes of Oden, Aldridge, Roy, Blake, Outlaw and Fernandez, that's not saying much. Ike probably won't even sniff the court. If you're Nate McMillan, why would you let him with the guys you've got in front of him?
              Last edited by d_c; 07-04-2008, 03:06 AM.


              • #22
                Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                1. Ike is due to make about 4m this coming year so he will be on the roster.
                2. Kevin Pritchard looks like a hero, not hard when you are selecting 1st 2nd or 3rd. The talent level is remarkable better.
                3. Bayless has a chance to be a great player, so does B.Rush. This trade, however it pans out will not decide who's the better GM.
                4.We had a PG coming (Ford) we needed another (Jack) and we needed a
                SG and Rush is very good.
                5.Hibbert could turn out to be the best out of all of them.
                "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)


                • #23
                  Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                  Chris Paul is not just one of the best players in the league right now. He appears to be one of the best PG's of all time...if he simply stays the course. I was not really convinced of that until I began following him more closely after reading some of the wild statements being made about him. IOW, I reluctantly became a believer.

                  Anyway, to compare a combo guard with questionable PG skills to someone who may be one of the greatest PG's of all time is so way over the top it's not even funny.

                  Now, Kevin Prichard clearly appears to be a good GM. On a side note, I personally knew him when he was like 12 years old. He went to Noblesville Schools just north of Indianapolis. The guy has obviously made good for himself, but like everyone else, no, he has no crystal ball. Some of his decisions have yet to be judged. For a big one, picking Oden over Durant could turn out to be a colossal mistake. We will soon know whether that pick was the right one. All I know is, Oden didn't contribute anything last year and is not polished at all on offense. Even our #17 pick stood toe to toe with him and arguably outplayed him. IMO, they should have taken Durant who will be an absolutely dominant scorer as early as this year.
                  Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia


                  • #24
                    Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    You'll definitely be relying on one who's injury prone. He's your starting PG.
                    I know that, but a) he's more reliable than Tinsley and b) a Jack/Diener backcourt is still an improvement over what we had last year. Bird knew that Ford has injury issues, so he went out and got a starting caliber back-up PG. We never had one of those while Tinsley was here.

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    That's quite the argument
                    Who is all that much better? Look at the other PF's in our division: Villanueva, Gooden, Joe Smith, Varejao, Tyrus Thomas. I'm not saying Troy's the best player in that group, I just think that you can make a cogent argument for him being better than anyone of those guys.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie


                    • #25
                      Re: Rays of Sun in the Offseason

                      Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                      Your second guarantee is not too earth-shattering. Diogu is not even a sure thing to make the Blazers' roster, and is a longshot to get much playing time.

                      Your first guarantee is crazy and unlikely to come true. Bayless will be counted on for less because he has far superior teammates than Rush has. Despite that, Bayless has a good chance to become an NBA star, while Rush is a Rush, meaning that there's a good chance that he won't live up to his pre-draft hype, just like his brothers.

                      I know you don't want to hear it, but Bayless has Chris Paul skills with a better shot. Rush has "journeyman" written all over him.
                      Kareem's older brother, Jaron, wasn't even drafted.

                      Your brother logic doesn't hold up well. I could name a ton more brothers who only had one great player than brothers who all played well.

                      Bayless only has Steve Blake ahead of him on the rotation (assuming Bayless can even play PG). Rush has Dunleavy or Granger, two players coming off career seasons.

                      I do love the Chris Paul comparison. The difference between the two is that Paul can play point in the NBA and Bayless hasn't proven himself as PG up to this point in his career.

                      How does Rush have journeyman written all over him?