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

Speculation!

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

  • #16
    Re: Speculation!

    Originally posted by Will Galen
    1) I didn't say the Pacers goofed, I said the Pacers goofed somewhere along the line. There's a reason I put it that way. The mistake was made when Donnie misjudged the market for Brad and then didn't handle the resulting situation very well and had to trade Brad or lose him for nothing.

    Much earlier Donnie had come right out and stated that he was going to re-sign all his free agents when it didn't seem possible. Well he actually did sign everyone, but not the way that was meant because we lost Brad. Hence my saying there was a goof somewhere along the line.
    Like I said, it was a judgment call based on Brad's history of not being able to stay healthy against the money he was commanding. If Donnie had truly wanted to keep Brad, I'm sure he would have found a way to make it happen.


    Originally posted by Will Galen
    2) As for your McGrady point, Donnie is a lawyer and Herb Simon is an astute businessman and Larry Bird is an ex basketball player turned executive. Donnie and Herb doing the negotiating doesn't mean Bird didn't want McGrady. It meant they agreed they wanted McGrady and Bird wasn't comfortable in working on such a big deal. The point could be made that Donnie wasn't comfortable making a deal that big either since an owner went with him.
    I didn't say Bird didn't want McGrady. I said Bird wasn't comfortable handling the negotiation.


    Originally posted by Will Galen
    "there are things that Larry has wanted to do and Rick has wanted to do that couldn't be done within the construct of the organization. And Walsh has had to gently navigate those waters. . ."

    What you mean is Walsh told them they couldn't hire an extra coach. All that means is they don't have carte blanche to hire a coach for each player etc.
    I know what I meant. And no, it wasn't solely about hiring an extra coach. There were players that Larry and Rick wanted last summer and at the trade deadline as well.


    Originally posted by Will Galen
    That doesn't in any way go against what I'm trying to say, but apparently haven't made clear.

    One more time. It's Bird's job to decide on who the Pacer coach's and players are, not Donnies. Bird makes the final decision on who they are.

    If that isn't clear please excuse my inability to make clear what I mean!

    If you disagree, so be it.
    It is clear, but it's a little off the mark. It's not as black and white as you want to make it. The way you word it is a job description that doesn't exactly align with the reality of the situation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Speculation!

      Originally posted by BigMac
      Why don't you dangle JO while you're at it.

      I'm sure glad you're not the Pacers GM. Obviously you do not like Foster but to get a backup that doesn't play for a team you shouldn't have to get rid of two players who play significant minutes for the other team? You should be able to dangle a 1st round pick to get him if he is that good.
      Actually, I like Foster a lot, but I would gladly give him up for a future starting PG.

      And what exactly are you talking about? Beno plays roughly the same amount of minutes AJ and Jeff does for us. He is a decent defender already, a deadeye long-range shoot, and a good passer.

      I think you are too emotionally attached to these players. Putting Johnson and Foster in a trade in no where near putting JO in a trade. Foster to SA would make sense, though, because he is one of the few players we have on a decent contract, and would be a hometown hero in San Antonio. Besides, having Jeff and Dale together on the same team is somewhat repetitive, they both play the same role.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Speculation!

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        That is always what I heard. Although I doubt it was quite that cut and dried.


        I remember reading articles about how Bird wanted Luke Jackson in the draft last year and all the rumors involving trades with the Cavs and other teams to get Luke Jackson. Then we learn after the draft that Bird really wanted Ben Gordan. But we did not hear one word about Ben prior to the draft. So yes Bird can keep it quiet, and he obviously leaked the thing about Luke Jackson because it was reported in about 4 national outlets. Chicago Trib, Chad Ford, ESPN.com, and a few others.
        Imagine this team with Ben Gordon. Good lord.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Speculation!

          Didn't Bird say something like............ Tinsley will be the next Pacer to be an all-star?

          If he thinks that, really, wouldn't he want to hang onto him.

