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

Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

    Originally posted by justinDOHMAN View Post
    We arent trading foster.. he is a lifer and the organization loves him.
    I don't know. These are desperate times.

    It would be a blessing to Jeff, to play for a possible contender.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


    • #32
      Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

      Bayless should just shut up. He's not good enough to be asking for a trade.

      You're in your second year in the league - shut up, learn as much as you can, and be ready when your number is called.


      • #33
        Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

        Originally posted by bkenny View Post
        I'm tired of people talking about "attitude."

        Wasn't Larry considered one of the BIGGEST TRASH TALKERS in the league....EVER.

        No, not even close. Where are you coming up with that? He was cocky to be sure, but not a trash talker.(with a few exceptions, as with most players that play 10+ years).

        Then the most recent pride and glory of Pacer basketball, Reggie Miller!!!!! There is a reason spike lee sent him black roses before knicks games....

        Yes, and the reason is because Miller threw daggers in them with regularity. But as in jump shots, not trash talking. He did, on occasion, but again, not even close to the REAL trash talkers.

        Get over it, PLEASE! If you dont, we're never going to get players like Larry, Reggie, Kobe...... and the list goes on

        Winners have attitude.....losers play nice

        Attitude (trash talking) has NOTHING to do with winning or losing.


        • #34
          Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

          Hey, for all you Larry bashers, looks like that Bayless trade (for which some of you screamed we were robbed) is looking pretty good. Eh?


          • #35
            Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

            Originally posted by quinnthology View Post
            With all due respect you have no idea what you're talking about. Both of my roommates grew up with Bayless in Scottsdale, Arizona and he has always been a stand up citizen in his community and a really nice guy at the local gym. He held doors opens, talked to every little kid who wanted to talk to him and played team ball in pickup games. He plays hard and gets the game. He's simply frustrated that he's a talented guard on a guard-heavy team.

            Please stop with all the character judging on this forum. It really gets old.
            That sounds nice. But do you really think players don't change when they hit the NBA????


            • #36
              Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

              Bayless for Rush


              • #37
                Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                We have nothing to offer.

                Even if we did I'm not sure he is the answer to anything we need. Maybe as a back up to T.J. (let's face it he is not going to come here and start) and then is he really better than Watson at this point in time?
                I don't know that I like his game more than Price's game for the Pacers.

                Bayless - better handles, quicker, better scorer in traffic

                Price - more mature, better awareness on offense, runs a team from the PG more, better defender (Bayless has zip for defense usually)

                To me Bayless is to TJ what Price is to Watson. It's not quite the same, not quite as simple as "poor man's version with potential", but almost. I'm firmly in the Watson/Price camp vs a TJ/Bayless camp.

                TJ is more talented than Watson, but when you see them play you can tell that Watson is better for the TEAM needs.

                Then you have the Jackson/Artest/Harrington factor. He asked for a trade, therefore he's a scumbag jerk of a teammate and we have no interest in that kind of attitude. You want to win? You want to start? You want to play more? You want to be more involved in the offense? These all fall under the umbrella of things we hate about a player.*

                *if we already hate the player that is, otherwise it's a sign of competitiveness.


                • #38
                  Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

                  Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                  I'm usually with BnG but on this one I'm not. I think pretty highly of Bayless. However I believe most of this perceived attitude is from when we drafted him. He didn't seem very .... excited.--
                  It's more than just that, though that might be a good example of where people were concerned. Prior to the draft the one rumor going around on him was that at several workouts he left them with a bad impression of his attitude. I think in general that surrounded his attitude about working out for them, running drills or whatever he may have thought was "beneath him".

                  This rumor seemed to be partially verified when in fact he dropped from his top 5 standing all year long to out of the top 10. Certainly other factors might have been in play, but the smaller and less talented DJ Augustin was drafted before him as well.

                  So from the outside you had clear indicators of SOME TYPE of issue, something that scouts weren't pointing out while games were going on.

                  Then you get Portland and they continually turn to Steve Blake for huge minutes rather than trying to work Bayless into the fold. On top of this they then went and acquired Andre Miller.

                  So the Blazers by their actions are waving huge flags on Bayless. If he's got the talent then you would expect them to be exploring it by this point, as in finding ways to get him on the court and looking to clear up the PG/Combo jam in front of him.

                  Let's say Bayless is Rose, for example. Does Rose get zero PT while Blake gets 35 minutes? No. So how much worse does Rose have to be before he's getting regular DNPs? To me it seems like the Blazers would have to have a pretty low opinion of him not to be finding ways to get him involved. He is a big investment after all, costing them Jack and Rush.

                  Is he polite and/or well-mannered. Quite possibly. But is he an arrogant preppy jerk who sees himself above his teammates, playing defense or earning his way up the ladder??? That's where I think the questions lie.

                  I don't know the answer, I just know the "answer" the NBA has given us based on interest in acquiring him or playing him in the case of the Blazers. I mean it's not like Nate has a bad coaching record or doesn't know the guard position.

                  BTW - I scouted Bayless as a very strong prospect personally. I was thrilled to get him, but then even more pleased when we got Jack AND Rush. I was surprised by the draft fall and Portland PT.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-09-2009, 02:23 PM.


                  • #39
                    Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

                    Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                    Hey, for all you Larry bashers, looks like that Bayless trade (for which some of you screamed we were robbed) is looking pretty good. Eh?
                    cuz we still have jack and rush is doing amazing

                    bayless looked so sweet on draft night tho. killer tux.
                    follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!


                    • #40
                      Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

                      Originally posted by MLB007 View Post

                      Attitude (trash talking) has NOTHING to do with winning or losing.
                      Maybe, but it always seems like winners have that winning attitude that they are always better than everyone else!

                      Hence, they are trash talking about it


                      • #41
                        Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

                        Originally posted by HanSolo View Post
                        cuz we still have jack and rush is doing amazing

                        bayless looked so sweet on draft night tho. killer tux.
                        We let Jack go. Fact remains that we got him in that trade and he was a hell of a lot better than Bayless. Rush is no worse than him and has shown flashes. Diogu was worthless and Josh is still on the roster.

                        And you've got exactly WHAT to argue your side???????

                        (that's what I thought)


                        • #42
                          Re: Bayless Wants Portland To Deal Him

                          Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                          We let Jack go. Fact remains that we got him in that trade and he was a hell of a lot better than Bayless. Rush is no worse than him and has shown flashes. Diogu was worthless and Josh is still on the roster.

                          And you've got exactly WHAT to argue your side???????

                          (that's what I thought)
                          ..... that's what you thought? Are you kidding me?

                          Whether we let Jack go or he ran off and had an affair it doesn't matter. The fact is he was a 1 year rental. A 1 year rental on a team that didn't even make the playoffs is worthless. If he comes here and contributes to a championship, it matters. Otherwise, no.

                          Secondly, Rush has shown "a" flash. Not really enough to make the word plural. It was a couple week span at the end of last year and he has come in here this year shooting bricks and looking scared on offense just like most of last year.

                          Bayless is 3 years younger and buried on the bench of a team much better than our own. Yet, when Bayless has played he's looked anything except scared or intimidated. Those are 2 words I've seen used to describe Rush at times. To me that's already a damn good start. We'll find out the truth one day when Bayless is in a place where he can get some regular minutes. Certainly not before that.

                          If Diogu is worthless, so is Josh. Just being on the roster doesn't mean he's worth anything, it means he's willing to sit on the bench for a cheap salary and it helps the team with our money problems.

                          -- Steve --