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

Hypothetically speaking

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

  • #16
    Re: Hypothetically speaking

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    This is rich coming from you. your basically saying in an arrogant manner that you do know something.. agian very rich. if you were running the show im guessing you woulda taken peanuts for murphy, Bird landed DC. JO you woulda likely gave up very easily, Bird got an expiring for 10M, and a rookie 7'2 center for a broken down hasbeen with a max contract.

    many want to see Hibbert dealt because he has had 2 bad months under a coach 80% of this board or more wants gone. 2 bad months, and started the season off doing very well. the guy is 24, 3rd year player, under a coach that many hope is gone next offseason, and has had 2 bad months in his career so lets throw him to the wolves.. right.

    many good coaches prefer heart over talent any day. Hibbert has a ton of heart and work ethic and i will take that over any next potential superstar or a bad character player like blatche anyday.

    i found the post insulting so be it.. i wish more folks on here would be accountable to their threads. 2 or 3 seasons from now all these guys will be on the Hibbert fanwagon. same with hansbrough.

    I'm not saying I WANT Hibbert to be traded. I'm saying he and Granger are the best trade chips that we have. If we want to rebuild and be a contender. Then that is probably the guys we need to start with.

    It's not realistic to think we are going to rebuild by trading expiring deals and guys 10-14 on the roster, keeping everyone else, draft in the mid teens AND lower payroll. It just doesn't work that way.

    If we want to be truly competitive in the future. We might need to consider taking a step back, and rebuilding with a stronger foundation. That is the only point I am trying to make.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Hypothetically speaking

      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
      many good coaches prefer heart over talent any day.
      Only if they like being unemployed.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Hypothetically speaking

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        Only if they like being unemployed.
        this reference is more in terms of football because ive seen so many nfl coaches that are any good believe they can make a player better who has heart and good atttiude over the opposite. many of these coaches won SB's who have made these statements.

        hell even bobby knight would likely agree to this. obviously take the statement with a grain of salt.. there has to be some talent.

        hibbert > blatche

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Hypothetically speaking

          Darren is still so young and has started to prove he can play as good as he was last year. In my opinion we just can't give up on him since he hasn't even peaked yet.

          Granger on the other hand has probably shown us how good he can possibly be with his All-Star season. I love him as a person and as a player when he drives to the rim. But I would be OK with giving him up as long as it wasn't a lopsided deal to a top-tier team I hate i.e. Celtics, Spurs, or Lakers.

          If you are going to package Granger, I say include either Tyler or AJ as the second player and maybe a 1st round pick if we need to sweeten the deal.

          If I had to pick three people I do not want to see leave Indy in the next 3 years or so, it would have to be DC, PG, and Roy. Everyone else I can understand getting rid of if it will make us better in the long run.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Hypothetically speaking

            Originally posted by aaronb View Post
            I'm not saying I WANT Hibbert to be traded. I'm saying he and Granger are the best trade chips that we have. If we want to rebuild and be a contender. Then that is probably the guys we need to start with.

            It's not realistic to think we are going to rebuild by trading expiring deals and guys 10-14 on the roster, keeping everyone else, draft in the mid teens AND lower payroll. It just doesn't work that way.

            If we want to be truly competitive in the future. We might need to consider taking a step back, and rebuilding with a stronger foundation. That is the only point I am trying to make.
            This roster has had so much turnover as is. Im fine letting Obrien go and see whats available this summer. I dont care who we acquire for Granger or Hibbert, were not gonna be competitive with the Magic, Celtics, Bulls, Heat..

            Agian, if the right deal comes along then consider it, but we have been panicking to make deals for a very long time, Pacers are finally in a position where we can be patient; let the contracts expire, consider coaching options, and look at free agents and rosters after the CBA.

            this season is not going to net us an NBA championship. If we make a move it would need to be the right one, otherwise willing to be patient and wait for the offseason. trading Hibbert seems like a move we will likley regret.

            Granger i can live with dealing since we are stocked at the wing, and belive George will be really good, but i dont see the urgency in dealing him either.

            Hoping Bird focuses on Dunleavy and/or Ford and tries to get anything possible in return. That should be the starting point for all discussions along with a first.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Hypothetically speaking

              Originally posted by aaronb View Post
              There is more to a deal than THIS GUY TODAY IS BETTER THAN THIS GUY TODAY. People with that mindset have no business running a professional team. The deal makes sense because.

              1. Harden and Aldridge are 1 and 2 years further from free agency (or huge extensions) than Rush and Hibby.

              2. We also get another asset in a 1st round pick who could be use to draft someone useful like another Hibby,Granger,Collision who were all taken with late 1st round picks.

              3. We aren't winning anything with the core at hand. So shuffle the deck and try something different

              4. That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5, instead of another 10-14


              Some people play Chess, other can only understand Checkers
              "So shuffle the deck and try something different"
              Now that's special. So, what the hell, let's make a trade for the sake of making a trade?

              "That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5"
              Congratulations, you've found a way to tank without just out and out intentionally losing games.

              "Some people play Chess, others can only understand Checkers"...
              And some people who think they are playing Chess, have not in fact, figured out that they are actually playing Roulette.