          Maybe the roster "tweak" is at the 2.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Speculation!

            If Michael Redd comes here, I will be thrilled. Redd is an enourmously talented player who I think is a great guy as well. Who else with that amount of talent would put up with as much **** in Milwaukee as Redd has. Michael Redd is a superb replacement for Reggie and as much as I love Jax, I would take Michael Redd over him in a second.

            In fact, I would take Redd over Allen too.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Speculation!

              If anyone needs to be traded it is not tinsley. The only thing I don't like about Tins is his health issues. But you'd think we could just play it safe and cut down his minutes in the regular season, I would certainly do that. Some players aren't built to go 82 games at starter minutes. It's really not a big deal. Clearly home court advantage doesn't meant a lot to this team in the playoffs. Just let our reserves get more minutes...it's a win win situation really.

              Tinsleys passing/ballhandling is nearly unrivaled. Why trade him, he is only getting better. Just remember those 3 games where he had like 30 pts. We are talking about trading a guy who can put up 30 pts/15 ast on any night really, as long as he is healthy.

              If anyone should be traded it is Jermaine. We need another PG equally as good as AJ sort of like an insurance plan for Tins. If we can draft a guy like that, then we can just trade JO/Pollard for Elton Brand/Livingston or something similar.

              I really want to keep Jackson, he has heart and REALLY wants to win. Him and Artest are two of the most competitive players we've had on a pacers team since....Reggie.

              I'd like to see our lineup remain the same and if anyone is gone it should be Jermaine. You would think his trade value is pretty high, he did perform well in the playoffs CONSIDERING he didn't have full movement of his right arm.

              JUST IMAGINE

              Tins
              Jack
              Ron
              Brand
              Dale

              Bench: Livingston, JJ, FJ, Foster, AJ, DH, our draft pick

              WOW. Someone call the clippers we need to do this trade NOW.
              *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Speculation!

                Now we have confirmation, out of all the woodwork they crawl, and trades are proposed at an interval that nearly makes realgm jealous.


                Let's see, is there a player on the roster not yet traded in some scenario?
                Is there still an issue with who runs what in PS&E ?
                Wil is right, Harmonica is right, yet never the twain shall meet.
                DW is not likely to overrule LB, unless there are compelling reasons (moneywise for instance) to do so, why does he have the "power"? Because he is the CEO of PS&E.


                Good with that settled, let's trade JO, Tinsley, Jeff, Jax, Ron, Fred, Polly, throw in AJ, JJ and DD where needed, Cro and JB of course, and let's see what we have left then.
                Ooppps, OK we get some players back, varying from Allen, to Brand and everything in between.
                Loads of talent as well, so we will have to wait a few years again, while the players we traded are winning rings with other teams, not all together of course, but close.

                What some of you may forget in conjuring up all these scenarios is that a player is never deemed safe, had Shaq wanted to play here, do you really think JO would have been safe last year? if so: share that stuff!

                Players are all relative safe, in order of importance, where the "usual" IRL players are the first to be on the block, then in order of importance #12 and up on the bench.
                It is called "improving" which is not often done by tradgin your starting 5, rarely will you be able to trade starters for starters and if you do there is a reason why the other team wants to do the trade.

