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

NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

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

  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Are you kidding me? you think that people are going to magically start to show up after years and years of the clown of JOB? the Pacers are lucky they get as many people now.

    To me they haven't fulfill their promise, 5 or 4 years ago they told us about this great plan that was going to give us cap space so we could bring players and do this and do that and so far they haven't done s***, now this year they are going to tell us how successful this off season was when they get to re-sign Roy and get another bench player, I'm sorry if I don't get excited about that.
    Gosh I can't thank this enough. The way the front office talked about the 3 year plan, they were gonna go after a real difference maker to pair with Danny Granger and grow and develop these young players. Once they have an opportunity to do that they passed. Maybe West counts as that difference maker? I dunno, a 2 year contract certainly doesn't show that. But if you are building towards a contender, then surely you realize that signing a top Free Agent is a must if you spend that past 5 years drafting in the middle of the 1st round.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      Are you kidding me? you think that people are going to magically start to show up after years and years of the clown of JOB? the Pacers are lucky they get as many people now.

      To me they haven't fulfill their promise, 5 or 4 years ago they told us about this great plan that was going to give us cap space so we could bring players and do this and do that and so far they haven't done s***, now this year they are going to tell us how successful this off season was when they get to re-sign Roy and get another bench player, I'm sorry if I don't get excited about that.
      So how fast were they supposed to recover? Going from nothing to playoffs to second round isn't fast enough? Going from a losing season to a .636 season is too slow? Which is more important, big roster moves or results - and what result is good enough?

      From 1994-2004 the Pacers were one of the most consistent high-level playoff teams in the league. Yep, there were bad years after that, but limiting the definition of success to be "top-ten player in the NBA with full supporting cast" AND "NBA championship IMMEDIATELY" is unrealistic.
      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


      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        In two seasons the Pacers went from 32-50 (a winning % of 39%) to 42-24 (63.6%) and apparently the Pacers aren't making strides fast enough. Go figure.

        And that's what will be so painful if we really do end up losing Roy. We ended up having a very solid rebuilding plan that restored us to success, but much of it would be thrown down the crapper if we don't keep him.

        Comment


        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          He want's not part of the luxury tax unless he has Dwill/Howard/Dirk in the same team, do you think he decided to screw another possible year for a championship just because he wanted to avoid the luxury tax? no, Cuban wanted a big 3 in Dallas and he was willing to pay the price for it.
          If he couldn't get under the cap just HOW was he going to pay the price for it, since he wasn't going to sign Dwill/Howard outright? Try to convince someone to trade one of those three for his lower end players? If that was the case why would he have to get under the LT first - especially by dumping one of the key supporting roleplayers from the previous year's championship team? You can still make trades when over the LT.
          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


          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            Gosh I can't thank this enough. The way the front office talked about the 3 year plan, they were gonna go after a real difference maker to pair with Danny Granger and grow and develop these young players. Once they have an opportunity to do that they passed. Maybe West counts as that difference maker? I dunno, a 2 year contract certainly doesn't show that. But if you are building towards a contender, then surely you realize that signing a top Free Agent is a must if you spend that past 5 years drafting in the middle of the 1st round.
            So if they offered a max contract to EJ, and the Hornet's matched, you'd feel better about the situation?

            I'm just trying to figure this out. I didn't realize that simply offering a contract to a guy, when there's no shot of actually obtaining him as a player was such a difference maker for people.

            They offered more money to Nash than the Lakers.
            They're not on DWill's list.
            NO is willing to match any offer sheet signed by EJ.

            The options you want them to pursue, and using against them, seem a little far fetched and unrealistic.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Gosh I can't thank this enough. The way the front office talked about the 3 year plan, they were gonna go after a real difference maker to pair with Danny Granger and grow and develop these young players. Once they have an opportunity to do that they passed. Maybe West counts as that difference maker? I dunno, a 2 year contract certainly doesn't show that. But if you are building towards a contender, then surely you realize that signing a top Free Agent is a must if you spend that past 5 years drafting in the middle of the 1st round.
              I'm confused, this entire article is based on EJ, an injury prone player who may or not of preferred Phoenix over Indy not having anything to do with the offer.

              And the Hornets are matching anyway!

              What opportunity has Indy passed up because of not wanting to spend?

              Comment


              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                I'm confused, this entire article is based on EJ, an injury prone player who may or not of preferred Phoenix over Indy not having anything to do with the offer.

                What opportunity has Indy passed up because of not wanting to spend?
                Just about every one in the past 40 years. D. West is the first major free agent signing.....

