Announcement

Collapse

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:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
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 NBA.com.

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

Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    The Pacers admitted failure by benching a player they signed this off season with 22 games into the season is that prove enough to you or should we wait one more year?
    Is the DJ that has played for the Pacers the same DJ that played the last years in Charlotte? His numbers certainly disagree. That's why he was benched.

    I don't see it as admitting failure. I see it as benching someone who is underperforming at an all-career low level.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Or you can tell him that we took a risk on a player coming off an ACL injury who was in his 30's, which for a lot of players would either decrease their ability or possibly even end their career.

      We also took the risk of trading away our first round pick for a player who could have easily been gone the next year.

      Oh we also took a risk on Lance. A low risk, but still a risk.

      We also took a risk in trading away DC.

      See we have taken risks just people like him don't want to see it as it is easier to keep arguing than it is to accept the facts and admit you are wrong.
      You know that they don't consider them a risk, my friend.

      If it isn't a star, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone overhyped, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone with superstar potential, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone who constantly makes it in SportsCenter and is crazy athletic, it isn't a risk (of course, they will be moaning about his BBIQ afterwards). If it isn't for someone who can take the opponent 1v5, it isn't a risk (of course, they'll call him a chucker when he does).

      Those are the risks that they want. They don't care for calculated risks. They want flashy trades.
      Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
      Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

      Panopticon

      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        If 3 straight years of 45-50 wins in the West isn't an example of being consistently good, but not great, I don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong.

        They took big risks, went from good, to awful, to better, to better, to good, great. As they got better they took smaller and smaller risks but they never stopped changing their top 8.

        Lance a risk? Drafting a second rounder is risky to you guys? Do you sometimes drive 1 mph over the speed limit for a thrill too? Signing West was a risk, I agree, and it took a weak team and made it a good team. Good isn't enough though, more risks to be taken. Giving away DC wasn't a risk, that was just foolish. A risk has to have a potential upside.

        Comment


        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          You know that they don't consider them a risk, my friend.

          If it isn't a star, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone overhyped, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone with superstar potential, it isn't a risk. If it isn't for someone who constantly makes it in SportsCenter and is crazy athletic, it isn't a risk (of course, they will be moaning about his BBIQ afterwards). If it isn't for someone who can take the opponent 1v5, it isn't a risk (of course, they'll call him a chucker when he does).

          Those are the risks that they want. They don't care for calculated risks. They want flashy trades.
          Nuntius you are better than this strawman. West was a risk, the other 2 clearly weren't, as per my post.

          Comment


          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            Nuntius you are better than this strawman. West was a risk, the other 2 clearly weren't, as per my post.
            I think what he's saying is that picking up Green in FA was a risk. As was shuffling the backup PG position. As was betting long term on Mahinmi.

            He is just asking for a balanced look at both sides of the argument, that's all.

            Comment


            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              The Spurs are actually a great example of an organization that continually takes risks to stay on top the field. They gave up a good known quantity for an entirely unknown draft pick, because they didn't want to (or couldn't) pay him. They take on malcontents, see Jax on their roster right now. They play young guys extended minutes whether they are ready or not, see the development of Hill, Kawhi, and Blair. That team makes significant changes to their top 8 every year, and they are not afraid to let pieces go in a risk to get even better. So no, the Spurs never "blow it up" when they fail to win it, they don't trade Duncan away, but they don't stand pat either Seth.
              All of those are minor risks, though. They keep their core of 3 HOFers and a HOF coach.

              Ow, and despite playing in a smaller market than Indiana the fans support them no matter what.
              Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
              Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

              Panopticon

              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                Nuntius you are better than this strawman. West was a risk, the other 2 clearly weren't, as per my post.
                I agree that the presentation of my post is highly aggressive, emotional, ironic and in general a strawman. But that's just how I feel.

                docpaul did a better job in presenting my point than me. I'm not always level headed
                Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                Panopticon

                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  All of those are minor risks, though. They keep their core of 3 HOFers and a HOF coach.

                  Ow, and despite playing in a smaller market than Indiana the fans support them no matter what.
                  I swear, you are like my PD doppelgnger. Your views almost 100% line up with my take on things.

                  Therefore, you are my poster of the year!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    Originally posted by Dece View Post
                    If 3 straight years of 45-50 wins in the West isn't an example of being consistently good, but not great, I don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong.
                    It's just highlighting your dedication to calling other teams good, and then complaining about the Pacers.

