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

Off season Rumors and Speculation

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

  • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    Can't they just amnesty Perk's contract and then use the remaining 15 million on 9 guys?
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This is what I've been saying forever, just watch OKC give Perkins away for nothing to another team, they would have to be really stupid to choose Perkins over Harden.
    Again, this is considering that salaries never change. In 2014 here would be the salaries if Harden even gets a contract equal to Ibaka.

    Durant - 20 million
    Westbrook - 15.7 million
    Ibaka - 12.25 million
    Harden - 12.25 million

    That's 60 million in 4 players, and that's even if they amnesty Perkins. Otherwise it's the luxury tax in 5 guys. That's even IF Harden doesn't get a contract that ends up in the 14/15 million range after a couple of years like Marc Gasol's deal. Which I think he could.

    Comment


    • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

      Originally posted by shags View Post
      Just for fun.

      Charlotte gets Granger and Sefolosha
      OKC gets Kidd-Gilchrist and Henderson
      Indiana gets Harden and Diop.

      Can't see Charlotte doing that.
      Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

      Comment


      • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

        Originally posted by shags View Post
        Just for fun.

        Charlotte gets Granger and Sefolosha
        OKC gets Kidd-Gilchrist and Henderson
        Indiana gets Harden and Diop.

        Can't see Charlotte doing that.
        Ha! In that scenario, I'd want Kidd-Gilchrist instead of Harden. That's just me though.
        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

        Comment


        • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

          Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
          Any of you seen Aldrich play? he is hot garbage will be out on the league after his rookie deal is up.
          Mmmmmmmmmmm, hot garbage.
          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

          Comment


          • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

            Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
            no, he's not manu ginobli. harden is a scorer. but he's not the shooting threat ginobli is. he's not the big moment guy ginobli is. and he doesn't have the court vision/BBIQ. ginobli has whatever magic johnson/larry bird had. That ability to play 5 seconds ahead of everyone else. and ginobli has better skills.
            Not the shooter Ginobli is? You're right. Manu is a career .373 shooter from 3. Harden is a paltry .370. They both shoot .835 from the free throw line but that is neither here nor there.

            Ginobli has been in the league for a decade and been playing professionally longer than that. Of course he's got more big time moments than a guy who just turned 23 after his third season.

            Ginobli has brilliant court vision. But there is a reason that Harden is the Thunder's crunch time ball handler. And it's not because he has Granger-esque blinders on.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              Not the shooter Ginobli is? You're right. Manu is a career .373 shooter from 3. Harden is a paltry .370. They both shoot .835 from the free throw line but that is neither here nor there.

              Ginobli has been in the league for a decade and been playing professionally longer than that. Of course he's got more big time moments than a guy who just turned 23 after his third season.

              Ginobli has brilliant court vision. But there is a reason that Harden is the Thunder's crunch time ball handler. And it's not because he has Granger-esque blinders on.
              I think what he meant was that Harden basically choked in any big moments during the finals, whereas Manu has always been known to step up and perform within those moments.

              My thing with Harden is, it's hard to tell whether or not he would be able to truly handle being the #1 option offensively on a very good team. Yes he is talented and a good scorer, but when you play with Westbrook and/or Durant at all times, you never have the other teams best defender on you. Though he is a pretty good athlete, most "great" number one scorer's have great athletic gifts (height, explosiveness, length, are a few examples) that allows them to dominate night in and night out. I'm not sure that Harden has those skills.

              As far as the comparison to Manu, Manu has never had to be a number one option on a team and he has probably had a HOF career. If Harden and OKC can win a few championships, he may be able to carve out a career that's very similar.

              Comment


              • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                Uh, Harden had a game in the Finals where he threw up 21 points on 7/11 shooting. How is that choking? If Paul George had done that against Miami he would have been crowned the second coming of Christ on here.


                Comment


                • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  Uh, Harden had a game in the Finals where he threw up 21 points on 7/11 shooting. How is that choking? If Paul George had done that against Miami he would have been crowned the second coming of Christ on here.
                  Uh, he also had games of 8, 9, and 5; shot 37% from the field, 32% from 3, blew wide open break away layups, was abused defensively and pretty much had a bad series. >>> That's choking.

                  And If PG had done THAT against MIA he would have been the subject of a million trade scenarios on here.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Uh, he also had games of 8, 9, and 5; shot 37% from the field, 32% from 3, blew wide open break away layups, was abused defensively and pretty much had a bad series. >>> That's choking.

                    And If PG had done THAT against MIA he would have been the subject of a million trade scenarios on here.
                    PG averaged 10 points on .365 shooting in the Miami series.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      PG averaged 10 points on .365 shooting in the Miami series.
                      And has been the subject of plenty trade scenarios on PD throughout the summer. It's also been said on here that he won't reach his potential, that he hasn't been working on his game because he threw down a nice dunk in Shanghai with Lebron, and that we should be worried because he said he's going to change his number.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Uh, he also had games of 8, 9, and 5; shot 37% from the field, 32% from 3, blew wide open break away layups, was abused defensively and pretty much had a bad series. >>> That's choking.

                        And If PG had done THAT against MIA he would have been the subject of a million trade scenarios on here.
                        The Pacers have a player that had similar numbers and was also abused defensively...
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          The Pacers have a player that had similar numbers and was also abused defensively...
                          Lol and Danny CHOKED in the series against MIA also.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Lol and Danny CHOKED in the series against MIA also.
                            Thanks for admitting that (green)either way I thought the bench was the problem(green)
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                              Just because Granger was a problem doesn't mean the bench wasn't a problem also.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Just because Granger was a problem doesn't mean the bench wasn't a problem also.
                                Yeah i'm not saying he's THE reason we lost, just that he didn't play well in most of the series. Like Joe said, the bench was a major problem also.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X