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

Could there be a Pacers way of building...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
    I think I am giving up on trying for the Pacers to be recognized. Who cares if fanboys like us?

    I actually agree with KStat that we are similar in liking by the common fan. The only way we can supersede the Pistons in being liked is if we dominate the Heat.
    That wouldn't even supersede it....the 2004 finals was a smash hit in the ratings primarily because the pistons were embarrassing the lakers. Then the lakers broke up, and there was no super-team left to hate, and fans went back to rooting for the new, fresh media superstars, and we were just in the way if wade, lebron, Howard, etc.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 08:54 AM.

    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


    • #17
      Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      okay, back up the crazy train...

      that was about it?

      We had a 6-year run that included a championship, two straight conference titles, six 50+win seasons, and five division titles.

      You don't call that "sustaining?"

      You do realize only a handful of NBA teams have ever surpassed that level of excellence, right?

      uh....the draft/trade/FA ratio is roughly the same for both teams. The Pistons drafted Prince and Okur just like the Pacers drafted George and Stephenson. Moving on....

      okay...reality check...

      First off, the Pacers do play ugly basketball, by NBA standards. There is no pretty way to be 29th in scoring and 2nd in scoring defense. The masses are never going to applaud grind-it-out games. The one guy that commented on loving the Pacers' defensive style of play tonight was Chris Webber, who grew up-guess what-a Pistons fan.

      And yes, I know their offense has been trending upward lately, but winning games 110-100 has never been their strategy.

're really not. Nobody is talking about the Pacers outside of Indiana. Unless Paul Goerge becomes the next Kevin Durant/Tim Duncan type superstar, they never will. And George is simply not that kind of player. I'm not saying he will never be a superstar, but he's not as flashy as Durant or Kobe, and will never be a multiple-time MVP like Duncan. He's a star because he's a defensive stopper in addition to a pretty good scorer, and ESPN doesn't love to feature guys like that.

      Unless you mean to say that the Pistons were bad guys and universally resented in contrast to the Pacers' much more likeable bunch of upstanding citizens, in which're still wrong, in both cases. Outside of Indiana, at least.

      ...the 2004 finals was the most watched series of the decade...

      Now, you could counter by saying nobody cared about Pistons/Spurs, in which'd be right. Of course, by the same token, there was mass panic over the possibility of Pacers/Spurs in 1999 and Pacers/Blazers in 2000, and that Pacers team was actually an offensive juggernaut. win games by making the other team miss bad shots and hit the, no. I understand that they are so much more enjoyable to watch from your perspective, but try to take off the Pacer fan hat and take a step back for a second.

      From an outsider's perspective, let me get you prepared for the next 5-6 years:

      1. Fans of big markets are not going to like you.
      2. Fans of the teams you eliminate are not going to like you.
      3. Fans of teams that value offense over defense are going to HATE you.
      4. Unless Paul George about doubles his scoring output to Kobe/TMac/Durant levels, he's never going to be a national media darling. Missed shots aren't sexy.

      When I said you can't compare this Pacers team to the 2004 Pistons, I said that because they hadn't accomplished anything yet. They are absolutely attempting to emulate them, however, albeit in a league that plays at a faster tempo. If they win a championship this way, I'd accept the comparison. Heck, I'd welcome it.

      You're not going to accept this, but the reality is this: The Pacers play in Indiana. The Pacers play a decided physical defense-first philosophy. Neither of those things will endear them nationally. Heck, it's not exactly endearing them locally either. The Pacers haven't been a major draw in Indianapolis since the Bird/Reggie days of free flowing offense and three point shooters at every position.

      I get that you're riding the Pacers high right now, and you can't see how the Pacers won't become the NBA's next great dynasty and loved by all...but that's just not going to happen. The hierarchy doesn't like being disturbed. You're going to knock much bigger names than Paul George out of the playoffs, and casual fans will get annoyed by it (unless it's Miami).