                    You say this year is ring or bust, but then you argue how good a team is that was swept three consecutive years in the playoffs? Seems like a pretty big disconnect from the way you look at the Pacers to the way you look at other teams.

                    I doubt you'd call the Pacers good, if they get swept this year in the playoffs. Will you or would you?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      It's alright man, I understand. I've made more than one overly aggressive emotional post here.

                      For what its worth I'm sure I'd enjoy a beer with any of y'all.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                        I swear, you are like my PD doppelgnger. Your views almost 100% line up with my take on things.

                        Therefore, you are my poster of the year!
                        Thank you
                        Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                        Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                        Panopticon

                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          It's just highlighting your dedication to calling other teams good, and then complaining about the Pacers.

                          You say this year is ring or bust, but then you argue how good a team is that was swept three consecutive years in the playoffs? Seems like a pretty big disconnect from the way you look at the Pacers to the way you look at other teams.

                          I doubt you'd call the Pacers good, if they get swept this year in the playoffs. Will you or would you?
                          That was the point I made with my earlier post. The Grizzlies got to where they were OVER TIME. The Pacers are just 3 seasons removed from the lottery, we are at the BEGINNING of the process that a team like Memphis is currently at the end of.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            I don't really understand the argument of "risk-taking vs. playing it safe." It doesn't have to be one or the other. In fact it never is one or the other. It's how people view the situation. For every "risk" that a team makes his neighbor can look at the same roster move and feel it's not a risk at all. The Rasheed Wallace trade, for example. It's been said he was a locker room cancer. But the Pistons had a very stable locker room and I think every Pacer fan that year was dismayed when they heard they had added Rasheed.

                            Let's look at the past few NBA titles and evaluate their risk taking.

                            Miami Heat

                            Unless you consider cornering the superstar market and acquiring 3 of the best players available in a stacked year a risk, they didn't take any. They grabbed their superstars and surrounded them with veterans and shooters.

                            Dallas Mavericks

                            They signed Tyson Chandler to a core that had been there at least 2 years. That is hardly a risk, as he was a known quantity at the defensive end. They had had years of being mostly first and second round exits, with a couple longer trips thrown in. Sounds like the kind of team you hate.

                            LA Lakers x2

                            They have money to spend and exist in a warm climate area. Dont tell me the Lakers take risks. They literally sit back and wait until superstars become malcontent on other teams and take on their big expensive contracts because teams don't want to lose them for nothing. It is what they have done for years, they buy their players. They don't really draft them. I suppose you could say it's a risk, but it's really not since it's been proven superstars will almost always choose LA over other teams.

                            Boston Celtics

                            Added Kevin Garnett and and Ray Allen to Paul Pierce and a very good defenisve point guard in Rondo. They gave up expiring contracts, draft picks, and spare parts for 2 of the better players at their position in the game.

                            I'm sure you could look more closely at their roster moves and determine risks that they may have taken. But my point is that if you want to win and you are consistently making risks with your top 5-6 players, you're probably not going to be successful. Teams win because they add in key supporting players to a good core or slam-dunk stars that will fit in on any team.

                            It's not about risk, it's whether or not you think the core of the team is good enough. And I think our performance last year as one of the youngest teams in the league coupled with the defensive prowess we've shown this year are proving that the core of our team is good enough.
                            Last edited by aamcguy; 12-18-2012, 04:24 PM.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Seems like a pretty big disconnect from the way you look at the Pacers to the way you look at other teams.
                              That's what confuses me the most, to be honest.

                              The Pacers are not held on the same standards that all the other teams in the league are. Of course, that's to be expected since this is a Pacers forum. So, you expect some homerism as people tend to be biased towards their teams. But instead the opposite is more prevalent. Counter-homerism is more popular than homerism around here.

                              And that's just weird. I can get that people have higher expectations of the Pacers since they are their team. But hold them to a fair standard at least. As bad as blind homerism is, blind counter-homerism is even worse.
                              Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                              Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                              Panopticon

                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                West was a risk and they got an A for it, Green and Ian was not a risk it was a bad decision, trading DC was not a risk but a ridiculous decision and George Hill was not a risk, a lot of people knew that he had the potential to be the players he is, I wanted to trade a pick for him for a long time.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X