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

Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

    Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
    Honest question. I see some folks on here defending the record and play as a result of the youth movement...but hasn't that youth movement been going on for a while now?


    • #17
      Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

      The way this board bounces, should the Pacers beat the Celtics, this thread will become "What do we need to change?"
      I am not certain what we need to do other than bring in guys who will bring EFFORT every night. This business of throwing up three pointers and missing gimmes while playing no defense doesn't add up to anyone's "three year plan", Bird included.
      The pieces are there..where's the motivation?


      • #18
        Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

        I think we have to wait until after the off season to really tell.

        Our big thing was the money we would have to spend. We haven't seen where we're going to go with that, yet.

        If Bird fails to bring in good players in the off season, then the 3 year plan was probably a massive failure.

        It's clear that a good majority of the roster needs to go. But it's unfair until we see what Bird can do with all that money we've been waiting to go away.

        But also, to be fair, it's very very hard to rebuild a whole team into what most of us expect in a 3 year period. That's not easy to do. And I think people sometimes view the real Pacers as NBA 2k11 or some other video game. Dealing with that actual amount of money and contracts is no easy task to handle. It's not like Bird can just turn on "Trade Override" and suddenly we're dominating. It doesn't work that way.

        We'll see, though.
        Stop quoting people I have on ignore!


        • #19
          Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

          I think the originater of this thread slightly missed the point of the three year plan. They knew there was an ugly luckout coming, and in large part the plan was to have money, coach, gm etc... coming off the books for the lockout. I don't think Bird ever said we'd have a great team in three years, just a playoff team.

          As it is, I think it's time to blow this team up. They way it's composed now is not going to compete, and I think it's time to try and move DG and DC and a few of the other less involved player.

          Not the best draft or free agency, so I'm hoping the Pacers keep cap room rolling forward and don't pull a Detriot, overpaying for mediocre talent. That or they use the cap room to absorb a bad contract as part of taking on a talent for teams looking to get under the new CBA.
          Danger Zone


          • #20
            Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            My understanding of the "three-year plan" was that we would wait out our expiring contracts, acquire some assets with the cap space, and return to the playoffs in Year 4. So, if we make the playoffs this season, we will technically be slightly ahead of schedule, but only because the East is so bad this year.

            We have a lot of work to do in the off-season.
            No Bird said he would get us in the playoffs by year 3 or that was the goal.


            • #21
              Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

              I'd rather his goal for us to be a .500+ team.

              We'd be making the playoffs this season by default because the 8th seed and lower is full of bad teams.

              I wouldn't say that's mission accomplished at all.


              • #22
                Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                The last 20 games this season has, if nothing else, made me question which positions we should be targeting with our cap space.

                Based on how the season has progressed and what I've seen from our starters, right now, I'm seeing point guard and shooting guard as higher priority than power forward, as it comes to finding a suitable starter to help lead us deeper into the playoffs over the next few years. I'm just not convinced that Darren and Paul are the answers at starter for the next few years. As backups, 100% yes. I may get stoned for saying this, but I'm not convinced that Roy is our long term answer at center unless we surround him with the right types of players. He has some physical limitations that no amount of gym time can fix.

                The unfortunate problem is, most of the players I would target for PG and SG are all restricted free agents this year...
                Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen


                • #23
                  Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                  Keeping JOB for the 3 years plan has made the 3 years 6 years, thanks Larry and Jim..........
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                  • #24
                    Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                    Larry Bird

                    BIG FAT LIAR!


                    • #25
                      Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                      No Bird said he would get us in the playoffs by year 3 or that was the goal.
                      That was his goal, but 'The Plan' didn't refer to that goal, it referred to the bigger picture of becoming a good or better than good team again, which is supposed to start next year.

                      Obviously that's not looking too likely at this point, unless this off season is a home run.


