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

State of the state

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

  • #91
    Re: State of the state

    Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
    Don't think so. Diogu was a seldom played kid with some potential. Dunleavy was the star attraction, then Murphy, then Diogu.
    My that has a ring of familiarity to it. Did you happen to read the part where I said that Walsh was trying to do Jermaine O'Neal part 2? You know seldom played kid with some potential?


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

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: State of the state

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      Right, but for Portland to trade up to get Bayless, they needed to give us players (Jack, McBob). Why did we need to throw in Ike?

      Then again, trading "Ike for McBob" is nowhere near as bad as drafting him at #9.
      The trade was #11 for #13/Jack. Ike was needed as cap filler, as was McBob. Neither had any value, whatsoever, other than as cap filler.

      If each had been abducted by aliens in transit, it would have had no impact on the deal, nor the future of either franchise.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: State of the state

        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
        Peck,

        It doesnt matter if someone went on the record or not. In public is one thing , in private can be totally different.

        If you believe that Bird had zero input in the Murph/Dun trade thats fine and I respect your right to differ.

        I personally believe he had a lot of input in the descion but who knows.

        If there was "pressure from a sponsor" to trade Jackson, then again why take both Murph and dun?

        As far as defensive players Bird signed that was this year only (to my knowledge) and I , as you said dont have time to pull threads either, I am positive Bird wanted to implement a fast pace , crowd pleasing brand of basketball

        I mean nothing against you, but I believe it is ok to have a difference of opinon, and not necessarly be worked up at the other person for not sharing your view
        This is why they have the flat earth society I guess.

        Look if you are just trying to point out that people can differ on opinions then yes I get that, in fact I have advocated that for years.

        However what you are doing is not differing on opinion. You are claiming that someone is lying. Now you aren't saying lying but if you are saying that Donnie, Chris and Larry are involved in some grand cover up scheme to keep Larry from being involved in this trade.

        So therefor you are calling one of them if not all of them liars.

        So to that part I ask, why?

        What benefit is it to any of them, save Bird, to deny his involvement in this?

        I just don't get it. Your not even arguing logic here, you are just saying you don't believe the evidence because, well because you know better I guess?


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

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: State of the state

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          This is why they have the flat earth society I guess.

          Look if you are just trying to point out that people can differ on opinions then yes I get that, in fact I have advocated that for years.

          However what you are doing is not differing on opinion. You are claiming that someone is lying. Now you aren't saying lying but if you are saying that Donnie, Chris and Larry are involved in some grand cover up scheme to keep Larry from being involved in this trade.

          So therefor you are calling one of them if not all of them liars.

          So to that part I ask, why?

          What benefit is it to any of them, save Bird, to deny his involvement in this?

          I just don't get it. Your not even arguing logic here, you are just saying you don't believe the evidence because, well because you know better I guess?
          There could be a number of reasons why Bird was shielded and one that comes to mind is that the trade was going to be unpopular and as the new guy Bird was (as the Walsh heir) to be insulated from the criticism. To call this lying is a little over the top. It's called the taking the rap for a tough no-win situation.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: State of the state

            I'd forgotten all about the Diogu aspect of that GS deal. Sheesh.
            As far as I'm concerned, any GM dumb enough to consider that
            guy the 'hidden gem' of ANY trade should be banned from any
            affiliation with the NBA.

            Diogu had the hoops-IQ of a frickin' snail !
            Last edited by Hillman's 'Fro'; 06-11-2010, 08:34 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: State of the state

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              Peck,

              It doesnt matter if someone went on the record or not. In public is one thing , in private can be totally different.
              I think you are being completely obtuse here. You're just making stuff up and ignoring hard facts for something that COULD have happened. In litigation, this is called "daydream chasing".

              The facts are clear, the facts are convincing the facts come from multiple sources.

              In this instance, you are wrong.
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: State of the state

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                This is why they have the flat earth society I guess.

                Look if you are just trying to point out that people can differ on opinions then yes I get that, in fact I have advocated that for years.

                However what you are doing is not differing on opinion. You are claiming that someone is lying. Now you aren't saying lying but if you are saying that Donnie, Chris and Larry are involved in some grand cover up scheme to keep Larry from being involved in this trade.

                So therefor you are calling one of them if not all of them liars.

                So to that part I ask, why?

                What benefit is it to any of them, save Bird, to deny his involvement in this?

                I just don't get it. Your not even arguing logic here, you are just saying you don't believe the evidence because, well because you know better I guess?
                Not that I believe it but the only possible reason (I can think of) for giving Bird that level of plausible deniability would be to try and insulate or distance him from the argument that he wants a team of white players. ...Because otherwise this would be exhibit A.

                ...I'm not saying I believe that.... I just don't know how else anyone could not believe the paper trail of quotes that are out there (saying Bird wasn't involved).
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: State of the state

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Not that I believe it but the only possible reason (I can think of) for giving Bird that level of plausible deniability would be to try and insulate or distance him from the argument that he wants a team of white players. ...Because otherwise this would be exhibit A.