      God forbid you keep Carmelo or Rose out of the finals....the national media will be borderline-offended in the "why am I stuck in Indianapolis covering the NBA finals when I could be spending a week in New York/Chicago" sense.
      Puck the Fistons


      • #18
        Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

        A third of the league tanks and it usually doesn't get them anywhere, OKC is one of very few exceptions of tanking actually working. It takes more to be successful then just tanking. Good contracts, great trades, free agents, good coaching staff and FO. Most of the teams that tank have been tanking for a decade.
        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL


        • #19
          Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

          I have never been a proponent of tanking as a means of improving your franchise. Notice I didn't say the best means, I said as a means. I completely reject the notion that tanking in any way helps a franchise. Smart trades, smart drafting, and a little luck can turn a franchise around. Getting a high lottery pick assures nothing, you need to get a high lottery pick in the right year, or get lucky that a player like Paul George falls to number 10, and you have to be smart enough as a franchise to realize how good he is going to be and draft the guy when he's available.

          There is no exact formula for building a winning team. How did the Pacers acquire David West? Why didn't he go to a large market marque team? I don't know, we got lucky, we did all we could to acquire him, but he could have easily gone to the Celtics - there was nothing brilliant the pacers did to acquire West.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-06-2013, 09:25 AM.


          • #20
            Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

            The new way is simple hire Larry Legend. For getting us Danny, Roy, David, Paul, Lance, George and Tyler. I would like to say once again.

            Thank you LEGEND
            Good is the enemy of Great

            We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
            -- Frank Vogel.


            • #21
              Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

              We've been fairly fortunate over the past couple of years. David West has been a huge factor these past two seasons. I hope it shows other top FAs that they should give small-market franchises a look. Sure, Bird had a lot to do with it, but its still a win in my book. We built strong through the draft, made some decent trades, and we were able to get a top FA to come to us.


              • #22
                Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing.

                In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

                What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
                He isn't necessarily saying that you have to land 3 top 5 picks and tank year in and year out, he is saying that it does however at least require 1 tank season. And I have heard many former GMs in this league for small market teams such as Kevin McHale, talk about how you can not win an NBA championship with out an NBA super star no not just a bunch of All Stars but a legit Super Star a Hall of Fame worthy player. And let's face it these caliber players don't come to cities like Indianapolis on free agent deals, so that leaves only 2 options to get the perceived Super Star that you must have to win the championship either A. trade for one which has been done in recent years but pretty much only to big market teams with other Super Stars already there such as Dwight to LA, Melo to NY (Amare at the time was considered a Super Star and people thought it meant they would get CP3 as well), but again these scenarios don't seem to be open to small market teams such as Pacers. So lastly it comes down to the draft and this is where small market teams have their one chance, Cleveland got their chance with LeBron till he broke their hearts because of this, OKC has been getting their chances now, SA got a million chances thanks to Duncan and amazing coaching, Chicago (while I know they are not small market they were also stuck in a rut neither landing high named FAs or trading for them got unstuck with the 1st overall pick) changed their chances of title contention with Rose. So yes there is a ton of merit to this argument that the only way to win in the NBA in a small market city is to do it by first losing and losing a lot, Detroit Pistons are literally the only exception to this rule in a very long time every other championship team in recent memory has had a Hall of Fame caliper player on the roster, so the Pacers are trying to join the very short list of just the Pistons. For a long time as a Pacer fan when the going got rough I was legitimately upset with Indiana for staying mediocre thinking along these same lines thinking that the mediocrity would never get us anywhere other than maybe some playoff trips but Larry did a phenomenal job of drafting and landing players that are much more skilled than where they were drafted. You could argue that we actually did indeed follow this model of losing to win when at 10 we landed Paul George now at pick 10 there usually is not an opportunity to land many players with top 5 pick talent but I think it is evident that if there was a redraft today that Paul would be a top 5 pick probably even a top 3 pick.