              The Pacers are not as far off as you seem to think they are. Without attempting to build on what we have using primarily the forthcoming cap space, you believe we should essentially "blow it up". What you are proposing is that we get rid of players that are considered the "core" and gamble that the remaining youngsters will develop into exceptional players..... oh wait a minute, you actually get rid of a couple of the players that we were waiting to see how they developed. You aren't just going to "blow it up", for whatever reason, you've decided to blow it all to hell.

              If Granger is to be traded, it should be for only an equally talented player at a position that is more difficult to fill. Right now, wings are the easiest players to find. So, if you trade Granger, you'd better be getting back a darn good PG, PF or C in return.

              I personally don't believe the Pacers are required to trade Granger to get to the next level. And, if they get a little lucky, I think that their actions this summer could enable them to skip the next level altogether and get them back to where they are contending for 3rd or 4th in the East.

              We are certainly worse off than merely being able to fix our problems with a "tweak here" and a "tweak there". But jeez man, we have the cap space to make some major changes without blowing anything up. Show a little patience.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Hypothetically speaking

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                I dont care who we acquire for Granger or Hibbert, were not gonna be competitive with the Magic, Celtics, Bulls, Heat..


                Hoping Bird focuses on Dunleavy and/or Ford and tries to get anything possible in return. That should be the starting point for all discussions along with a first.

                I think you are hitting he nail on the head with that 1st point. We aren't going to threaten the top 4 WITH Granger and Hibby. So why should they be untouchable?

                Maybe a group of

                Aldridge
                Favors
                George
                Harden
                Collision

                along with a top 5 pick this summer and another 5-7 1st rounders over the next 3 years COULD be enough to threaten the top 4. Especially when you consider how much cap space we will have over the next several seasons.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Hypothetically speaking

                  I would think long and hard about Granger for Favors and a 1st, but I don't want Harris and don't want to give up Collison.

                  Collison has been our best player by far lately.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Hypothetically speaking

                    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                    If Granger is to be traded, it should be for only an equally talented player at a position that is more difficult to fill.

                    That isn't a realistic thing to expect. What contender is going to trade a core piece of a championship run to hope Granger will rebound into previous form?

                    90% of modern NBA trades work as BUYERS and SELLERS. Since we are a bad team we would be selling Granger, and hoping to get future assets back in return.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Hypothetically speaking

                      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                      I think you are hitting he nail on the head with that 1st point. We aren't going to threaten the top 4 WITH Granger and Hibby. So why should they be untouchable?

                      Maybe a group of

                      Aldridge
                      Favors
                      George
                      Harden
                      Collision

                      along with a top 5 pick this summer and another 5-7 1st rounders over the next 3 years COULD be enough to threaten the top 4. Especially when you consider how much cap space we will have over the next several seasons.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Hypothetically speaking

                        Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                        That isn't a realistic thing to expect. What contender is going to trade a core piece of a championship run to hope Granger will rebound into previous form?

                        90% of modern NBA trades work as BUYERS and SELLERS. Since we are a bad team we would be selling Granger, and hoping to get future assets back in return.
                        First off, who says that trading Granger should be restricted to only contenders?

                        Secondly, if we were trading Granger to a contender, it would still remain a fact that neither team is trading from a position of strength. Your opinion is that the Pacers should be thankful that a high and mighty contender would be willing to throw a few prospects and maybe a pick at the Pacers to take Granger and his contract off of their hands. But conversely, can't you see that if a contender were willing to go after Granger, it would be because they saw him as the "x-factor" that would get them over the hump? And, as a result, would be willing to pay quite a bit for a possible run at a championship. A position of strength in a trade has nothing to do with whether you are a bad team or a contender.

                        And as far as the Pacers are concerned, you make them an offer that is not up to snuff and the Pacers hold ALL of the power. All they have to do is say "No".

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Hypothetically speaking

                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          First off, who says that trading Granger should be restricted to only contenders?

                          Secondly, if we were trading Granger to a contender, it would still remain a fact that neither team is trading from a position of strength. Your opinion is that the Pacers should be thankful that a high and mighty contender would be willing to throw a few prospects and maybe a pick at the Pacers to take Granger and his contract off of their hands. But conversely, can't you see that if a contender were willing to go after Granger, it would be because they saw him as the "x-factor" that would get them over the hump? And, as a result, would be willing to pay quite a bit for a possible run at a championship. A position of strength in a trade has nothing to do with whether you are a bad team or a contender.

                          And as far as the Pacers are concerned, you make them an offer that is not up to snuff and the Pacers hold ALL of the power. All they have to do is say "No".
                          A contender or someone who is impatient in the rebuilding process. But we aren't going to see a Granger for Dwight Howard or Granger for DWade deal coming this way.

                          You just don't see many "Challenge" trades of Star for Star going on in the NBA. At least not unless one or both guys have a lot of baggage.

                          I honestly think it would be great if we could deal Ford, Foster and Dunleavy in exchange for an upper echelon PF and SG. I just don't see any way that is going to actually happen?

                          Overall I just think this core in general is flawed. Unless we find a franchise 4 or 2, and the other position is filled by a guy who could be our 2nd or 3rd best player?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Hypothetically speaking

                            Not to JOBjack the thread, but I am not really interested in trading any of our talent until I see them play under a different coaching staff.
                            Last edited by Kegboy; 01-19-2011, 02:41 PM.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X