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

  • #76
    Re: State of the state

    Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
    You are so far off base it is not worth my time to discuss it further. BTW, don't make racist comments if you don't want someone to call you out for making them.
    also you have made a grand total of 127 posts in 3 years so dont act like you know me

    also how can a white man be racist towards another white person?

    end of discussion , and your blind
    Sittin on top of the world!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: State of the state

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I've been over this so many times that I can't even bring myself to doing it again.

      So let me see, Bird say's he was told about the trade by Walsh. Walsh has said in an inteverview with Vescey that he did the trade and did it quickly so no rumors or bidding wars would ensue. Chris Mullen in an interview stated that he dealt directly with Donnie Walsh on this and that the trade was wrapped up in two phone calls.

      Yet because Murphy and Dunleavy appear to be players you think that Bird would like you believe that he made the trade.

      Other than Travis Diener or Saras can you please tell me what other players Bird has brought in here that are offense only players? I could argue that Diener was just a low cost end of the bench throw in and that Saras while a huge mistake was considered one of the top free agent signings of the summer. But neither counter D. Jones, S. Jones, Rush, Hibbert, Hansbrough, McRoberts, Jack, Ford, Watson, etc. in showing that Bird does not take players who at least play both sides of the floor.

      I just don't have the time or energy to go hunting all of the articles again.

      Oh one other thing that I did forget to mention, we all know that Walsh was also under some economic pressures for this trade as well as a major (at the time anyway) team sponser was threatening to pull out if Jackson was not removed from the team.
      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
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: State of the state

        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
        also you have made a grand total of 127 posts in 3 years so dont act like you know me

        also how can a white man be racist towards another white person?

        end of discussion , and your blind
        Yep, and over 1200 posts in your short time on the board. Busy man, there 90's. I have read enough of your posts to understand what you are all about, so yes end of discussion.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: State of the state

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          Diogu - went from centerpiece of an 8 player trade to a throw-in on a draft day trade - bad.
          Wait a minute, are you blaming Bird for Ike Diogu never amounting to anything even though Bird didn't trade for him?

          If anything, I would say you swap him for Josh McRoberts (along with turning Bayless into Rush and Jack).

          I'd rather have Josh than Ike right now.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: State of the state

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Despite the fact that we have Chris Mullen on record stating that he dealt solely with Donnie Walsh on this trade.

            Despite the fact that Donnie Walsh has gone on record saying that he made this trade.

            Simply put Donnie Walsh was trying to do a Jermaine O'Neal part 2 in that trade and it simply did not work.

            Never forget that the hidden gem in that trade was Ike Diogu, at least that is what Walsh was hoping for anyway. Murphy & Dunleavy were the requirements for making that trade, they were not the desired pieces.
            Don't think so. Diogu was a seldom played kid with some potential. Dunleavy was the star attraction, then Murphy, then Diogu.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: State of the state

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              I am sorry , but did I say that

              No I did not

              I have said I thought Bird rushed to "appease the fans" and took on two players that the GS fans thanked God were gone

              It was a dumb move

              And for the record, please dont race bait me, it is not for this board

              Thanks
              GS fans are idiots.
              Dunleavy is a very good player who GS chose to draft too high. not his fault. And if he hadn't been injured most of his time here we'd all love him. Sure did the first season here. He does all the "little things" that help teams win games. He's just not the super star that everyone 'expected' him to be, so they boo'd him.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: State of the state

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Wait a minute, are you blaming Bird for Ike Diogu never amounting to anything even though Bird didn't trade for him?

                If anything, I would say you swap him for Josh McRoberts (along with turning Bayless into Rush and Jack).

                I'd rather have Josh than Ike right now.
                I've got a hard time believing that was maximum value for Ike, but he didn't exactly prove himself in Portland. I can't figure out what went wrong.

                You know the old saying, better to be silent and let them think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove them right?

                Well, in Ike's case, once we figured out that he wasn't what we hoped he would become, we needed to market his "upside" not our "disappointment".

