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

Hoping for a long response from Peck

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hoping for a long response from Peck

    Hey, Peck.

    I know you've explained it before, but it was a long time ago and on the IS forum, so I'm looking for a refresher. What is your long, sad tale for not liking Donnie Walsh? What moments made you anti-DW? I know about the Brad Miller stuff, I know you loved Dale Davis and initially hated JO, but I also remember you explaining a couple years back that it was a lot more than that.

    Can you tell us all what all it's been that has caused you to "hate" Donnie Walsh?

  • #2
    Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

    Hey, Peck.

    I know you've explained it before, but it was a long time ago and on the IS forum, so I'm looking for a refresher. What is your long, sad tale for not liking Donnie Walsh? What moments made you anti-DW? I know about the Brad Miller stuff, I know you loved Dale Davis and initially hated JO, but I also remember you explaining a couple years back that it was a lot more than that.

    Can you tell us all what all it's been that has caused you to "hate" Donnie Walsh?
    Actually he doesn't hate him, he just thinks most fans give Donnie to much credit. Fans like me! He explained one time that he's just more or less playing Devils advocate. (my understanding)

    This will be interesting though!


    • #3
      Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

      I'll sum up while we wait for the main course:

      The primary complaint I hear is that DWalsh (they say) wants a team that's competitive and will make a profit, but isn't really interested in a championship.

      To which I always say: If that was true, they'd have kept the Davis's.
      This space for rent.


      • #4
        Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

        Not for sure how competitive we would have been playing and paying the Davis duo this late.

        The Pacers had the third highest payroll during the run by Smits, Davis, Miller. The team has spent when necessary.

        The only restraint that we have been under is the reluctuance to pay the luxury tax and have paid as much as possible while staying under that target. I would not fault any owner for not wanting to pay millions in taxes.


        • #5
          Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

          I think it is very difficult right now to criticize Donnie Walsh.

          Pacers are the envy of most of the NBA


          • #6
            Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

            I agree UB. The pacers have unbelievable talent, and DW knows what he is doing with this team. There are very few teams that have better talent than us.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


            • #7
              Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

              Man I don't know that I have the energy to do this this a.m. & I am a little under the gun for time but I'll give you my best readers digest version of events.

              Now also bare in mind that a lot of things have passed through the sands of time so if anybody who is reading this now & read me 9 years ago on the old starnews forum please forgive me if I've changed some things since then. Also I am going to do this off the top of my head so some of the dates may be wrong & I might even be remembering things wrong, so again let me apologize for that in advance.

              First off, I do not hate Donnie Walsh. As a human being from everything I've ever heard of him he is a decent, loyal & likeable fellow. It has never been anything from a personnal stand point with me.

              Second off let me even set this straight. I do not think he is a bad G.M., director of basketball operations, whatever he wants to call himself.

              However, Will hit it correctly by stating that over the years I have nearly lost my mind by what I have percieved to be blind loyalty to anything the man does by some fans of this team. If he makes a trade he is a damn genious, if he doesn't make the same trade he's a damn genious (you get my point). BTW, for the record over the last few seasons it does seem as though some of the golden image has come off for a few fans, to which I can only grin.

              But let's not get into that now.

              Join me children, come with me back in time. To a time that some of you were either not born or were so small you will have no real recollection to it.

              Join me my older brothers to a time where some of you might have followed the Pacers by checking the box score in the star or maybe you were one of the faithfull few who actually attended games & I know there weren't many of us because sometimes there would only be 3,000 people in M.S.A.

              The year is 1983 & we are entering the last game of the last season of the last year of the Sam Nassi ownership I swear there are about 2,000 people at M.S.A. that day & by the end of the game I think there may have only been about 800 of us left. We weren't sure that the team was even going to be staying after that because Nassi said he was done & the team, the fans, the city & the state were all pretty much lethargic to the whole thing. We had no hope, we were the laughing stocks of the league & had been for awhile. That night felt much more like a wake than a basketball game.

              Then comes opening night of 1984. The Simons (God love them) purchased the team & saved the franchise from moving, as we later found out that Nassi had almost sold the team to a California investment group who was planning on moving the team to Sacramento. (Yes kids the Kings were still in Kansas City at that time).

              Hope was alive. The team still sucked but M.S.A. was alive that opening night. Tuxedo's were in the lower decks & we poor slobs up top bought T-shirt tuxedo's for the game. The franchise was alive again & that opening night was the biggest buzz we had made since back in the A.B.A.

              But as I said the team sucked. The season came & went & the team was still the laughing stock of the league.

