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

Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
    If it ends up that we can't keep Lance I think we can still be a title contender without completely filling that void.
    I honestly don't. At least, not with what we currently have on the roster. I think if we lose Lance, and you expect Danny or anyone else we have under contract to "fill the void", you'll be disappointed. For this, I'm willing to sacrifice our bench, than our starters....especially considering that last year with a crappy bench we still were one game away from the finals.


    • #47
      Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

      Originally posted by pogi View Post
      I honestly don't. At least, not with what we currently have on the roster. I think if we lose Lance, and you expect Danny or anyone else we have under contract to "fill the void", you'll be disappointed. For this, I'm willing to sacrifice our bench, than our starters....especially considering that last year with a crappy bench we still were one game away from the finals.
      I've came to terms with the fact that no matter what we'll be worse next year.
      Keep Lance and lose Danny and we're worse because we won't be filling the void that Danny leaves.
      Keep Lance and lose Danny and Scola and we're much worse.
      Keep Danny and Scola but lose Lance and we're worse.
      Overpay Lance and lose Hibbert the following year and we're done.
      You can't fill all the voids but I do believe we are still a title contender without Lance if that happens. We're not a contender is we lose Hibbert.
      I may be in the minority but I don't think we can just pay Lance whatever it takes. If I am in the minority I'm glad part of that group includes Larry Bird. Larry isn't going to gut the team to keep Lance, he's said he'll plug someone else in and we'll be o.k.
      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.


      • #48
        Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

        Pencil me in as someone who enjoys Lance's talent and production, but also as someone who sees him as 90% replaceable if his cost is too high. In a Lance replacement, you're looking for a guy who can guard his position, shoot the 3, and act as a secondary ballhandler. A guy like Aaron Afflalo, Thabo Sefolosha or Evan Turner would replace most or even all of Lance's production for around $8 million per season. You could also bring in a big point guard like Vasquez or Stuckey and have Hill play 2 on offense and 1 on defense, which is pretty much what he does now anyways.

        Meanwhile, Scola is producing what you would expect of a big man making about 5-6 million. No way you cut him to retain Lance at $12m per. For that matter, Danny will get a good price in free agency, but most likely less than $10m per. Would you rather have Danny and Scola, or Lance? Would you rather have Sefolosha and Scola, or Lance?

        If that asking price goes much above $8m per, I think it's time to look at cost-effective replacement players. I believe Hill is actually more valuable than Lance because he can guard any PG in the league, and can also slide over and play shooting guard. He's just as versatile as Lance, a better shooter, and defending arguably the most important position in the league to defend. If you trade Hill for a replacement level player and sign Lance, you run the risk of guys like CP3, Westbrook, and Rondo getting Hibbert and West in foul trouble on a regular basis. I don't think that Hibbert's foul trouble issues dropping when Hill joined the team is a coincidence.


        • #49
          Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
          Well, explain.

          I could understand wanting the hometown kid. Why you had to specify color though ........... ??????


          • #50
            Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

            I don't know and don't care anymore what Lance is going to get paid because I believe the playoffs are truly going to determine his value.

            Right now however the current "dilemma" may be is should Danny start getting minutes at the end of games. I don't think were gonna change the starting lineup this season and Danny is likely not ready for heavy minutes but if all goes well and he continues his recovery its going to happen.

            This is not a knock on Stephenson except for the fact I at times significantly question his maturity and by that I mean in stritctly a basketball sense. ie. does he always make the right play, and does he do what is best for the team. at times its an astounding and emphatic yes,,, other times not so much and it disrupts things offensively for us.

            hear me out.

            when lance reaches his prime he is going to be one helluva player, but there are times when his attributes with our starting lineup is not a great fit believe it or not. without going into too much detail I believe it primarily revolves around his maturity and making the right play at all times. the veteran savvy will come with time but recently I have begun to wonder how good we can be if Danny begins playing at the end of games in the starting lineup.

            what I love about that possibility is the size that Danny brings to our starting 5. he also brings what I discussed above is a veteran presence which just fits in nicely to what we are all about. I am not ready to see this happen just yet because Danny is still recovering. I only mention now because I have noticed Vogel implemented Granger into the starting lineup the other nite when Lance was struggling vs GS and even more so vs PHX. Its obvious Dannys legs and conditioning are not there yet but they will be if all things go well and at that time this team may become more productive with danny in the starting lineup than without.

            Lance brings passing but at times its just too darn careless and not in the best intersts of the team but in the best interests of SC highlights. The one asset I am convinced cannot be replaced if Lance is not on the court is the fast break. Guy just excels in the open court like very few in the nba. defensively lance and granger (when fully conditioned) are pretty darn even and prob would be determined by matchups.

            however, I think Dannys size is a bigger advantage for us.

            Danny notoriously starts seasons slow with shooting.. so I expect him to find his touch soon and when that happens Coach Vogel is going to have to find out somehow someway which starting 5 is going to best finishing games.

            I just really like where Danny is right now.. so many questioned if he can accept a lesser role and its very clear that Danny is all about winning (even in a contract year).. whereas Lance I think has a dual purpose at times.

            Lance is going to get pd... I realize he will likely make the AS game but I don't care. I really think Coach Vogel is considering this already in that who is the best 5 for us to finish games.

            as lance continues to flourish we would likely be wondering if he should be starting point which would make our size incredicbly imposing w a lance paul backcourt but that time is not right now as lance simply cannot be trusted to make the smart pass in direct contrast to the highlight pass.

            Dannys veteran presence with our starters could really be something. I guess it comes down to Dannys shooting or Lances playmaking.

            imho this is the relevant "dilemma" we will likely be discussing soon once Granger fully returns to form (and by that I mean about 80% of what Granger once was prior to the knee).


            • #51
              Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

              I'd hate to lose Lance.
              I hate to lose Danny, but I guess I've gotten used to the idea.
              Lance is young and a gym rat. He's improving rapidly and perfectly matches the age of our young starting unit.
              I fully expect both he and George to be better again next year.

              I expect both Scola and West to be a little worse.
              Hill maybe the easiest to replace but we're going to have to face the loss of both our PF's soon any way.

              If we keep Lance, Roy, and PG I believe that we will be contenders for the foreseeable future.
              We will be a good draw for ring chasers.

              If we replace Lance with a guy almost as good he will be almost as expensive.
              If he isn't almost as good then we aren't going to be contenders any more and so what is the point of losing our budding young star to save an older vet like Scola who may just retire any day now anyway.

              I hope peddling Cope will give sufficient head room.
              If not I'd chop Ian next.
              We'd look like one good ol' 15 min per night vet center away from contending again.
              Okafor, Kamen, JO (if Healthy)... Some older stud would be willing to fill that slot nicely for not much over the minimum.
              Trade Scola back for Plumlee!

              I would even trade DWest or Hill if I had to to save Lance.
              We would not be in the finals next year but Lance is already better than Hill and getting better all the time. Hill's overpaid anyway.

              It would pain me immensely to lose West. One of my favorite guys and we would suck without him.
              But again he's 34 right so are you going to lose a young all-star to save him?

              Any big piece we lose without replacing it with someone almost as good will knock us out of contention.
              If we lose an older guy he's like on borrowed time anyway and our core is young enough to rise again and will be a good landing spot for a vet ring chaser.

              If we lose Hib, Lance, or PG not only are we toast but we have also still the impending loss of our older guys.

              So if you lose Lance to save Scola or West it's almost like a rental by comparison.
              Last edited by solid; 01-24-2014, 08:15 AM.