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

Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

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

  • Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...3&sportCat=nba

    Interesting read.

    Indiana Pacers (group A)

    2009-10 payroll: $66.9 million
    Projected 2010-11 payroll: $65.7 million (OVER)

    • VP's Take: The Pacers should be a small-market team that pays one big star (in this case, Danny Granger) and a bunch of scrappy role players. Right now, they're in no-man's land -- destined to win 35 to 42 games a year, with no chance of growing into something better than that. Why not just bottom out? Like what David Kahn tried to do in Minnesota, only not as clumsy and caked in double-talk.

    • Mitigating Factor: Any "bottoming out" needs to include the team dumping Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy and/or T.J. Ford (making $60.3 million combined through 2011). On the Untradeable Scale from 1 to Gilbert Arenas, Murphy is a 2, Dunleavy is a 6.5 (because of knee issues) and T.J. Ford is an 8.

    • VP's Verdict: Move those Dunleavy/Murphy contracts while they're in uniforms and not street clothes or walking casts. For example …

    Fake Trade 3a: Murphy and Dunleavy to Cleveland for Shaq's EC. Love the Murphy fit for Cleveland because he can shoot threes and rebound; they could play him, Varejao, LeBron, West and Williams at crunch time. Anything Dunleavy gives them is a bonus. For Indiana, they can buy out Shaq (saving a couple of million dollars), then save another $23 million next season. And you thought professional basketball couldn't be salvaged in Indiana! Let's celebrate by hitting a local strip club and firing gunshots into the air. What, too soon?

    Fake Trade 3b: Murphy, Dunleavy and Travis Diener to Utah for Andrei Kirilenko, Kosta Koufos and Kyle Korver's EC. Admittedly, this trade makes no sense -- I just wanted to break the record for "most white guys in an all-white trade."

  • #2
    Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

    eh, his suggestion for the Pistons was trading Tayshaun Prince to Boston for a bag of balls. He's shtick.

    His solution for detroit will forever be give players to the celtics simply to irritate every piston fans who reads his column, and his solution to the Pacers will forever involve more white players. It's his routine.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      eh, his suggestion for the Pistons was trading Tayshaun Prince to Boston for a bag of balls. He's shtick.

      His solution for detroit will forever be give players to the celtics simply to irritate every piston fans who reads his column, and his solution to the Pacers will forever involve more white players. It's his routine.
      My solution to his column is never reading it unless an Indy team beats a Boston team. Then it's entertaining. His column was great earlier this year when the Pats and Celts lost to the Colts and Pacers on the same weekend.
      Last edited by travmil; 12-24-2009, 01:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

        I've always enjoyed reading Simmons. I think he's pretty funny.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

          Seems like he is just stating the obvious. Murphy would be a terrible fit in Cleveland though. Could you imagine a Murphy/Z/Shaq combo guarding Wallace/Garnet, Horford/Smith, Gasol/Odom, or Lewis/Howard?

          Of course we would move Murphleavy/Ford for a bag of chips to get the cap relief, but there are no takers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

            I can't stand him, but it's basically due to his plan to "fix" the NHL and my idiot friends that think it's a fantastic idea.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

              Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
              I've always enjoyed reading Simmons. I think he's pretty funny.
              Me too. Not the most informative, definitely the most entertaining.
              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                I enjoy him often as well, but I'm beyond tired of "Hey, it's Indiana, let's talk about the white people! Har har har!" crap.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                  Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                  I've always enjoyed reading Simmons. I think he's pretty funny.
                  Me too, and I'm not only a Pacers and Colts fan but also a Yanks fan, so it's a strong trifecta of hate for all his teams. I'd go as far as to say I've experience the anti-Simmons sports life.

                  We both loved Microleague baseball and have a crazy infatuation with the NBA over the other major sports. And we both split 10's against a weak dealer card.



                  I do think he was stating the obvious, but then I read plenty of stuff here at PD that doesn't see this stuff as obvious. People are still talking like the Pacers don't need to move Troy, Dun, or TJ, and they still talk like the team is about to be players in the FA market.

