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

Quick Question

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

  • Quick Question

    For everyone who's on the trade granger buzz who might have been faithful fans before, or not I wanted to ask...

    Do you guys think we shoulda took the Al Jefferson, Devin Harris, pick trade.
    (even though we got pg out of it)

    I know how u guys feel about the sa trade, but what about this? After reading an article a reporter suggested this....
    In summary, the trade involves the following:

    Pacers: Danny Granger ($10.97 million), Jeff Foster ($6.66 million), Dahntay Jones ($2.5 million)

    Mavericks: Caron Butler ($10.56 million), *Rodrigue Beaubois ($1.156 million), Brendan Haywood ($6.9 million)

    Salaries match, I did the math.* Dallas can even throw a first-round pick in to the mix to sweeten the deal.* Both teams benefit tremendously from this trade.* It just makes a lot of sense.* Like I said, this is not something that needs to be done, but come the trade deadline, if objectives are not met, it would be ideal for both teams.

    Jus asking to see what people think

  • #2
    Re: Quick Question

    Originally posted by King Phoenix View Post
    For everyone who's on the trade granger buzz who might have been faithful fans before, or not I wanted to ask...

    Do you guys think we shoulda took the Al Jefferson, Devin Harris, pick trade.
    (even though we got pg out of it)

    I know how u guys feel about the sa trade, but what about this? After reading an article a reporter suggested this....
    In summary, the trade involves the following:

    Pacers: Danny Granger ($10.97 million), Jeff Foster ($6.66 million), Dahntay Jones ($2.5 million)

    Mavericks: Caron Butler ($10.56 million), *Rodrigue Beaubois ($1.156 million), Brendan Haywood ($6.9 million)

    Salaries match, I did the math.* Dallas can even throw a first-round pick in to the mix to sweeten the deal.* Both teams benefit tremendously from this trade.* It just makes a lot of sense.* Like I said, this is not something that needs to be done, but come the trade deadline, if objectives are not met, it would be ideal for both teams.

    Jus asking to see what people think
    No.

    I don't think that trade helps us rebuild nor does it help us in the present. And a first-round pick from Dallas is essentially worthless. I know occasionally gems can be found in the late first round, but those are few and far between.

    I don't want to trade Granger unless it's part of a package for a superstar.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Quick Question

      No to the Jefferson trade. no to the harris trade but by not making that trade. we lost murphy and picked up a future all star point guard and maye the best player in the league in 5 years in paul george.

      No to the SA and Dallas trades.

      Trade Danny for young talent and picks. and freeing up cap space while doing that would be a bonus.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Quick Question

        My opinion is that you build around Granger, or you build around Hibbert/Collison.

        Not both.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Quick Question

          no. butler is an injured expiring. he can't play now and will be gone by the end of the year. beaubois is a little very quick SG trying to play the point. nice scorer, but would have trouble defending the PD all star team starter. haywood is a big body with a bad contract.

          nothing there is worth trading for.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Quick Question

            What I have noticed is that anytime grangers name is mentioned on this board everyone says it is a bad trade when I think it is a fair trade based on where grangers value is. I have watched a lot of the games in which we have lost and granger has either been reason 1 or reason 2 on why we lost. I wonder where we would be if we excepted the Jefferson trade? I think it is a fair question
            JOB is a silly man

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Quick Question

              Originally posted by King Phoenix View Post
              For everyone who's on the trade granger buzz who might have been faithful fans before, or not I wanted to ask...

              Do you guys think we shoulda took the Al Jefferson, Devin Harris, pick trade.
              (even though we got pg out of it)

              I know how u guys feel about the sa trade, but what about this? After reading an article a reporter suggested this....
              In summary, the trade involves the following:

              Pacers: Danny Granger ($10.97 million), Jeff Foster ($6.66 million), Dahntay Jones ($2.5 million)

              Mavericks: Caron Butler ($10.56 million), *Rodrigue Beaubois ($1.156 million), Brendan Haywood ($6.9 million)

              Salaries match, I did the math.* Dallas can even throw a first-round pick in to the mix to sweeten the deal.* Both teams benefit tremendously from this trade.* It just makes a lot of sense.* Like I said, this is not something that needs to be done, but come the trade deadline, if objectives are not met, it would be ideal for both teams.