                      • #26
                        Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Keeping JOB for the 3 years plan has made the 3 years 6 years, thanks Larry and Jim..........
                        Ultimately, this was the BIGGEST mistake in the entire plan. I pretty much like all the players that we have. Now, if we can just find a coach to make it work. IMHO, Indiana needs to make trades to shorten the roster. To me, our biggest need is PG and starting SG.

                        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?


                        • #27
                          Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          But that was part of Bird's 3 year plan implementation. That's the problem. You can't pull one part to the side and ignore it.

                          If Bird was trying to assemble a bunch of young pieces for future development then he made a massive mistake of hiring JOB, a biggest mistake to keep him, and a monster mistake by extending him.

                          You lost your shot at Tom Thibideau and Doug Collins, just for starters. You wasted years of player development time.

                          Luckily there's tons of evidence for this. And of course by rock bottom you mean "kinda just below the middle sorta".

                          Sixers lost more games and are now winning more games. Took about one summer and a good coaching hire. It's not even their top draft pick that's doing this for them.

                          Magic were a playoff team, then won 21 games and fired Rivers. After 2 more seasons of 36 wins (oh no, stuck in the middle without a really high pick, they are doomed) they won 40 and made the playoffs...for Bob Hill no less.

                          The Heat were a .600 ball club. Fell to 36 and then 25 wins, and then returned to the top of the pile. Then had one 15 win season, and climb right back in the middle of things yet again.

                          And still managed to also clear the cap space for last summer even while making back to back playoff runs.
                          That doesn't qualify, that was when Wade was injured off and on


                          • #28
                            Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                            Pacers have to make the playoffs or else Bird is a failure. No more excuses. This organization is looking platinum compared to it's state three years ago. Contract's and Player Personnel.


                            • #29
                              Re: Year 3 Of Bird's Three-Year Plan...

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              I say the team's fans that are left at this point are hard core enough to understand a rebuild and you wouldn't see a mass exodus at the gate.

                              These, for the most part, are fans that understand the NBA's CBA and understand the lottery system.

                              When you have what ultimately have been season upon season of 'lost' seasons eventually you have to ask what if we would've just played the younger players, taken our lumps, got them experience, and gotten a couple of high draft picks in the process during one or two of those seasons?

                              Would the casual fans have cared any less if the team had won 5-10 less games? Plus, you get some good PR with a top pick. Besides giving the hard core fans who understand the rebuilding process something to watch and cheer for hoping to see the development of the team as they play together, you also have the chance of landing casual fans to see this newcomer with all the accolades bestowed upon him.

                              Personally, I believe the hard core fans are turned off by mediocrity as much as the casual fans because the hard core fans understand being middle of the road tends to lead to a middle of the road pick and little chance of finding that star player the team needs. You at least stand a chance of energizing the hard core fans with a high draft pick and the opportunity to watch young players develop... rather than just creating apathy...

                              The problem with the O'Brien years was we had young players not developing nor getting consistent roles AND nothing but mediocre records and lost seasons to show for it either.

                              IMHO the 3 year plan should've been accepting we weren't going to be very good for much of that, shedding salary and making shrewd deals, developing young players, trying to win with the young players that we felt were part of the future (or could be part of the future), and collecting top draft picks. ....and maybe we catch lightning in a bottle and make the playoffs in there somewhere. ...and if not... well hindsight tells us we didn't make the playoffs anyway.... (of course I'm thinking this is year 4 of the 3 year plan... if you started the clock 3 years ago then maybe we do reach the playoffs in the 3rd year...)

                              My complaint over the last 5 years has been our complete shortcutting/Managements complete denial of just how bad this roster situation was/is.

                              If we would have admitted the issue back in 2005-2006. We could have bottomed this out. Had a REAL youth movement with REAL upside prospects and correctly built.

                              Unfortunately now we've put a glass ceiling on what this "core" can really even become. We have to hope and pray that 2 guys better than anyone on this roster magically appear over the summer? Possible? Sure. Probable? No evidence to support it to be....