              Then in 1984 a young (at the time) man was hired to be an assistant coach to the God awful George Irvin. This man was Joseph Donnie Walsh. If you ever want a good laugh go to the north side wall of memorabilia at the fieldhouse & see Donnie's team picture from that year. His tightly permed curly hair & his big smile just will bust you up. He still had his buggeye's though. .

              I digress.

              Ok, so we suck again that year. But the Simons have a thought in mind, they want to promote our assistant coach to G.M.

              I'm trying my best to figure out why the hell they chose him over anybody else, but I figure why not. My wife is pregnant with my son at the time & I knew he would be born on or around draft day so I thought why not start everything fresh.

              At Donnies first press conferance he asked that, we the fans, be patient with him & we needed to give him five years to turn the franchise around. Five years was a long time but I remember thinking "Rome wasn't built in a day" so I thought five years was fair. What I didn't bother to ask was what does he mean by turn the team around. But then again we sucked pretty bad so almost anything would be an improvement.

              Donnies first draft pick was a kid by the name of Chuck Person. I had no idea who he was, not Donnies fault because I do not follow college ball at all so I had no idea who anybody was. The team held a draft party, which I could not attend, & from what I understand & remember the fans booed Person when the team drafted him. I was a little busy that day as my son was born on the same day.

              Anyway Chuck joined the team & actually went on to be rookie of the year & he certainly was a colorfull character. Not only was Chuck R.O.Y. but low & behold the team went from 26 wins & 56 losses to 41 wins & 41 losses.

              The franchise had turned the corner. We were actually talking playoffs for the first time instead of coin flips. By the way I forgot to mention Jack Ramsey was hired as coach of the team to start the year & at the time was a stroke of genious.

              So far so good into the Walsh reign. He seemed to right the ship & with Herb, Chuck, Waymond & Vern we had the core of a decent, if unspectacular, team.

              We held another draft party. Again Walsh was booed off the stage by the fans. This time though it was because these weren't (for the most part) Pacer fans, they were a bunch of I.U. fans. We passed over Steve Alford to select some kid named Reggie Miller (again I had never heard of him). I was happy because from what I knew of Alford & absolutely knew of Knights I.U. teams he had no chance in the N.B.A.

              The season didn't go as well as it had the year before & we kind of slid back in the losing column, but not nearly as much as we had prior to Walsh taking over. I kind of wrote this off as sophmore slumps. Although that Miller kid did do a good job backing up John Long.

              BTW, one thing that Walsh made very very clear from day one with the club was that draft picks were no longer going to be used as trade bait. The franchise over the years made some very bad trades & because our teams usually sucked we always had a top 10 pick but were almost never able to get any of the players because we traded the pick for players like Russ Schone, Terance Stansburry & Tom Owens. Anyway, to a point I agreed with this theory. I would never have said never but it seemed like the right thing.

              Another draft party & another boo fest for Walsh. Rik Smits was chosen & again I had never heard of him.

              Ok this season we sucked. We went through three coach's before the season ended. We finally hired some brillow pad named Versace to coach the team.

              I didn't like Smits from day one. Here was this 7'4" monster who had a decent shot but rebounded like a point guard. We desperately needed help on the boards but this clown wouldn't help. Tank Thompson & Wittman came in a trade for Tisdale. I was dissapointed with this move but accepted it because I thought LaSalle would be the missing link to our club. Then he moved Herb Williams for Detleph Schrempf. I loved this trade because after seeing Det play with the Mavs. I was convinced he would be a great player. But needless to say the team sucked & sucked bad. At this point it was looking like that five year plan was a long way from being realistic.

              Then came the next season & then came this doozy of a pick. George McCloud. Nobody understood that one at all. But with a lot of the players starting to pick up the pace (no pun intended) the team actually had a good year. No player transactions were made that year but the team did improve enough to get back to the playoffs. So we are in year four of the rebuilding & we have made the playoffs 2 out of the 4 years.

              Ok, not only did we not move any players we don't have a # 1 draft pick this season. McCloud is our only improvement for the past season & it wasn't much of one.

              This year we fell back to the .500% mark but we still made the playoffs but again no player transactions. I did not understand this all that much. Patience is one thing but not doing anything for two years just didn't seem right especially since we hadn't had a good draft pick in three years.

              It has now been five years since Walsh has taken over. During that time frame we have had one winning season, two mediocre seasons & two losing seasons.

              I thought to myself that while it was not the turnaround I was hoping for it certainly was better than 5 losing seasons.

