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

2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

    F it, I'm hyped. Let's do this. I don't want to see the Cubs trade Garza, but if they turn Garza into Jurickson Profar, Martin Perez and Mike Olt or Scott Feldman........Nice knowing you Matty!

    I'll go wash Theo's underwear all year if that happens.
    Last edited by Foul on Smits; 12-08-2011, 07:45 AM.

  • #2
    Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

    We are gonna suck regardless next year I would trade him while we still can. He hits free agency in a few years and it looks like CJ Wilson will get a 6 year deal I cant imagine what Garza will get I would trade him if I was the GM as well.


    • #3
      Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

      I love what we are doing this off season getting Rizzo was awesome he was my #1 target. The 2 spects we got from the Reds look to be solid Ronald Torreyes has some serious upside. My favorite move is getting rid of Z I didnt want to ever see him play for us agin after quitting on us last year.

      We are gonna suck for a few years but we are building a solid foundation

      trade Garza (only for the right package like Jacob Turner and a few others from Detroit) Dempster and Byrd and call it an off season

      but I really like the way we are heading Theo has made a few great trades I think we won the Cincinnati trade and the Padres one for sure.

      The Reds got a hell of a pitcher though Marshall is the 2nd best lefty reliever in baseball. But we weren't gonna over pay him and we have no use for him since we are rebuilding.

      I will be going to more games this year we may suck but watching the kids grow and play hard will be better than watching Z throw a fit.

      Rizzo and Brett Jackson are starting in Iowa to give us an extra year of control.


      • #4
        Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

        I'm guessing 71-91. A very promising 91 losses. Hopefully they trade Byrd to a contender at the deadline and get a prospect or two and then call up Jackson to take his spot.

        I'm all for leaving Rizzo in Trip A. What's the point of bringing him up? I like Lahair and want to get a years look at him. If Lahair turns out to be a player, he can play outfield or maybe learn 3rd next year.


        Marlon Byrd and Matt Garza shipped at the deadline.


        • #5
          Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

          I can't think of a more appropriate way to start a Cubs season...


          • #6
            Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

            I missed yesterdays game, of course as I am a Nats fan I was glad to see the Nats come back and eek it out. Looking forward to getting a first look at you guys and of course my Nats today.


            • #7
              Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

              Matty Ice dealing smoke to start the season


              • #8
                Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                Where's pacer4ever? I can't be the only Cubbie fan left.

                I hope The Shark stays clean today and ruins the Cards ring celebration.

                Game is on WGN.


                • #9
                  Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                  The Cubs stink this year, but at least we can still beat the Cards!


                  • #10
                    Not a Cubs fan, but this team looks really meh for me.

                    Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
                    "What you do is so loud, I can't hear what you say" -Andrew Luck
                    "If you turn the other cheek, I'm gonna hit you in the other cheek, too" -Charles Barkley
                    "Ego is edging greatness out" -Rick Pitino
                    Junior at the University of Louisville
                    Greenfield-Central High School Alum '14
                    Follow me on Twitter @steagles1
                    1000th post - 4/16/12 2000th post - 6/24/12 3000th post - 3/8/13


                    • #11
                      Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                      Hey, Foul on Smits (I love that name!). Long, long time Cubs fan here.

                      So far, the starting pitching is acceptable, a few of the position players are hitting OK. The rest is junk. I am hoping Soriano keeps it up and the Cubs can unload him finally to a contender.

                      Best case and most realistically hopeful prediction from me this year is a .500 season. OK for a rebuilding season I guess but THIS IS N0T THE YEAR FOR THE CUBS.

                      Once again.


                      • #12
                        Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                        Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                        I'm guessing 71-91. A very promising 91 losses. Hopefully they trade Byrd to a contender at the deadline and get a prospect or two and then call up Jackson to take his spot.

                        I'm all for leaving Rizzo in Trip A. What's the point of bringing him up? I like Lahair and want to get a years look at him. If Lahair turns out to be a player, he can play outfield or maybe learn 3rd next year.


                        Marlon Byrd and Matt Garza shipped at the deadline.
                        Wow, you are even more doom and gloom than I am! I am hoping for .500, although not likely it is a nice dream!

                        Cubs need to let Marmol, Byrd, and Soriano go and get some developing players in return. Maybe Garza too. Soriano is marketable RIGHT NOW, while he is hitting.


                        • #13
                          Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                          The Phillies will have nightmares about Tony Campana after this series.

                          I really like this Cubs team. Except Stewart, Soto and Soriano.


                          • #14
                            Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                            Good story on Adam Greenberg. I think this is happening tonight. Hopefully one of those crazy knuckleballs doesn't hit him. I wonder if he is starting?


                            Originally posted by
                            On July 9, 2005, Adam Greenberg stepped into the batter's box at Dolphins Stadium for his first major league at-bat. Greenberg, then 24, had been a promising prospect for the Cubs ever since they had selected him in the ninth-round of the 2002 draft out of North Carolina three years earlier. He rose steadily through Chicago's minor league system and was batting .269 with a .386 on-base percentage and 15 steals in 19 attempts at Double-A West Tennessee when he was promoted to the parent club.

                            He came to the plate as a pinch-hitter with one out in the top of the ninth and the Cubs leading 4-2. The first pitch from Florida's Valerio de los Santos was a high fastball that smashed into Greenberg's helmet and made contact with his skull. Greenberg walked off the field under his own power but had no way of knowing that he had suffered a concussion or that he had just faced his only major league pitch.

                            Until tonight. More than seven years after that one-pitch at-bat that earned him a rare place in baseball history as the only player to be hit by the only pitch he ever saw in the major leagues, Greenberg was signed to a one-day contract by the Marlins last week. The team announced it will get him into tonight's game against the New York Mets at Marlins Park. Greenberg, now 31, tells his story in his own words.

                            The only time I think abut the at-bat is when people ask me questions. I dismissed it a long time ago based on having to live it and deal with it in order to get over it. I wanted to get back on the field and get back to playing. It was really important to me that I not accept "Oh well, poor me." I always used it as fire, just like when I was just a little kid and I had that fire to reach the majors. I never really got to live my dream in playing in the major leagues. So I used it as fuel to keep that fire burning.

                            I never really felt like I wasn't going to make it back. That was what enabled me to keep going.
                            continued at link.

                            EDIT: Leave it to Ozzie to be kind of a dick about it:


                            Guillen said Greenberg likely would be lifted after the at-bat and he wasnt sure if Greenberg would even run the bases.

                            They told me to give him one at-bat. Thats what they want, he said.

                            Guillen also said he will manage the game like he does any other game to win. Thats why he said Greenberg likely would be used without the game on the line.

                            Im not going to pinch hit him for the pitcher just because, he said.

                            If I need a base hit to take the lead or something then I will figure it out another inning. Im going to manage my game to win the game. I will figure out how to play him but if the game is on the line, Im going to manage it to win one game.
                            Last edited by dal9; 10-02-2012, 03:40 PM.


                            • #15
                              Re: 2012 Chicago Cubs Baseball thread

                              Yah. I love that the Cubs couldnt bring this guy back for a good story. I guess Josh Vitters cant afford to lose that 1 at-bat. I guess Brett Jackson is going after the batting title or something.