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

Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    Hey, I can relate. I thought I could live with Gordon and Villanueva, too...

    Best laugh for the day!


    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

      Originally posted by Doddage View Post

      Don't think McGee is an option. Denver should match any reasonable offer he gets.

      His signing is interesting to me, b/c while in Wash he stated he wanted 14 mil to re-sign. Wash traded him.


      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

        Pacers can always match Hibbs and then trade him. Take that ***** for trying to go to Portland!

        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Something else I keep coming back to: If the Pacers just can't bare to pay Roy this much because of TEAM SALARY concerns, why on earth wouldn't you dump Danny Granger to keep Roy? I don't see any reason why they can't just keep them both, but if for some reason they feel it's too much money combined, you should dump the small forward to keep the center. It's just common sense to me.
          not being sarcastic, but the reason you keep Danny and not Roy is because Danny is a much better player than Roy. Danny is a guy that can give you 25 night in and night out. Roy is a guy that gives you 15 and 9 at most. You may disagree that Danny is better or not, but that is the/a reason for keeping Danny and not Roy.


          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

            Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
            Pacers can always match Hibbs and then trade him. Take that ***** for trying to go to Portland!


            You jest but signing and then trading him at some point still would at least net something for the Pacers.


            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

              Originally posted by owl View Post
              You jest but signing and then trading him at some point still would at least net something for the Pacers.
              I was only jesting about trading him immediately after signing him. Yes, I think you could match and trade him in a year if that's what they wanted to do. He'd still bring in good value, and at least you wouldn't lose him for nothing.
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                If they go 8-2 it means that SOMEONE has done SOMETHING good enough to go 8-2. You can't picture what that is, but it would have to be something. Those game winning plays, game winning stat lines, would quickly erase fan anger.

                I didn't say sell tickets if you are going for the "fans didn't support winning last year" angle because frankly that angle doesn't support paying Roy. If they aren't coming regardless then save the cash for certain.

                As for paying Roy there is no way in the world the fanbase would ever react poorly to a 2-8 start with Roy going 8 ppg, 6rpg, 1 blk per game as a central factor in the 8 losses under his new $14m deal. The fans would love it and would never, ever whisper things like "bust" or "bad deal".
                So then your real argument is you're assuming that we'll immediately rebound from his loss and have a team as good or better than the 2012 team. That is HARDLY a given. As is your worst case scenario with Roy staying.

                How I miss those days of JO and Tinsley love later in their Pacers career, or the sweet sounds of affection they sang out every night when they heard the names of Croshere or Bender mentioned.
                JO and particularly Tinsley were disliked for more reasons and circumstances than mere performance issues, but that's a whole other thread I don't want to even read, let alone participate in, right now.

                Bender was injuries first, performance second. Croshere was never as good or as important as Roy even is now, let alone if he ever improved anymore. A backup PF we thought could be the starter. WE ALREADLY KNOW ROY CAN START BECAUSE HE IS BETTER AND MORE VALUABLE THE CROSHERE EVER WAS, and center is much more valuable spot to have a good player than a PF. So don't waste anyone's time with such a silly comparison.

                You're continuing to rationalize; assuming Roy will disappoint or get hurt, that the team won't do well with him back, and present the only alternative to be this fantasy where we make these great moves to stay as good or better than last year even without Roy and we win 80% of our early games. That's a false dichotomy.

                So the "watch the fan reaction" cuts BOTH WAYS. Everything in these scenarios depends on results, not the initial action. If the choice works then fans will be happy, if the choice flops then fans will be mad, period. So make the choice you (TPTB) feel most comfortable with and fans-be-damned.
                Then we're simply back to basketball decisions, not appeasing fans, which I get and I'm fine with. I still say it's a bad idea.


                • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                  Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                  I was only jesting about trading him immediately after signing him. Yes, I think you could match and trade him in a year if that's what they wanted to do. He'd still bring in good value, and at least you wouldn't lose him for nothing.
                  I thought the Pacers have already been that route.... or is there a new Scot Pollard hiding out there we don't know about?
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....


                  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    I'm not saying you were, I'm not even against your point.

                    What I'm saying is that if you put consolidations of talent in the SAME TERMS of the "Roy value" discussion, then OBVIOUSLY any NBA team would push their mother in front of a bus for the chance to swap (1 AS) Dwight for (2 AS) Roy and Danny.
                    Who the hell agreed those were the terms? You're speaking nonsense as far as I can tell. This 'all all-stars have equally value' talk is nonsense. I never said that or otherwise intended to imply such a silly thing.

                    IMO spreading Roy out as more bench talent and less starters talent makes sense because the team is in no-mans-land now, halfway between consolidated and deep. Balanced starters but no star, and yet as the playoffs showed there really isn't much bench depth. So you are losing at the top end and the deep bench end. You have no point of advantage in terms of top end or deep.

                    If Barbosa, Tyler and Lou had given teams fits in the playoffs it would be different, but that's not what happened. What we thought was a strength started looking like a weakness.


                    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                      Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                      Hibbert hasn't signed the offer. He can't until the 11th. But he intends to sign it. That means he isn't shopping himself to any other teams as a free agent.

                      But it doesn't mean he won't consider a sign and trade. It would be foolish of him to rule that out at this point. And he can be signed and traded as long as he hasn't signed the offer.
                      Foolish? What? How? He's going to Portland. Unless we keep him. Why on Earth would he want to make his new team weaker if he's going to Portland?


                      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I don't want to hear a word from the Pacers about "Roy costs too much money" after handing out $8 mil/year to George Hill.
                        Damn straight.


                        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          If I could recover from the Detlef trade at the point in his career/Pacer star status, then you guys can recover from losing Roy now. It doesn't have to mean the end of the world.
                          The thing is, It's NOT a matter of whether I CAN recover from the loss of Roy, it's a matter of me NOT WANTING to recover from it ...
                          Given all the known variables, I would find it totally unacceptable for the Pacers not to match Portland's offer ... PERIOD, end of story ...

                          Ya'll can think what you want about my reaction and what it will be if Roy isn't a Pacer come opening tip-off, but I am deadset in my mind on this and my conviction is strong..

                          "They want to be famous. We want to be champions. They want to be rappers and backup dancers. We want to play football." - T.J. Ward, Denver Broncos


                          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Hey, I can relate. I thought I could live with Gordon and Villanueva, too...
                            This. Not bringing back Roy will just make the Pacers mediocre for years to come.

                            I will keep loving the Pacers but I'll continue to root for Roy as well.
                            Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                            Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.


                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.


                            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                              Originally posted by able View Post

                              Ana make no mistake, he's the gm, DW may be president, but certainly fror now, KP is makingthe decisions on players
                              Really? They give Donnie higher rank than Pritchard, he's obviously Herb's guy first and foremost, Walsh made it abundantly clear they're working together as a team (he and Pritchard) and that he's (Walsh) ultimately in charge, but you're going to go with this concept that it's in no way, shape, or form his responsibility as to what happens from here on? Really. Really.

                              So if you're going to stick with that, something I consider to be pure fantasy, you're basically endorsing him while he sits back playing the fiddle while Pritchard sets Rome on fire. Unbelievable.


                              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                                FWIW (I know, off topic...kind of) Conrad is no longer employed with the Pacers.