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

Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unprotect

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

  • #16
    Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

    If we leave Reggie unprotected, and Charlotte selects him, can he retire instead? And, if so, can he come out of retirement and re-sign with the Pacers after a set amount of time?
    Yes he can retire and that's what he would probably do. Plus, if his contract is guaranteed like I think it is, then Charlotte would have to pay him. I don't think Charlotte would select him anyway, but if his contract is guaranteed, there's no way Charlotte selects him if they have to pay him when he retires.

    If he retires with Charlotte they own his rights.

    Whatever, [color=red:76ce88c0b9]Reggie will not be protected,[/color] JJ or Brezac will be instead. If the Pacers want Johnson to return they will instruct him to opt out and resign with them, thus Charlotte couldn't select him either.

    Charlotte will take either JJ or Brezac, whoever is not protected and pass on Reggie, Pollard, and Croshere.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

      1. minor point: JJ is free agent, he signed a rookie 1 year contract. hence no protection needed.

      That is what Conrad Brunner said in his May 17th column. However, the Star named the Pacer's free agents last week and JJ wasn't one of them.

      Who's right? I would think Brunner because he works for Pacers.com, but who knows?

      I wrote and asked about it but didn't get an answer.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

        If we leave Reggie unprotected, and Charlotte selects him, can he retire instead? And, if so, can he come out of retirement and re-sign with the Pacers after a set amount of time?
        Yes he can retire and that's what he would probably do. Plus, if his contract is guaranteed like I think it is, then Charlotte would have to pay him. I don't think Charlotte would select him anyway, but if his contract is guaranteed, there's no way Charlotte selects him.

        If he retires with Charlotte they own his rights.

        Whatever, [color=red:7084b4caab]Reggie will not be protected,[/color] JJ or Brezac will be instead. If the Pacers want Johnson to return they will instruct him to opt out and resign with them, thus Charlotte couldn't select him either.

        Charlotte will take either JJ or Brezac, whoever is not protected and pass on Reggie, Pollard, and Croshere.

        Sorry to be so rude, but JJ is FA, so he's not a part of the equasion, I agree on Reggie being unprotected, the only reason the Bobcats would select him is out of spite, sorry but he has little to contribute even if he wanted to, to a new franchise. Finally, I believe that is a player opts out of his player option he can not re-sign with his old team, a player with such an option becomes automatically a FA and is not allowed to re-sign with his "old" team for 12 months.

        That makes the AJ setup impossible, yet I still think the P's will not protect him, despite doing good work, with Brewer as the up and coming talent and under the protection of (among others) Ron and I believe Rick even, there is little chance that they would worry about losing AJ.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

          Finally, I believe that is a player opts out of his player option he can not re-sign with his old team, a player with such an option becomes automatically a FA and is not allowed to re-sign with his "old" team for 12 months.
          Players opt out all the time and resign with their old team, it's a way to get more money. For instant Tim Duncan opted out of his 7 year contract after year 6 then signed a new contract for more money.

          I think what you are thinking of is if Charlotte selects a restricted free agent from a team he becomes a free agent and able to sign with any team but the one he came from for 12 months.

          For instant if we don't protect Johnson and Charlotte selects him he becomes a free agent and can't sign with us for a year. So if the Pacers are afraid Charlotte will select him they tell Johnson to opt out and then resign with them.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

            Protect
            JO
            Ron
            Jeff
            Tins
            Reg
            Al
            Jonathan
            Freddie

            I see no other way. (Reggie you protect out of respect and honor, unless he ritires first)


            There are no guarantees the the Bobs will select ANY Pacer. There may be 14 really sweetheart possiblities from other teams out there and not need any Pacer players lost. We'll hear bits and pieces of who is unprotected as the trickle in.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

              Unless he retires, which I highly doubt, Reggie is going to be protected.

              Brewer, JJ, KA are FA.

              AJ, which I hope he does, can opt out of his contract, then resign. Tell him that is the safest way for him to stay here, since he wants to anyway.

              JO, Ron, Al, Tins, Fred, Bender, Reg, and Foster will be protected.
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

                ON feb 1 I wrote in a thread here on the same subject:

                let's go about it the other way around, instead of making a wish list to keep, who do we need to protect, taking into account contract status which is an important part as well.

                Free Agents at the end of the year:

                Kenny Anderson, James Jones, Jamison Brewer(?)

                BIG question, does Reggie's contract contain an option for the second year, because in that case he can not be part of the extension draft.

                Let's assume that they knew the rules of the draft when they signed Reggie and it would be silly not to use those rules, if they haven't then such is a major screw up.

                That leaves 11 players to "protect" (without Reggie)

                Some are definitely not questionable, you don't throw away major forces:

                JO
                Al
                Ron
                Jamaal

                Then the talent in which you have invested a lot of time and money:

                Bender

                The talent you want to keep

                Fred

                that leaves the following players "fighting" for 2 spots

                Croshere (no use to protect him, his contract does)
                Brezec (will be protected)
                Anthony Johnson (again contract, option? one year left)
                Foster *
                Pollard *

                * depends on the position and "future" of Brezec, Pollie is less likely to be "taken".

                So my list would be with contract questionables marked with a *

                JO
                Al
                Ron
                Jamaal
                Reggie *
                Bender
                Fred Jones
                Brezec
                Foster

                Unprotected roster members:

                Pollie
                Croshere
                Anthony Johnson*

                Yes Foster would be unprotected if Reg's contract was stupidly enough not made in a way that they would have the advantage at this draft time.
                However, his contract makes it highly unlikely (just like Pollie and Cro) that he would be picked, the expansion is only allowed 2/3 of the cap, which is certainly not enough to give away millions to single players.

                There is also the option to trade "future" or immediate draft rights in exchange for a "no pick" agreement.

                Why protect Brezec and Jones, simple as far as Brezec is concerned, they still see him as the second coming of Smits and Jones' play speaks for himself, their price is of a nature that they would both be very interesting for the expansion.
                Reggie will not be protected, I am pretty sure of that now, I know it would be an embarresment BUT that would be the only reason for the Bobcats to take him anyway, they can KNOW he will never play for them anyway, I assume it will be discussed with him and in all reality, he would take 17.5% of their cap, which is way to much and comparable to someone offering him double of what he makes now.

                funny to see that more then 4 months later I still think the same
                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: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

                  Able, from the outset I think it's been you, me and a couple others preaching Reggie will not be protected. Since the playoffs I think more have joined us, but there's still a bunch thinking Reg should and will be protected.

                  There's no reasoning with them though! It doesn't matter that we don't have to protect him because . . .

                  [1] Charlotte has stated they are only interested in young players with cheap, short term, contracts.

                  [2] . . . That's enough, I've decided there's no point in beating a dead horse.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Now that the season is over, and we know what we need, who do we leave unpro

                    Bruno Sundov
                    Zan Tabak
                    Terry Mills
                    Lari Ketner

                    Wait a minute... ed:

                    James Jones
                    Primoz Brezec
                    Scot Pollard
                    Austin Croshere

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X