              Here's where my problem began. It was at this time that the media, locally, started treating Donnie as though he were some form of basketball diety. Sent forth by James Neismith himself to save this floundering franchis. Now while I conceded at the time that his five year plan got us out of the laughing stock department I never assumed that this was what we were shooting for.

              I started to question some of the things that were going on. However I still was on board.

              BTW, I'm running out of time so I have to cut this almost in half.

              Long story shortened.

              The next year he makes the greatest move he could have made. He drafts Dale Davis. He was everthing we ever needed.

              Sometime in here a couple of things happened that really really pissed me off.

              Charles Barkley made it known that he wanted out of Philly & had listed the Pacers as one of the teams that he wanted to play. It then was reported in the Philly papers that the Sixers had supposedly offered Charles for Smits, Person & a draft pick.

              I was out of my mind when I found out we turned this down. To me Smits was a big bucket of crap & Chuck was starting to be a distraction to the team & yes I like draft picks but this was Charles Barkley.

              Then Donnie held that famous press conferance where he used graphs & charts (Ross Perot had nothing on him) to explain why it was impossible to make trades in the N.B.A. due to this new salary cap. Oh, btw forget that almost every other team in the league was making moves or that Charles was traded to the Suns for Mark West, Jeff Hornacek & somebody else who I forget at this time. I was fuming until he made this one statement that about sent me into suicide.

              When asked what he considered a success he stated making the playoffs was a success.

              Making the playoffs to Donnie was the gold standard. Now I have my theorys about this next part as well and I'll go ahead & give them to you. The press never called him on this. They never once asked him if he meant playoff success or if winning the division or conferance were a long term goal or anything. They just repeated his statements. The only newsman at all who ever had the nads to say anything was Brunner & eventually he was paid off to be the teams websight guy.

              Then he did what I considered unreal. Not only did he not trade for Barkley because of some formula that he had created, but he signed Rik Smits to an extension. At the time one of the bigger contracts in the league. This from a guy who would eventually be replaced in the starting lineup by Greg Dreiling. By this time my head was ready to explode.

              We had gone several seasons without a trade, we were floundering at the .500% level thus insuring mid-first round picks who had no hope of being impact players & we never once signed a free agent who was worth a crap.

              My patience was almost gone by the time we reached the 92-93 season. Again we were mediocre, again we suffered a first round loss. this time we didn't even put up a fight. The thrill of being at M.S.A for playoff games was gone by that time as you could by floor seats from the boxoffice at game time.

              I had gone two years beyond what he had asked for I had gone seven years of being patient. Now in retrospect that doesn't sound like a long time, but you go seven years & see how short it seems to you at the time.

              Here is the downright funny part about this though. The one thing that turned me against Donnie was the one greatest thing he ever did. I know that seems stupid all of these years later but I said it the day it happened & actually was on the call in shows at the time saying the same thing.

              He fired Bob Hill. Now understand I wasn't a Bo fanatic or anything but the words Donnie used when he fired him I considered to be words that he should have to live by himself.

              When he fired him he said that it wasn't that Bob was a bad coach or that the players had tuned him out. It was that Bob just wasn't able to do any more with the team.

              Needless to say after seven years I felt the exact same standard should have been applied to Donnie. I was tired of just making the playoffs.

              Well we all know what went on from there, Brown came in & rebuilt the team. His structure lasted almost 6 years. A couple even beyond him being here.

              But by this time it was all over but the shouting. The fans & the local media had annointed Donnie a God & not only a God but an unquestionable God.

              You think it's bad now, try asking a question about Donnie's motives back in the 97 season & you would be attacked by a pack of rabid dogs who questioned your loyalty to the team & question your basketball I.Q.

              I have a lot more, but I have to go.

              In closing let me say this. I have never hated Donnie, I gave Donnie a long time even longer than he asked for. But at the end of the day I like a G.M. who is more pro-active. It's just my opinion. That is why I have been impressed with the way that Isiah has gone about N.Y.

              The soft media market here has helped Donnie more than anything else possibly could have. He never would have been able to do this in N.Y. or philly. I have always felt the media was soft for the fist 10 years or so because they lived in the fear of the franchise moving, so they always presented the glass is half full picture only.

              Like I said, I have always known that I am in the minority on this.

              I wish I had more time.

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


              • #8
                Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

                So, Peck, did you ever decide whether or not to start writing long posts again?

                Let us know how that turns out.
                This space for rent.


                • #9
                  Re: Hoping for a long response from Peck

                  Sounds to me like your problem is more with the unknowledgeable basketball fans & tunnel vision media than it is with Walsh.

                  I do agree that he could be more active in the ("quality") free agent market if not in pulling the trigger on trades.