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

Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

    The Flyer Group

    Brenda Holmes

    August 18, 2010

    Sideline reporter helps Sheltering Wings
    Pacers staffer shares domestic violence story
    By Brenda L. Holmes

    DANVILLE — DANVILLE — Stacy Paetz is known as a high energy, self-confident sideline reporter for the Indiana Pacers. She now shares her personal experience with domestic violence to help Sheltering Wings.

    “My purpose with the campaign is to get the word our there,” Paetz said. “The more knowledge we have the more strength we have. And Sheltering Wings represents that.”

    Sheltering Wings, the domestic violence shelter for women and their dependent children, has announced plans to expand its current facility.

    The shelter opened its doors in January 2002. At that time, the staff felt the shelter could accommodate 44 women and children, which would service the Hendricks County community.

    The number of abused women and children has continued to rise in the area, and because of the need the staff and governing body have decided it’s time to raise funds and expand to solve overcrowding issues.

    Paetz is co-chairing the fundraising portion of the project with Angela Ganote, a news anchor from FOX 59.

    She was invited to tour the shelter just a two short years ago by Executive Director Maria Larrison.

    “Walking into the shelter was very emotional for me,” Paetz said. “For the longest time I didn’t share my story. They just knew me as a girl from television with a good personality and character.”

    “Maria had no idea I had a personal story until I told her,” she said. “And I have never spoken of it publicly until this campaign started.”

    She said her abuse came from a boyfriend when she was still a teenager — a freshman in college.

    “First it was name calling,” Paetz said. “And of course I knew it wasn’t right. I knew I didn’t deserve it.”

    She said she started feeling shame for allowing this man to degrade her.

    “Then he started threatening me and it very quickly turned into actual violence,” Paetz said. “He would threaten to punch me, then he would punch or shove me down.”

    She said he would require her to come to his dorm every day to make sure she was dressed appropriately.

    “I’ve never been a revealing dresser but he wanted me in sweat pants and sweat shirts,” she said. “He didn’t want anyone looking at me.”

    Paetz said she knew what was happening was abuse but lost her self-esteem.

    “I felt that I was a strong person,” she said. “I was a good student, a three-sport athlete, and had a loving family. He would tell me it was my fault when he lost control ... and I believed him.”

    Her abuser told her if she ever left him he would, “mess me up so bad nobody else would want me. He even threatened to kill me.”

    She had a childhood friend who was murdered by her ex-finacé.

    “I knew she was in an abusive relationship just like me,” Paetz said. “I would plan for us both to break up with our boyfriends together.”

    A friend called Paetz after the murder and said, “Stacy, we thought it was you.”

    She said this was a turning point in her life. Paetz had been in the abusive relationship for three and a half years.

    “When she was killed it was a major reality check,” she said. “The closer I got to the Lord the more I realized I had the power to make a change in my life.”

    At this point, her boyfriend had graduated from college and was living in another state.

    “I broke up with him over the phone,” she said. “I kept the conversation very matter-of-fact, and asked him not to call me back.”

    She said he didn’t listen and called her “every 10 minutes for the next two weeks.”

    Paetz said when she hung up from the phone call to break up she was greeted by her younger brother with applause.

    “My little brother was 10 or 11, but he has always had a strong sense of wisdom,” she said. “When I walked out my baby brother was clapping and said, ‘You are finally away from that guy. He was so mean to you. He was not a nice guy.’”

    She said her brother knew nothing of the physical violence, only of the verbal abuse he had witnessed.

    “Shortly after that I was a new person,” Paetz said. “I don’t even know that girl anymore. It was very liberating.”

    Paetz said she would love to talk to teens about her experiences. She wants them to know there is always a way out and there are places like Sheltering Wings what will help.

    That’s why she has become involved in fundraising for the expansion project.

    “When I first toured the shelter I felt so safe,” she said.

    Since then she’s become a strong supporter for the shelter and its mission.

    “Sheltering Wings is one of those amazing places with amazing individuals with such big hearts and the willingness and the desire to help women get out of situations they didn’t feel they could get out of,” she said.

    “This is a place where they can go not only to feel safe and protected but also to learn that they can be the women they want to be. And live the lives they are supposed to live,” she added.

    The fundraising project is just now moving into the public phase where the community is being asked to help.

    As of Aug. 1, $2.35 million has been raised toward the campaign goal of $3.5 million. These funds were raised during the silent phase of the campaign. The United Way has made a commitment of $1 million of funding and the Federal Home Loan Bank has added $750,000 to the campaign.