                Comment


                • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Gosh I can't thank this enough. The way the front office talked about the 3 year plan, they were gonna go after a real difference maker to pair with Danny Granger and grow and develop these young players. Once they have an opportunity to do that they passed. Maybe West counts as that difference maker? I dunno, a 2 year contract certainly doesn't show that. But if you are building towards a contender, then surely you realize that signing a top Free Agent is a must if you spend that past 5 years drafting in the middle of the 1st round.
                  Yep and it looks like that 3,4,5 years plan is going to become another 3,4,5 years plan.

                  Now I keep hearing the word "continuation" from Wells and other people in twitter, they say is the only way to compete, that "continuation is the only way to beat Miami" are you kidding me? you can have this team in "continuation" for the next ten years and they still won't have the talent level to beat Miami, or BLK, or a healthy Chicago, or Boston or even a healthy New York.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    Just about every one in the past 40 years. D. West is the first major free agent signing.....
                    I really hate the persistent notion that "failed to sign" means "didn't bother to try".

                    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
                    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


                    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                      Doubling your winning percentage, and not signing guys that you don't have the option to sign is now valid criticism?
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                        The Pacers are actually keeping the opportunity to get Gordon open by not offering a contract. If a team offers a contract and the Hornets match, then he can't be traded to the offering team for the duration of the contract. So Gordon wouldn't be able to come here for 4 years.

                        Also after he is matched by the Hornets they can trade him in the first year, but he has veto rights, so in a way he gets to choose the trading partner. PHX would be out of the running because of the rule above.
                        I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          So how fast were they supposed to recover? Going from nothing to playoffs to second round isn't fast enough? Going from a losing season to a .636 season is too slow? Which is more important, big roster moves or results - and what result is good enough?

                          From 1994-2004 the Pacers were one of the most consistent high-level playoff teams in the league. Yep, there were bad years after that, but limiting the definition of success to be "top-ten player in the NBA with full supporting cast" AND "NBA championship IMMEDIATELY" is unrealistic.
                          Quick success for the now is not what I'm looking for, the Bucks and Bobcats tried this few years ago and didn't work well for them, I'm looking for chance to compete for a championship in the future, at this moment we don't have the talent to compete for a championship in the future, we are building for the "nice" quick success of the now, at this moment we only have 3 players that are going to be part of the future in Roy, PG and Hill, everybody else is either replaceable or old, do you think we have a chance to compete with those 3 guys? I don't.


                          edit: Actually quick success has always been the part that grinded my gears with Larry Bird, he tried the quick success bs for a long time and it finally worked out for him last year, that doesn't mean that's going to work out for this team in the future, there is a reason why I don't want to bring old players here, because I want us to build a team for the future when Roy and Paul George are in their prime.
                          Last edited by vnzla81; 07-09-2012, 12:57 PM.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                            I don't have time to respond to all of this right now but I want to ask one thing.

                            Some of you guys keep saying the Pacers offered more to Nash than the Lakers did. Can you please produce a link or at the very least direct us to a quote from a reputable source to show this.

                            I asked Hicks this the other day on another thread because he was using this as gospel as well, I'm not saying it's false but I would just like to see it somewhere other than quoted on here.

                            Does it change anything if we didn't offer him that money? I don't think so, but then again it does eliminate this alleged offer from being used as a defense for the Pacers not lowballing people this summer.


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

                            Comment


                            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                              You folks have no idea if NOLA is going to match or not. At the very least it opens the door for NOLA and PHX to work a sign and trade before EJ signs the offer sheet. All I wanted is for the Pacers to be in that position. It should have been a no-brainer for the Front office. Lock up EJ quickly so that we can secure a sign and trade deal if they wanted to match.

                              And maybe Sleeze is right, that the Pacers not getting him under contract will work out for the better in being able to trade for him in the future, but thats if NOLA matches. If NOLA doesn't match, then the Pacers lost out big time.

                              But EJ has basically done his part in the play. He came out and publicly stated he had no desire to play in NOLA. Thats very hard for a team to overlook for a max contract.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                                You must not have read the entire post, because he started in about losing money every year yet being dedicated the city, and everyone should be thankful we have a team to spend money on.

                                As if there should be some sort of reverence for the man. I say to hell with that, the guy has made billions with the lucrative contracts he has received from the city.
                                I'm a loyal PAYING customer of his product for the past 5 years. I'm not one of these people who just watch on TV or only go to games when I get a free ticket or a deeply discounted ticket. I'm there, putting up my dough and buying a ticket package in advance. I am one of the few who will go see the them beat down the Raptors or Bobcats on a Wednesday night. I certainly have the right to say whatever I please about the way he may choose to run the organization.
                                Yes you have the right to say whatever you want. But there's a classy way to do that, and the ******* way to do it. Choose wisely!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X