                  Cleveland could use Troy as the kickout from James and he would draw one of the bigs out of the lane too. I don't know if they want to risk the salary addition. I do think the Pacers would do this deal and would buy out Shaq as suggested.

                  It's much more in the ballpark of the hard reality we need to face still. The cap dropping is really choking off the options the Pacers have because they are losing willing trade partners. All the high priced vets near the ends of deals are stuck, and in for a big shock when they hit the FA market in the next 2 years.

                  The Pacers picked a really bad time to take on longer, more expensive deals when they did, though obviously the economy hadn't turned back then.

                  Mitigating Factor: Any "bottoming out" needs to include the team dumping Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy and/or T.J. Ford (making $60.3 million combined through 2011). On the Untradeable Scale from 1 to Gilbert Arenas, Murphy is a 2, Dunleavy is a 6.5 (because of knee issues) and T.J. Ford is an 8.
                  Just sickening to see that number up there. $60m.
                  But I love his ranking on trading guys. Normally Ford would seem the most tradeable as the most reasonable deal, so clearly he's aware of how Ford is playing.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-24-2009, 04:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                    I'm not familiar with Simmons but from what I gather he is a columnist like Kravits is.

                    In other words the fact that we are talking about him, he wins.


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                      Originally posted by JBones19 View Post
                      http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...3&sportCat=nba

                      Interesting read.

                      Indiana Pacers (group A)

                      2009-10 payroll: $66.9 million
                      Projected 2010-11 payroll: $65.7 million (OVER)

                      • VP's Take: The Pacers should be a small-market team that pays one big star (in this case, Danny Granger) and a bunch of scrappy role players. Right now, they're in no-man's land -- destined to win 35 to 42 games a year, with no chance of growing into something better than that. Why not just bottom out? Like what David Kahn tried to do in Minnesota, only not as clumsy and caked in double-talk.

                      • Mitigating Factor: Any "bottoming out" needs to include the team dumping Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy and/or T.J. Ford (making $60.3 million combined through 2011). On the Untradeable Scale from 1 to Gilbert Arenas, Murphy is a 2, Dunleavy is a 6.5 (because of knee issues) and T.J. Ford is an 8.

                      • VP's Verdict: Move those Dunleavy/Murphy contracts while they're in uniforms and not street clothes or walking casts. For example …

                      Fake Trade 3a: Murphy and Dunleavy to Cleveland for Shaq's EC. Love the Murphy fit for Cleveland because he can shoot threes and rebound; they could play him, Varejao, LeBron, West and Williams at crunch time. Anything Dunleavy gives them is a bonus. For Indiana, they can buy out Shaq (saving a couple of million dollars), then save another $23 million next season. And you thought professional basketball couldn't be salvaged in Indiana! Let's celebrate by hitting a local strip club and firing gunshots into the air. What, too soon?

                      Fake Trade 3b: Murphy, Dunleavy and Travis Diener to Utah for Andrei Kirilenko, Kosta Koufos and Kyle Korver's EC. Admittedly, this trade makes no sense -- I just wanted to break the record for "most white guys in an all-white trade.
                      "
                      Bill Simmons actually wrote that? How is he working for ESPN? I could have wrote something better than that....that is the worse piece I've ever read. Like for **** sakes, you work for ESPN, but some thought into your work
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                        If you don't like SImmons, I would suggest reading his most recent book which is all about the NBA. It's really good stuff.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                          Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                          Bill Simmons actually wrote that? How is he working for ESPN? I could have wrote something better than that....that is the worse piece I've ever read. Like for **** sakes, you work for ESPN, but some thought into your work
                          I think it was a joke man.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            I think it was a joke man.
                            It was definitely a jokes, but saying something like "most white guys in an all-white trade" its crossing the lines.

                            Im a league that is majority dominated by blacks, publishing something that Simmons did is totally wrong
                            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bill SImmons thoughts on the Pacers...

                              pretty sure the people who had a problem with it for the most part are not black.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X