                JO is not safe, if Garnett or a likewise quality player comes on the table, any drop in quality and JO is as safe as the bank of England.
                Artest, considering what would be offered, he's safe as well, unlike players close to his level are offered, which wont likely happen.
                Tinsley, again, as LB said, the next Pacer most likely to be an all-star, trading him will take a bit more then most here suggest and the entire discussion could come from the fact that Rick does NOT like Tins, LB does, the availibility may be there, but it is still highly unlikely.
                Jax, his "temparement" may be exactly what makes it "easier" to trade him , at times he is simply out of control and a check-up on the stats shows you that if he stays within the offense and has between 10 and 17 shots he's at his best, an enormous value to the team, it is when he "explores" that he is simply a detriment, he may be offered with filler(s) to get more stability to the 2, JJ's emergence as a shooter has not helped Jax' stock either inside the organization.
                Jeff, depending on whether we are re-signing DD and the "knowledge" on Hulk, he has a very good trade value, either as a filler or a key piece, DD however holds more value to the team as a mentor for Hulk if they are still convinced that he can make it.
                Fred, upside and downsides, filler perhaps, but not likely a keypiece.
                Polly, final year on his contract, what can i say, plus that Rick is still not convinced on him, a likely filler or key piece if the trading partner is a S&T.
                Cro, again with fillers, they've been trying for years on end now to get rid of the contract, hard to do, but definitely on the wishlist and has nothing to do with the player.
                JB, if rumours are true (there's always fire to create smoke) then he is definitely on the block, probably the best for both parties, his value however is only in the eye of the beholder.
                AJ, solid backup and as such a good commodity, filler or key value depending on the partner's need.

                Safe not one, but likely not one of the first 3, after that everything is possible, the trade history of the Pacers shows they hardly ever make a bad deal, so have faith.

                Need for changes?
                We will be active, and the changes made will be a cross between what Rick wants, what LB wants and what DW deems possible and the market allows.

                But yes we need improvement in staying healthy, (trade med crew?) and we need some talent left and right, happy to fill a role, it will come, overthrowing the nucleus would be like once again rebuilding on the fly and definitely not winning it all next year, with that nucleus in tact we are definitely in the game.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Speculation!

                  Originally posted by Will Galen
                  I thought it was Carlisle who liked Best and Bird who liked Mark Jackson?
                  Bird preferred Mark, but he still gave Best major crunch-time minutes, to the consternation of many here (excluding myself.)
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Speculation!

                    I think tinsley might be on his way out. Jack maybe, But he shouldn't. We should give this team one more shot at it. I mean if we were "Title Contenders" before the brawl. Then we still are after it (with ron). Give them one more shot.
                    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Speculation!

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan
                      Wow.

                      I could have sworn when I was here earlier "soup" had a post in this thread......
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Speculation!

                        Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                        Actually, I like Foster a lot, but I would gladly give him up for a future starting PG.

                        And what exactly are you talking about? Beno plays roughly the same amount of minutes AJ and Jeff does for us. He is a decent defender already, a deadeye long-range shoot, and a good passer.

                        I think you are too emotionally attached to these players. Putting Johnson and Foster in a trade in no where near putting JO in a trade. Foster to SA would make sense, though, because he is one of the few players we have on a decent contract, and would be a hometown hero in San Antonio. Besides, having Jeff and Dale together on the same team is somewhat repetitive, they both play the same role.
                        I don't think the Spurs would make this trade because it wouldn't make them any better. The Spurs are getting Sato from Argentina next season, so their bigs are full. Beno is signed on the cheap for the next 2 years, so they have a quality backup whose trade value will only rise as he gets better.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Speculation!

                          Originally posted by Kegboy
                          Bird preferred Mark, but he still gave Best major crunch-time minutes, to the consternation of many here (excluding myself.)
                          Yep, like in every game we won against Jordan's Bulls in the ECF--except, of course, game seven, when Bird left Mark Jackson in. Brick.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Speculation!

                            Originally posted by Jon Theodore
                            If anyone needs to be traded it is not tinsley. The only thing I don't like about Tins is his health issues. But you'd think we could just play it safe and cut down his minutes in the regular season, I would certainly do that. Some players aren't built to go 82 games at starter minutes. It's really not a big deal. Clearly home court advantage doesn't meant a lot to this team in the playoffs. Just let our reserves get more minutes...it's a win win situation really.
                            I love Tinsley's game, but he's generally only playing 32 mpg as a starter - that's already extremely low for a starter - and he still breaks down.

                            And PG is such a critical position that his absences - either in missed games or extra time on the bench - hurt the entire offense and make each of the other four players less useful.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X