    The campaign is a three-year project with several giving options to support it. These options may be accessed online at or by calling 718-0735.

    They are:

    * Monetary Donations — Pledge letters are available online and one-time or recurring donation options are given. Naming opportunities are also available.

    * Paver Project — The new courtyard will provide a safe place for the families who live here at the shelter. A total of nearly 9,000 small or 4,500 large pavers are needed to fill it. Order forms are available online or by calling the shelter.

    * Furnishing Registry — Once the expansion is completed furnishings will be needed. A list of these needs is being developed and will be available online this fall.

  • #2
    Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

    Good for Stacy. Glad to hear she has overcome something like that. Also unfortunate to hear about her friend.

    I've always liked Stacy. The few times I've met her she's been really nice and friendly, and I think she's done a great job taking over for Scott Hoke as the Pacers Sideline/Post-Game Reporter. I hope for nothing but good things for her down the road. Tremendous gal.


    • #3
      Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

      Interesting timing.
      "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

      "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

      "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider


      • #4
        Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

        I must find her ex-boyfriend and destroy him. No one hurts my Stacy!!


        • #5
          Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

          My level of respect for Stacey Paetz just increased substantially.

          It took real courage to come out with this story, especially with this being a local hot-button topic now, and in a way that may make some members of the public do the right thing with respect to their own personal lives due to this having been shared voluntarily, whether it is people choosing to leave abusive relationships or people who are being abusive coming to a realization that their actions are wrong. I realize that the second part regarding a realization that their actions are wrong is a stretch and pretty unrealistic, though.

          Even with the timing of it making it very likely to be pr motivated due to her strong association with the Pacers, it still is a very positive contribution to the community in my opinion.


          • #6
            Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

            Am I the only one who doesn't like Stacey Paetz at all? I'm sure she might be a cool person, but I really don't like her as a sideline/post-game/anything else reporter.


            • #7
              Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

              Originally posted by Swish View Post
              Am I the only one who doesn't like Stacey Paetz at all? I'm sure she might be a cool person, but I really don't like her as a sideline/post-game/anything else reporter.
              I didn't wanna say it during the love-fest, but I agree with you....never really liked her reporting. Sorry guys...


              • #8
                Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                Originally posted by Swish View Post
                Am I the only one who doesn't like Stacey Paetz at all? I'm sure she might be a cool person, but I really don't like her as a sideline/post-game/anything else reporter.
                I'm not really listening to her when she talks...her looks are very distracting. I'm always trying to figure out if I think she is hot or not to telll you the true. My wife often chimes in on that topic too. She is very handsome is the verdict. I guess I should go look at some recordings and judge her reporting.

                ..and yes, my respect level is definitely higher for her now too.


                • #9
                  Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                  Originally posted by Hawkman View Post
                  “I broke up with him over the phone,” she said. “I kept the conversation very matter-of-fact, and asked him not to call me back.”

                  She said he didn’t listen and called her “every 10 minutes for the next two weeks.”
                  Hmm...telling someone not to talk to you again and then having to deal with constant phone calls. Someone should tell Stacy that this sort of behavior causes vasoconstriction and that she's bringing it onto herself if it leads the man to show up at her house at 5AM.


                  • #10
                    Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                    Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                    I must find her ex-boyfriend and destroy him. No one hurts my Stacy!!
                    Lets put a contract out on him. It doesn't matter whether you like her side line reporting (in which I do). What matters is she's part of the Pacers team, and didn't deserve this.
                    Last edited by aceace; 08-19-2010, 08:00 PM.
                    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)


                    • #11
                      Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                      lets send Lance after Paetz's ex
                      follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!


                      • #12
                        Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                        I am now an even bigger Stacy fan.


                        • #13
                          Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                          I think she's sexy.


                          • #14
                            Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                            It's too bad we didn't know about this while Jackson, Tinsley, and Daniels were still here. All we would have had to do was find her ex-boyfriend at a shady night club or strip joint the evening before a big game and he would have been doomed.


                            • #15
                              Re: Stacy Paetz on domestic violence

                              I didn't like Stacy at first but she's grown on me. She's pretty cool. Has even sent me a few direct messages on twitter. Yeah we're bffs. I need to stop posting at 4 am.
                              Great story. Glad she's come through it. Hopefully they exceed their fund raising goal
                              Doing the twitter thing JonnyB83
                              Also JonnyB83 on facebook....we should be friends!