                • #23
                  Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                  Who would've thought...

                  You hire a Champion to build a Championship team. This man has been successful in every level of basketball he's ever been a part of.

                  And for that, I echo the sentiments of the previous posters,

                  Thanks, Larry.


                  • #24
                    Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                    I'm pretty sure Kstats would be singing a different song if instead of Darko Detroit got Melo, Bosh or Wade, yes tanking is always going to be the way to go and if you have an smart FO that knows wtf they are doing is even better.

                    And yes the Pacers didn't "tank" but had they won more games we would be talking about Cole Aldrich or Xavier Henry as part of our core, thanks god for Utah too.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                    • #25
                      Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                      It reinforces the concept of complimenting players, IMO, not necessarily which process to build teams is best.

                      The Pacers aren't all that special individually. Paul looks like he's turning into it though.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.


                      • #26
                        Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                        You hire a Champion to build a Championship team.
                        Someone named Michael Jordan begs to differ.


                        • #27
                          Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                          I think that we are an example of catching lightning in a bottle with our current roster...beamed for OKC really... Both are possible ways to build a contender, but neither are guaranteed... I don't think one way is more effective/efficient than the other... Outside of the big markets, you have to do one or the other b/c you are unable to buy the top talent... The Pacers were built similarly in the 90/2000's which lead to a contending team nearly annually...
                          Abba Zaba, your my only friend.


                          • #28
                            Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            That wouldn't even supersede it....the 2004 finals was a smash hit in the ratings primarily because the pistons were embarrassing the lakers. Then the lakers broke up, and there was no super-team left to hate, and fans went back to rooting for the new, fresh media superstars, and we were just in the way if wade, lebron, Howard, etc.
                            It was a bit of that and the fact that Detroit's market is larger, the dispersement of Detroit fans because of the economic decline in the American auto industries, the media today is currently saturated, and many other variables.

                            And do you think that the Heat is not a super-team that could topple and draw new viewers in? I mean the Dallas series had a 10.6 to the Thunder series of 10.2. And while they weren't an 11.4, I think the Heat is more established as a superteam. I think it can happen. Most likely not with the Pacers because of market size. That and the Pistons were a dynasty in the NBA and in the last 20 years.

                            But there could be a team that can break that 11.4 mark. I agree that the Pacers are most likely not that. But that doesn't mean that they can't be successful in the NBA (which I know you are not arguing). Their mold is a viable one. And it is a lesson that you can find success in this league through more ways than tanking.

                            Tanking does have a better success rate I would argue though. Tanking or bottoming out, lottery picks are the best way to win. But it does not come risk free.


                            • #29
                              Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                              And here is a list of "the Pistons way":

                              Billups (3rd pick overall)

                              Hamilton (7th pick overall)

                              Ben Wallace (undrafted)

                              Prince (23rd overall)

                              Rasheed Wallace (4th pick overall)

                              OK so out of the 5 Pistons starters 3 were high draft picks, they also had Darko (2nd pick overall), imagine if instead of Darko they got either Wade, Melo or Bosh? call me crazy but the "Pistons way" is harder to pull off than the "OKC way".
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                              • #30
                                Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                And here is a list of "the Pistons way":

                                Billups (3rd pick overall)

                                Hamilton (7th pick overall)

                                Ben Wallace (undrafted)

                                Prince (23rd overall)

                                Rasheed Wallace (4th pick overall)

                                OK so out of the 5 Pistons starters 3 were high draft picks, they also had Darko (2nd pick overall), imagine if instead of Darko they got either Wade, Melo or Bosh? call me crazy but the "Pistons way" is harder to pull off than the "OKC way".

                                What finding former lottery picks that either burned their bridges, never matured, or were given away for trash...and then having them gel together and become what they were drafted to do...together...united. Yeah that seems a lot harder than tanking and waiting on your superstars to grow.