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

Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

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

  • #91
    Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    2, as I understand it. So one more year than Paul. But I can't see how that is worth a #1 pick.
    It makes sense if you look at the players already on the team. IF they do not want IT back then sure why would they choose Klove over the best point guard in the draft but if they keep IT then why would they draft another pg? Basically they get to round out there roster while probably still making an offer to Heyward.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      2, as I understand it. So one more year than Paul. But I can't see how that is worth a #1 pick.
      It's not and they'd never do it.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

        Originally posted by able View Post
        Can we not post stupid crap like this??
        You are about like BillS. Can't a Mod (or more accurately, landlord) come up with a reply at least a bit better than that? Just rude.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          It makes sense if you look at the players already on the team. IF they do not want IT back then sure why would they choose Klove over the best point guard in the draft but if they keep IT then why would they draft another pg? Basically they get to round out there roster while probably still making an offer to Heyward.
          I still don't think you're understanding. There's not a scenario where Boston would give up the # 1 pick for Love. Love would need to go to a team like the Rockets.

          Truthfully, I could Indiana passing on Love and losing Paul George for free to avoid taking the long term contract. If Indiana trades PG, they're going to get younger.

          If anything, this is a plus if the Cavs REALLY want Paul George. This opens the door for Indiana to get involved in some 3+ team trades.
          Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 06-15-2017, 10:23 AM.


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

            There's practically no scenario in which we trade PG to LeBron that is going to make me happy. People are forgetting that the other teams don't exist solely for the benefit of LeBron.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

              Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
              There's practically no scenario in which we trade PG to LeBron that is going to make me happy. People are forgetting that the other teams don't exist solely for the benefit of LeBron.
              Frankly, I wouldn't care....we're not contending anytime soon unless KP makes some serious moves this offseason.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                Frankly, I wouldn't care....we're not contending anytime soon unless KP makes some serious moves this offseason.
                I'm not necessarily attached to PG like many people are, but essentially gifting him to LeBron would upset me. Cleveland is giving up almost nothing I'd want (Kyrie, Thompson), they have virtually no draft picks to give away, and if we're talking about sending Love to a third team, there's simply no way we're getting back equal value in a trade where we lose PG.

                I'm also on record vehemently disagreeing with the notion that the rest of the NBA should just bow down to the Cavs and Warriors for the next five years. So it would frustrate me to no end that we'd ship the best Pacers player in a generation to the Cavs and empower their super team. There's no scenario where a team trades their best player to a dynasty and comes out ahead. Trade PG to LA, or to Sacto, or PHX, or to China. Just don't help LeBron and Cleveland.
                It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post



                  just to see Joe Schmoe national fan's perspective
                  Well you also have to consider probably 88% of the people also haven't watched many pacers games.
                  Lifelong pacers fan

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    I still don't think you're understanding. There's not a scenario where Boston would give up the # 1 pick for Love. Love would need to go to a team like the Rockets.

                    Truthfully, I could Indiana passing on Love and losing Paul George for free to avoid taking the long term contract. If Indiana trades PG, they're going to get younger.

                    If anything, this is a plus if the Cavs REALLY want Paul George. This opens the door for Indiana to get involved in some 3+ team trades.
                    So that is essentially what I said in that three team deal. Essentially getting a draft pick for PG but regardless never say never in the NBA.

                    Best case is that PG stays and the worse case is that the Pacers get saddled with fat contracts with underachieving players to try to convince him to stay and he doesn't. As a fan I just hope he is upfront with his intentions and if the Pacers do have a real shot at extending him then they should go for the all in approach.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                      Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                      I'm not necessarily attached to PG like many people are, but essentially gifting him to LeBron would upset me. Cleveland is giving up almost nothing I'd want (Kyrie, Thompson), they have virtually no draft picks to give away, and if we're talking about sending Love to a third team, there's simply no way we're getting back equal value in a trade where we lose PG.

                      I'm also on record vehemently disagreeing with the notion that the rest of the NBA should just bow down to the Cavs and Warriors for the next five years. So it would frustrate me to no end that we'd ship the best Pacers player in a generation to the Cavs and empower their super team. There's no scenario where a team trades their best player to a dynasty and comes out ahead. Trade PG to LA, or to Sacto, or PHX, or to China. Just don't help LeBron and Cleveland.
                      Doing stuff on "principles" is not the way to build a team, because you start limiting your options.

                      If ANY team believes that Paul George is the piece to a Championship, then you have to field the offers. Now, if Indiana was contending, then it would be stupid to trade him. However, Indiana doesn't have that luxury. We're NOT contending, AND we have an All-Star talent that could walk for nothing.

