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

Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

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

  • Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

    Well, so much for trying to snag someone halfway decent. Scratch Free Agency off the list of ways to improve the team.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers.html

    Question for Larry Bird | June 4, 2007
    Q. I was just wondering how serious the organization is at delving into the free agent market? I see names like Chauncey Billups, Bonzi Wells, Jason Kapono, James Posey, Primoz Brezec, Mike Bibby, Luke Walton and Austin Croshere, just to name a few. Do you feel there are any guys out there that could come in here and fill a void, and if so, how serious of a push will be made to get the necessary pieces? (From Jeff in New Castle, Ind.)
    A. When you talk about Chauncey Billups, it'll be virtually impossible to pull him away from Detroit. There's a lot of players out there that I like but it'd have to be a sign-and-trade. We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money but we will make changes.

  • #2
    Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

    Dun, Tins, and Murphy make it pretty much impossible to spend any more money.
    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe via iTunes

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

      Well he did SAY "we will make changes".

      Does this mean trading McLeod and Rawle for Joey Graham? Who knows, especially after last year. And of course I also hate the idea of change for change's sake.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

        Bah.

        I'm guessing with the SVG lowball and then this, the Simons really put the hammer down on costs.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

          Bird's secret code we'll be getting two 2nd rounders in the JO deal.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

            WOW....you almost just have to respect a flat-out kick in the balls to the fanbase like that.

            I didn't expect them to use it given the luxury tax implications, but to just come out and say it like that in early June is just impressive.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

              Well practically speaking, we knew we did not have any room around the cap anway to attract FA's right ?.

              That won't be possible probably until , if and when someone contract's like JO is moved, and we can reap the financial benefit's a year or two down the road. I don't see how this puts us in any worse position then most teams who don't have many other options other than via trades.

              I guess the team's new motto this year is under promise and over deliver ?
              Or don't expect too much and you'll be pleasantly surprised !

              ( If anything this places even more pressure on the franchise to make a trade in the offseason, if their hands are tied financially. Which may or not be a good thing.
              Last edited by Frank Slade; 06-04-2007, 02:44 PM.

              Why Not Us ?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                It's pre-conceived notions from LB like that which scare the living daylights out of me, this man is not equiped for the job at hand.

                Without "knowing" what will be available and what you can get for who and at what cost, you do not make statements like that.

                We just became a 3rd thought for FA's and other teams, unless they have a problem "unloading", and we've seen what happens when that comes along just a few months ago.


                I am now seriously worried.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                  And if he'd said they were going to go hard after one of those guys, he'd probably be criticized for continued fiscal irresponsibility while demonstrating a recurring desire to try to throw a band-aid on a knife wound by bringing in a veteran to try to make a desperate push for the playoffs and making a fatal bargaining mistake by throwing all his cards on the table this early and driving up the market for players who might not be worth that much in the end when what we really need to do is sit back, survey the trade market, and try to improve the team through a youth movement and salary dump......

                  I also have no idea why people think someone working in conjunction with a guy who's made a career out of toying with the press would take this completely matter-of-factly. This wasn't some spur-of-the-moment question and answer session. This was a thought out and prepared statement likely run through a number of filters.

                  I don't have much interest in defending Bird here, but meh.
                  Last edited by Robobtowncolt; 06-04-2007, 02:58 PM.
                  Narf!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                    Originally posted by Frank Slade View Post
                    Well practically speaking, we knew we did not have any room around the cap anway to attract FA's right ?.
                    I was hoping that Mo Williams could be had for the MLE and might choose the Pacers since he would be pretty much guaranteed to start.

                    but no.

                    we won't even try.

                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      Without "knowing" what will be available and what you can get for who and at what cost, you do not make statements like that.

                      We just became a 3rd thought for FA's and other teams, unless they have a problem "unloading", and we've seen what happens when that comes along just a few months ago.


                      I am now seriously worried.
                      I would think the Ps know what free agents are available. He didn't answer who we might trade for, rather the PAcers will not be making a splash in the free agent market.

                      Sounds like to me Bird doesn't see the Pacers achieving anything so why bring those MLE pieces teams look at to complete and compete for a championship move. That's what he thought he was doing when he brought in Cabbage two years ago.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        It's pre-conceived notions from LB like that which scare the living daylights out of me, this man is not equiped for the job at hand.

                        Without "knowing" what will be available and what you can get for who and at what cost, you do not make statements like that.

                        We just became a 3rd thought for FA's and other teams, unless they have a problem "unloading", and we've seen what happens when that comes along just a few months ago.


                        I am now seriously worried.
                        able basically articulated how i feel about it.

                        i don't need larry to say we're going to go after a couple of guys and make offers. i just don't think he should make what is already seemingly an unappealing destination for free agents and even LESS appealing by saying we're not going to spend anything. the offseason hasn't even officially begun and he's already made us an afterthought.
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                          I agree as well. He's setting us up for the next few offseasons unfortunately - we ain't got much to spend and we ain't able to offer much in terms of personnel. It apparently doesn't matter who's on the market and who may become available.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                            Honestly, I'm happy about this. There are not a whole lot of mid-level worthy free agents out there this year.

                            Here's a list of possible Free Agents who are at, above, or near the mid-level:
                            Unrestricted:

                            Gerald Wallace
                            Jerry Stackhouse
                            Chauncey Billups
                            Bonzi Wells
                            Smush Parker
                            Luke Walton
                            Jason Kapono
                            Desmond Mason
                            Grant Hill
                            Earl Boykins
                            Mo Williams
                            Vince Carter
                            Michael Finley
                            Rashard Lewis
                            DeShawn Stevenson
                            Matt Barnes

                            Restricted:

                            Charlie Bell
                            Darko Milicic
                            Andres Nocioni
                            Michael Pietrus

                            You can pretty much cross Chauncey Billups, Rashard Lewis, and Vince Carter off the list. Mike Bibby and Mo Williams will likely go for more than the full MLE. Restricted free agents are often ridiculously hard to pry away from their teams (if they're any good).

                            So exactly who is it off this list that the Pacers should go after?
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bird: "We're not going to use the mid-level and we're not going to spend a ton of money"

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              WOW....you almost just have to respect a flat-out kick in the balls to the fanbase like that.

                              I didn't expect them to use it given the luxury tax implications, but to just come out and say it like that in early June is just impressive.
                              It's actually for the best, given that we'd be in the same category as the Knicks...constant signing of sub-level players (see Jerome James) hamstrung by salary forever, and forced to plod around in mediocrity for seasons to come. I think the Golden State deal probably has some long-term thinking behind it, more than just an easy way to dump Jax.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X