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

Royce White refuses D league

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Royce White refuses D league

    Wow, that statement he issued is scary. It sounds like a threat. This part in particular.

    "In hindsight of the recent tragedies in this country, that had mental illness variables, you would think it would encourage people to act more proactively in that arena. You would think that decision makers who are not well informed about mental health, would take the consultation and recommendation of those who are. You would think we would start to do everything possible to not let the tragic consequences befall us first, before we ask the logical question, “why?”, “who knew?” “how could we have helped?."

    I don't know much about this guy, but there are like 6 billion people in this world that wish they had an opportunity to play in the NBA. He probably just shut the door on his personal opportunity.

    and this statement, what does this even mean?

    "I have chosen to not play, because the doctors and I believe it to be unsafe for unqualified Rockets front office personnel to make medical decisions, as they are not mental health professionals.”


    • #17
      Re: Royce White refuses D league

      The most irritating thing about Royce White is that he uses a lot of words but fails to say anything substantive. He never describes what he thinks the Rockets should do to help him deal with his mental health issues. He keeps saying over and over again that the Rockets and NBA have failed to come up with a protocol to outline what they are going to do to accomodate his anxiety disorder.

      General Anxiety disorders are a serious issue to deal with. However he needs to take ownership of this issue himself. He shouldn't expect his employer to resolve his problems for him. He's going to have to deal with his disorder with or without the Rockets help. If he keeps shifting all the blame on the Rockets and the NBA, he'll find himself dealing with it on his own.

      You don't bite the hand that feeds you especially when that hand is attached to David Stern's arm.


      • #18
        Re: Royce White refuses D league

        I believe that he has a very serious issue to deal with and I doubt if it's something that he can just suck it up and get over. I do think the team should accommodate him within reason but he's just being unreasonable. He wouldn't have to fly to 40 games but he would have to for back to back games. He wants to dictate all the terms of his employment with the team and it seems like he wants to world to change for him instead of trying to adapt. If the D league does travel by bus, I don't see where he has a leg to stand on with his argument.
        He's basically being the ultimate prima donna gifted athlete who's used to having the world revolve around him. I hope he's not getting paid through all of this.
        Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

        Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.


        • #19
          Re: Royce White refuses D league

          I dont get why people talk about this dude. He is a tool it has been about not getting guaranteed playing time from day one(reason he throw a fit and didnt go to camp) with this guy and it's laughable at the **** he makes up.

          The Rockets have done things no organaztion would do for this guy and he keeps spiting in their face. I would cut him let him play in Europe and figure out what real anxiety would be like. It would especially be funny if he only gets offers from the teams that don't pay their players half the time.

          The other funny thing is he would probably be out of the dleague by now if he would of just showed up and played but now the kid shited on his chance. I just dont get why he thinks he is better than every body just bad taste for me.

          Does he have an agent? If he does his agent needed to get a grip on him months ago.


          • #20
            Re: Royce White refuses D league

            I read up a little on Mr. White, and his history. From what I read, and is current actions, it really does sound like his issues are just about sucking it up. It seems he learned that he can take advantage of issues he had responding to a traumatic event, and has been using it to get things he wants. Maybe he still has problems, but it sure as hell doesn't seem to be as bad as he is playing it up to be. Someone with anxiety disorder as bad as he makes it out to be, he sure did a lot of things at Minnesota that I have a hard time believing someone with anxiety disorder would do. (i.e. theft x2, assault, trespassing)


            • #21
              White can get his contract voided for insubordination. The thing isn't written in stone.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004


              • #22
                Re: Royce White refuses D league

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                White can get his contract voided for insubordination. The thing isn't written in stone.
                He has broken so many CBA rules I wouldn't be surprised if he has to pay back the money he has been paid of his contract. It wouldn't be the first time a professional athlete would be in breach of contract and have to pay his money back.


                • #23
                  Re: Royce White refuses D league

                  What the hell kind of statement is that? Referencing recent tragedies? Good god is that stupid. What a horrible, tone-deaf thing to say.

                  The Rockets this, mental health professionals that . . . He still sees it all as external happenings that only tangentially involve him. He won't get better until his statements start with I need to . . . I will . . . .
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?


                  • #24
                    Re: Royce White refuses D league

                    I try to never wish bad things on somebody, but if anybody deserves it it's him for even putting himself in the same sentence with the tragedies that have transpired recently. I hope he never receives another paycheck and has to pay back what he's already "earned."


                    • #25
                      Re: Royce White refuses D league

                      The Rockets knew they were taking a big gamble on this guy from the get-go.
                      He is proving to them that they made a mistake, so they need to just cut him
                      and move on.

                      It's a hard life to live when you are your own worst enemy.


                      • #26
                        Re: Royce White refuses D league

                        lol what in the world?


                        • #27
                          Re: Royce White refuses D league

                          Doesn't seem like the Rockets are handling Royce correctly. I highly doubt Royce is being so difficult to work with just for the fun of it.

                          I'd love for Royce to be a Pacers. Fo sho!

                          Royce does need to suck it up and figure out how HE can control his own anxiety instead of letting it own him. People on this board suffer from it. My wife suffers from it, and she continually tries to beat it. It also helps that I'm there for her. Maybe Royce needs to have a family member travel with him. Either way, he needs to figure it more than Houston does. I know that sounds a little contradictory, but it isn't. Houston doesn't seem to be handling the situation well, but at the same time Royce needs to work on his anxiety too. It's not all just Houston. Just can't let a disease/whatever dictate who you are.
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


                          • #28
                            Re: Royce White refuses D league

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            White can get his contract voided for insubordination. The thing isn't written in stone.
                            I'm wondering if that's why they're trying to send him to the D-League; to make the insubordination clear.


                            • #29
                              Re: Royce White refuses D league

                              I wonder how he will pay a lawyer if he is suspended without pay and chooses to fight the suspension. Will the union pick up the tab?


                              • #30
                                Re: Royce White refuses D league

                                If it was just easy to cut/waive White, it probably would have happened. It seems to me there must be federal issues on health that apply that the Rockets have to abide by, not to mention the PR aspect concerning how they handle it. Plus it's not like NBA teams weren't aware of White's problem, and the Rockets went ahead and drafted White knowing about his problem. There might be a legal problem that is keeping the Rockets from just cutting White. It will be interesting how this situation plays out, AND IT'S NOT THE PACERS PROBLEM!

                                I bet the Rockets wish they had a re-do on that draft where they could have drafted someone else instead of what looks like a possible wasted #16 draft pick. I wonder if they had drafted Miles Plumlee who Bird would have drafted then... hopefully not Royce White. Whoever it would have been, they probably wouldn't be playing anymore than Plumjam is.