                That's minor in the grand scheme of evaluating Bird's track record, but just like giving Dhantay Jones four years when nobody else would, giving away Diogu for the right to trade down (!!!) for Rush and a one-year rental on Jarret Jack was a bizarre decision.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: State of the state

                  Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                  Yep, and over 1200 posts in your short time on the board. Busy man, there 90's. I have read enough of your posts to understand what you are all about, so yes end of discussion.
                  Maybe that's because you have been here forever and keep coming back after getting banned, Country Boy...I personally can't wait until you are banned again.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: State of the state

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    I've got a hard time believing that was maximum value for Ike, but he didn't exactly prove himself in Portland. I can't figure out what went wrong.

                    You know the old saying, better to be silent and let them think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove them right?

                    Well, in Ike's case, once we figured out that he wasn't what we hoped he would become, we needed to market his "upside" not our "disappointment".
                    We have 0 evidence that Larry called people up and said "Hey, Ike's been a bust in Indiana. Want him?"

                    Plus, it's not like POR is run by idiots. They knew what Ike was worth, and that's Josh McRoberts. They essentially swapped one another's backup power forward with potential that may or may not be actualized later.

                    That's minor in the grand scheme of evaluating Bird's track record, but just like giving Dhantay Jones four years when nobody else would, giving away Diogu for the right to trade down (!!!) for Rush and a one-year rental on Jarret Jack was a bizarre decision.
                    Bayless for Rush/Jack was a good trade. He wasn't necessarily a rental when we acquired him.

                    I've always tried to judge a trade by what it meant at the time it was made. At that time, it was far from a given that Jack was going to move on.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: State of the state

                      Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                      Yep, and over 1200 posts in your short time on the board. Busy man, there 90's. I have read enough of your posts to understand what you are all about, so yes end of discussion.
                      Nope, I get the last word

                      If I am so bad, why have you read my posts?

                      If I post a lot are you inferring I am wasting my time?

                      The word racist is a very strong word to throw around, and for you to accuse me of that is uncalled for, and I asked respectfully if you had a problem with me then man up and bring it to me in private

                      but you choose not to, so I think that reflects more poorly on you
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: State of the state

                        Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                        You are so far off base it is not worth my time to discuss it further. BTW, don't make racist comments if you don't want someone to call you out for making them.
                        I had to re-read this to realize you'd shifted from accusing 90's of saying Bird was racist, to now throwing the racist label directly at him. Considering how inappropriate that is, how upset I'd be if I were 90's right now, how way off base you are either way for throwing those accusations out over what he wrote, and not to mention your history on top of it all, I'm calling it a career for this alias.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: State of the state

                          Bayless for Rush/Jack was a good trade. He wasn't necessarily a rental when we acquired him.

                          I've always tried to judge a trade by what it meant at the time it was made. At that time, it was far from a given that Jack was going to move on.
                          Thats a very good point. We , without Jammal had TJ and Diener on the roster so getting a very capable backup PG, form a playoff contending team, I think was a good move at the time, I will also add if any of these trade rumors have truth to them, then San Antonio, Charlotte with two HOF coaches have seemed to want Rush in any trade there involved in speaks well for him.

                          I also think Dahanty was a good move, we had to overpay to get him. There was no way that he would have left a team that was just in the WCF to come to the Pacers without overpaying

                          Plus is it a coincidence that the Nuggets were worse this year ( even before George Karl got sick)
                          Sittin on top of the world!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: State of the state

                            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.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: State of the state

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I had to re-read this to realize you'd shifted from accusing 90's of saying Bird was racist, to now throwing the racist label directly at him. Considering how inappropriate that is, how upset I'd be if I were 90's right now, how way off base you are either way for throwing those accusations out over what he wrote, and not to mention your history on top of it all, I'm calling it a career for this alias.
                              Hicks,

                              You rock man. I think your fair across the board

                              I am upset with myself because I should have been the bigger man and just walked away

                              Anyway thanks for the support bro
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: State of the state

                                Just the right thing to do. No one needs to be labeled a racist unfairly and i don't think anything you said deserved that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X