Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Hibbert dealt to the Lakers for a future 2nd round pick

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

  • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
    Sacre wouldn't be bad if we're just looking for a warm body to play as a 3rd-string center. However, no idea why we'd want Kelly? He's like Rudez except he can't shoot.
    Think Kelly will just be a body, and a guy that can still develop a consistent 3 pt shot at the next level, little longer than Rudez and better at putting the ball on the floor, but not an upgrade, would rather have Rudez shooting as of now, and with having all these wings that can penetrate you have to expect he will be out on the wing hitting open 3's a bunch.
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
      Oh, let me take a stab at it, I love these!:

      -Rondo was pegged as a late round pick because he had no hope of learning how to shoot.
      -Pacers weren't going to do anything else with the money. Bad decision, but low risk high reward that didn't hurt much.
      -The brawl and the people of pacerland saying they wanted saintly, "blue collar" guys or whatever.
      -This was inexcusable, but hey, it led to Vogel.
      -Hibbert was gonna need a backup with his breathing issues. Also, ask the other GMs.
      -Hibbert was gonna need a backup with his breathing issues and waning productivity.
      -I think he was gonna leave no matter what if Hibbert was still on the team.

      But you're right, Larry Bird sucks because he missed on a few draft picks, nevermind Paul George who was considered a reach when the Pacers took him. Maybe you'd prefer we still had Donnie Walsh so he could throw some historically bad contracts at people and handicap another franchise.

      Also wow @ people liking Kstat's post here, it's clearly misinformed and the people who liked it know this.
      The point of my post was that when we seek answers or reasons for why an event occurs, our attributions of that reason should include the histories and decision-making characteristics of all parties involved, because there isn't an involved party that has an impeccable history of never making wrong decisions. When we ask, why did Roy get traded for no reason? it's true that the reasoning might be found in Roy's history and decision-making, but it might also be found in the history and decision-making of the person trading him who, as history shows, isn't immune to making bad decisions. You'd think it'd be commonly understood that people make bad decisions, but when the person of discussion develops a mythological aura as a Legend, sometimes it needs reminding.
      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

      Comment


      • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

        When it comes down to it, we literally have no idea how any of this is going to work out yet we are all psychics.

        Comment


        • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

          Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
          The point of my post was that when we seek answers or reasons for why an event occurs, our attributions of that reason should include the histories and decision-making characteristics of all parties involved, because there isn't an involved party that has an impeccable history of never making wrong decisions. When we ask, why did Roy get traded for no reason? it's true that the reasoning might be found in Roy's history and decision-making, but it might also be found in the history and decision-making of the person trading him who, as history shows, isn't immune to making bad decisions. You'd think it'd be commonly understood that people make bad decisions, but when the person of discussion develops a mythological aura as a Legend, sometimes it needs reminding.
          Most of your issues with Larry are drift misses and low level signings. If you require a GM to never miss in the draft you won't have a GM.

          Comment


          • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
            I'm just going to stop debating with people panicking over us getting Nick Young.
            Originally posted by Really? View Post
            I hate losing money playing poker, but I never play poker now so I am not worried about it, it is that simple.
            I know, I know. I'm not worried about getting him, I don't think he'd even play if we did. I just can't freaking stand the guy and don't want to see him in an Indiana jersey. I freely admit I didn't actually read the rumors. I just hate him so much.

            Comment


            • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

              It's funny the usernames that only pop up around here in times of uncertainty, spreading negativity. Nice work, y'all.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                Seriously? Roy was a locker room distraction. Acted like an unprofessional jerk. Pouting, and creating a negative environment. Good riddance
                Yeah, I'm gonna need some sources for that.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                  At some point you have to accept Roy may have been a locker room issue when so many media people are commenting about it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                    when Roy Hibbert made the "selfish dude" comment about Lance.....just wait until he plays for Kobe..

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Yeah, I'm gonna need some sources for that.
                      Man Nuntius, I know you're a positive guy and all, but we have given you three respected local sources(including a live interview that I even emailed the radio hosts to confirm what was said about Roy) that have access to the locker room and you still refuse to believe there is any truth to it. You should be Roy's agent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        Yeah, I'm gonna need some sources for that.
                        There's a whole thread for it with all the sources you'll need. "All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so.... "
                        Start with this post.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          At some point you have to accept Roy may have been a locker room issue when so many media people are commenting about it.
                          I said this before and I'll say it once again. I will accept that when someone (anyone) with close links to the organization provides some actual evidence. I said that before and people told me that this would bomb his value even further. Well, Roy is no longer a part of the Pacers so any reporter that has any info about this has to come clean. NOW!
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                            Man Nuntius, I know you're a positive guy and all, but we have given you three respected local sources(including a live interview that I even emailed the radio hosts to confirm what was said about Roy) that have access to the locker room and you still refuse to believe there is any truth to it. You should be Roy's agent.
                            I don't refuse to believe that there is any truth to it. I just want to see evidence. I want to know what really happened before I accuse a player of being a locker room cancer or a malcontent.

                            Am I crazy?

                            Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                            There's a whole thread for it with all the sources you'll need. "All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so.... "
                            Start with this post.
                            I read Brunner's article. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide any evidence.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              I said this before and I'll say it once again. I will accept that when someone (anyone) with close links to the organization provides some actual evidence. I said that before and people told me that this would bomb his value even further. Well, Roy is no longer a part of the Pacers so any reporter that has any info about this has to come clean. NOW!
                              These are professionals. It is not professional on their part to spew all the details of a bad situation as much as we would all like to know them. These are not reporters. These are writers and broadcasters. There is a big difference.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                I said this before and I'll say it once again. I will accept that when someone (anyone) with close links to the organization provides some actual evidence. I said that before and people told me that this would bomb his value even further. Well, Roy is no longer a part of the Pacers so any reporter that has any info about this has to come clean. NOW!
                                When you say evidence, what do you mean? Video tape of him being an issue? secret tape recordings?

                                All there is to go by is what people with access to the locker room say and right now a lot of the people with that access are saying he was an issue.

                                But at the end of the day its also okay for you to say that you just don't care about what people are saying about the locker room. I think its pretty evident that you became very invested in defending Roy over the past couple of seasons to the point where I think you have taken out some objectivity to him and in reality just now like him by default. Again this is fine, I have players I like even though they have proven to have weaknesses as well. Hell even knowing that Danny is done as a player and let's be honest he is done, I still would love to have the Pacers pick him up if Detroit waves him.


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X