              Jus asking to see what people think
              Please, for the sake of us all, dont bring Bleacher Report material to The Digest.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Quick Question

                If Butler was about 2 years younger and not injured, i'd take Butler over Granger. I think even now, he may slightly be a better player. Reguardless, he's on the shelf for the season.

                Brendan Haywood would probably become a major problem in a Jim O'Brien world. Also, ever since Haywood got paid, he's been on vacation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Quick Question

                  Originally posted by King Phoenix View Post
                  For everyone who's on the trade granger buzz who might have been faithful fans before, or not I wanted to ask...

                  Do you guys think we shoulda took the Al Jefferson, Devin Harris, pick trade.
                  (even though we got pg out of it)

                  I know how u guys feel about the sa trade, but what about this? After reading an article a reporter suggested this....
                  In summary, the trade involves the following:

                  Pacers: Danny Granger ($10.97 million), Jeff Foster ($6.66 million), Dahntay Jones ($2.5 million)

                  Mavericks: Caron Butler ($10.56 million), *Rodrigue Beaubois ($1.156 million), Brendan Haywood ($6.9 million)

                  Salaries match, I did the math.* Dallas can even throw a first-round pick in to the mix to sweeten the deal.* Both teams benefit tremendously from this trade.* It just makes a lot of sense.* Like I said, this is not something that needs to be done, but come the trade deadline, if objectives are not met, it would be ideal for both teams.

                  Jus asking to see what people think
                  First I'm not sure that everyone is really on board to trade Granger. I am certain that even Danny haters would not want to give Danny away without some form of value in return.

                  You are taking our "franchise" player and trading him for a player who you won't re-sign, a point guard who is just a duplicate of our point guards at present yet not as good and a backup center who has a contract that extends for a few years. Even if you included a first round draft pick from Dallas you are talking about a draft pick in the mid 20's.

                  I mean really the Pacers got more for Jermaine O'Neal who was already old, broken down, not producing and a much larger salary than what this trade would give us for our best player.

                  Now I know some of us over rate Danny but it's not like we are talking about a malcontent, a trouble maker, a bad player or a prima donna here. This isn't a player we have to trade and the only way I would want to trade him now (in his prime) would be to improve the club not make it more mediocre.


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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Quick Question

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    the only way I would want to trade him now (in his prime) would be to improve the club not make it more mediocre.
                    I'm not sure we're as 'good' as mediocre right now. And I'm not sure how a team can achieve 'more' mediocre. I think we'd just be going from bad to worse...
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Quick Question

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      I'm not sure we're as 'good' as mediocre right now. And I'm not sure how a team can achieve 'more' mediocre. I think we'd just be going from bad to worse...
                      Ok, point well taken.


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Quick Question

                        Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
                        What I have noticed is that anytime grangers name is mentioned on this board everyone says it is a bad trade when I think it is a fair trade based on where grangers value is. I have watched a lot of the games in which we have lost and granger has either been reason 1 or reason 2 on why we lost. I wonder where we would be if we excepted the Jefferson trade? I think it is a fair question
                        If you are down on Granger and high on Jefferson, it only exposes the fact that you watch the Pacers too much and formerly, the timberwolves, not enough.

                        Sure, Jefferson looks good when he is not the primary option in Utah, as would Granger, but trading Granger for Jefferson would have clearly been a lateral move, and a bad one, considering that Jefferson would have been a poor fit with our other building block, Hibbert.

                        Jefferson is slow footed and the reason he was traded is because he would have been a poor fit with primary Timberwolves building block Kevin Love, and guess what, our primary building block is also slow footed. It would make absolutely no sense to trade Granger for Al Jefferson. These are the kind of trades franchises like the Clippers make, and the reason they perennially suck.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Quick Question

                          I think we should focus on trading the coach, not Granger.

                          I want to see Granger, Hibbert and Collison under a quality coach. Only if that doesn't work, we should think about a trade concerning Granger.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Quick Question

                            Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
                            What I have noticed is that anytime grangers name is mentioned on this board everyone says it is a bad trade when I think it is a fair trade based on where grangers value is. I have watched a lot of the games in which we have lost and granger has either been reason 1 or reason 2 on why we lost. I wonder where we would be if we excepted the Jefferson trade? I think it is a fair question
                            You are right, he is reason 1 or 2 when the Pacers lose. That is because he does not currently have enough help where he can have an off game and the Pacers still play well enough to win. It happens occasionally, but not enough.
                            DG for 3

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X