                      If Boston was offering their # 1 pick to LA, do you really think Magic is going pass on any offers based on some principle of "hating" the Celtics?


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                        Doing stuff on "principles" is not the way to build a team, because you start limiting your options.

                        If ANY team believes that Paul George is the piece to a Championship, then you have to field the offers. Now, if Indiana was contending, then it would be stupid to trade him. However, Indiana doesn't have that luxury. We're NOT contending, AND we have an All-Star talent that could walk for nothing.

                        If Boston was offering their # 1 pick to LA, do you really think Magic is going pass on any offers based on some principle of "hating" the Celtics?
                        I wasn't talking about the proper ways to build a team. I said there's no scenario where trading PG to LeBron would make me happy.

                        In addition to the fact that I'd personally hate trading away our best player to help LeBron's super-team efforts, I don't feel like we'd be able to get fair value in return for PG because PG > KLove, and Cleveland isn't going to offer anything I'm interested in. If I thought we could get #5 from Sacto and Tristan Thompson, I'd listen. Wouldn't love it, but I'd listen. But it doesn't matter because Cleveland isn't giving up TT, and Sacto isn't giving up #5 for Love.

                        So, to clarify - I personally don't want to send PG to Cleveland just to help LeBron beat the Warriors because:
                        1. screw LeBron
                        2. we're not getting fair value in any deal with CLE
                        3. I hate the idea that 30 teams should just mail it in for the next 5 years and send their best players to the two best teams
                        It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          If Boston was offering their # 1 pick to LA, do you really think Magic is going pass on any offers based on some principle of "hating" the Celtics?
                          Then again, LA would only play Boston 2 times before potentially meeting them in the Finals. The Pacers would not only play the Cavs 4 times in the regular season, they are in the same division which affects tiebreakers with other teams (division record) and would probably lead to no better than an ECF meeting with them.

                          There are a LOT of reasons not to trade your best player to a team in your own division.

                          The disagreement seems to be based on the idea that a Pacers team that got swept by the Cavs in the first round cannot possibly get better around PG in the next year, so we have to dump him and start a 5 year minimum rebuild process. As might be obvious, I disagree with that.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Then again, LA would only play Boston 2 times before potentially meeting them in the Finals. The Pacers would not only play the Cavs 4 times in the regular season, they are in the same division which affects tiebreakers with other teams (division record) and would probably lead to no better than an ECF meeting with them.

                            There are a LOT of reasons not to trade your best player to a team in your own division.

                            The disagreement seems to be based on the idea that a Pacers team that got swept by the Cavs in the first round cannot possibly get better around PG in the next year, so we have to dump him and start a 5 year minimum rebuild process. As might be obvious, I disagree with that.
                            Here's some simple questions. Is Indiana a true title contender that can, at the minimum, make the ECF and/or is Paul George staying? My answer is "no" to both questions, so I really don't care which team Paul George goes to. I only care about getting assets and players to build a team while the two NBA Goilaths duke it out for the next 2-3 years.

                            Right now, history says Indiana is not a prime free agency destination, but KP could still surprise us all.


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                              Here's some simple questions. Is Indiana a true title contender that can, at the minimum, make the ECF and/or is Paul George staying? My answer is "no" to both questions, so I really don't care which team Paul George goes to. I only care about getting assets and players to build a team while the two NBA Goilaths duke it out for the next 2-3 years.

                              Right now, history says Indiana is not a prime free agency destination, but KP could still surprise us all.
                              IF the Pacers keep Paul George and IF they sign Gordon Hayward, then I think they have a very good chance at the ECF. If Lebron leaves and goes to the Lakers, then not only will we have a good chance at the ECF, then we will also have a pretty good chance at the NBA Finals. I know those are big IFs, but it is possible.

                              As far as where Paul goes, I don't much care when he is a free agent. Trading him is another story. I would be very disappointed if the Pacers trading him to an Eastern Conference team, especially the Cavs. I do not want to make the teams we are competing with better.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Trading Paul George to Lakers or Celtics aren't only options for limited Pacers

                                Originally posted by sav View Post
                                IF the Pacers keep Paul George and IF they sign Gordon Hayward, then I think they have a very good chance at the ECF. If Lebron leaves and goes to the Lakers, then not only will we have a good chance at the ECF, then we will also have a pretty good chance at the NBA Finals. I know those are big IFs, but it is possible.

                                As far as where Paul goes, I don't much care when he is a free agent. Trading him is another story. I would be very disappointed if the Pacers trading him to an Eastern Conference team, especially the Cavs. I do not want to make the teams we are competing with better.
                                To be fair, my thinking is purely based on the assumption that Paul George is not staying, and Indiana strikes out in free agency.


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X