                  ...I'm not saying I believe that.... I just don't know how else anyone could not believe the paper trail of quotes that are out there (saying Bird wasn't involved).
                  Of course, once he took over completely and then drafted and signed nothing but white players the deniability would have been blown.

                  Wait, he didn't do that either...
                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: State of the state

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    Of course, once he took over completely and then drafted and signed nothing but white players the deniability would have been blown.

                    Wait, he didn't do that either...
                    Just so it's clear... I think Bird was largely a figurehead while Walsh was here and a sounding board at best. So I think Walsh did the heavy lifting. I'm not sure anyone is doing heavy lifting now.

                    But if someone wants to believe that Bird was heavily involved in the GS trade against everything that was written on the subject then I was posting one hypothetical answer to the question "Why would the particulars create this smoke screen".

                    I suppose someone could argue it's because the team knew it was a bad deal (or very potentially a bad deal) and so wanted to insulate Bird from that fallout when he would soon be taking the reins from Walsh. But if they were that sure it was a bad deal, why do it?

                    I think the best answer is Walsh did it and Bird was the 3rd mascot for most of that time... Boomer, Bowser, and Bird. Now, was the one mascot already cut by then? Yes... pretty sure he was... it was at least the season prior when it was Boomer, Bowser, Bender, and Bird!
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: State of the state

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      This is why they have the flat earth society I guess.

                      Look if you are just trying to point out that people can differ on opinions then yes I get that, in fact I have advocated that for years.

                      However what you are doing is not differing on opinion. You are claiming that someone is lying. Now you aren't saying lying but if you are saying that Donnie, Chris and Larry are involved in some grand cover up scheme to keep Larry from being involved in this trade.

                      So therefor you are calling one of them if not all of them liars.

                      So to that part I ask, why?

                      What benefit is it to any of them, save Bird, to deny his involvement in this?

                      I just don't get it. Your not even arguing logic here, you are just saying you don't believe the evidence because, well because you know better I guess?

                      Peck

                      What evidence are you referring to?

                      Because Walsh said it is has to be true?

                      I think lying is not the right word here but more like what business do all the time, which is to be politically correct and to look good in the public eye

                      I cant believe that if Bird worked for the organization, he had no input on that trade.

                      you have your version, and i have mine

                      neither of us were in the room at the time
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • Re: State of the state

                        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                        Peck

                        What evidence are you referring to?

                        Because Walsh said it is has to be true?

                        I think lying is not the right word here but more like what business do all the time, which is to be politically correct and to look good in the public eye

                        I cant believe that if Bird worked for the organization, he had no input on that trade.

                        you have your version, and i have mine
                        neither of us were in the room at the time
                        My version happens to be the version of the NY Post, the SF Chronicle & Examiner as well as the Indianapolis Star.

                        Your version?


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: State of the state

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          What you don’t hope is it becomes desperate moves that damage the long term health of the franchise and therefore jeopardize the future of the team in Indiana. How ironic would it be that the best player to ever play as a native Hoosier would have the potential to kill professional basketball in his home state. Scary. Regardless, the next 8 months will tell more about what happens for a franchise, but also a Legend.
                          NOt to be agrumentative here Speed but I honestly don't think you post this thread if Dunleavy was still at his 07-08 level. In which case a unforeseen injury to a player is why that trade sucked.

                          I am sorry but I just can't blame Bird for that. Of course I can blame him for other things but not Dun getting a freak injury and I do believe that a lot of people on this board would look at the DUN/Murph trade differently if Dun didn't get hurt.

                          Comment


                          • Re: State of the state

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            NOt to be agrumentative here Speed but I honestly don't think you post this thread if Dunleavy was still at his 07-08 level. In which case a unforeseen injury to a player is why that trade sucked.

                            I am sorry but I just can't blame Bird for that. Of course I can blame him for other things but not Dun getting a freak injury and I do believe that a lot of people on this board would look at the DUN/Murph trade differently if Dun didn't get hurt.
                            I don't know how you want to define unforeseen, but it certainly wasn't a freak injury. Dunleavy was known to have knee problems since his rookie season. He almost had to shut it down early his rookie year despite not even playing heavy minutes.

                            Comment


                            • Re: State of the state

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              My version happens to be the version of the NY Post, the SF Chronicle & Examiner as well as the Indianapolis Star.

                              Your version?
                              So again because it is in the paper it makes it 100 true? They are merley reporting what they are told

                              My belief is Bird did have a say in the decision.

                              You feel, based on your information that he did not

                              no worries, we will agree to disagree
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • Re: State of the state

                                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                                I don't know how you want to define unforeseen, but it certainly wasn't a freak injury. Dunleavy was known to have knee problems since his rookie season. He almost had to shut it down early his rookie year despite not even playing heavy minutes.
                                I define a freak injury as one that is out of the norm in which case I remember the doctors saying that they have never seen it in a basketball player before. I don't care enough to look up the exact quote but it defiantly was a freak injury. How many guys in the NBA have knee problems at one point in time in their career? Probably nearly half but how many of them have what Dun had?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X