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

How do you like our new/old FO so far?

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

  • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    So your beef is with the guy who cleared all of New York's cap space and then spent a summer trying to sign LeBron, Joe Johnson, Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh, ended up signing Amare Stoudemire and Raymond Felton and playing some part in acquiring Carmelo Anthony, and pushed as a consultant for the Knicks to sign Tyson Chandler.

    Your contention is that he won't try and sign top free agents?
    He certainly will when he is given the resources and he can coax stars into coming to his team......

    Comment


    • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      Did last summer not happen? The one where we tried to sign Nene and Jamal Crawford, and at least kicked the tires on Marc Gasol? We tried, it didn't work out. Most of the time it doesn't.
      "There is no try. There is only do." -- Pacers Digest
      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: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

        My beef so far is that it is pretty clear that they overpaid for Mahinme and to keep Hill. I don't see Hill getting 8 million from another team. I don't think any of you could have named one either. Mahinme could have been had for much cheaper than losing DC. He was just a guy trying to get a 4 year contract. It seems like typical Donnie Walsh moves though. Overpaid back ups like Austin Croshere. The last point guard to play for the Pacers who made 8mil a season was one Jamal Tinsley. While I love Hill, he will never had the skill of Tinsley.

        As for being committed to winning a championship. Well I think thats more on the players myself. If you have a team good enough to make the 2nd round and finish as a high seed for the playoffs, then i think management has done a good job. Its up to the players to win.
        Last edited by graphic-er; 07-22-2012, 11:39 AM.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Why do you assume they just didn't try at all? Because it didn't leak to the press?

          The question is still valid. Out of the list of the top FAs there were very good reasons that the Pacers wouldn't have won on them. Which ones do you think they should have tried on anyway?

          Of the remaining FAs, which ones do you think we just didn't bother on?

          I'm not getting that an assumption of complete inactivity leads to such certainty - especially when 12 hours after the FA market opened people were totally and abswolutely convinced the Pacers would do nothing at all - possibly not even re-sign Roy - and here we are with a ton of moves.

          Which moves do you think the Pacers could have made successfully and which moves they DID make would you have dumped in their favor?

          For example, I think nwhen the Pacers approached Mayo he was at $8M and they moved on, then Mayo realized no one was paying that so took $4M from the Mavs. Would you rather wee had not bothered making any other moves - including stalling signing Roy - to wait and see if Mayo would cut his requirements? Do you really think he would have done so?

          Here is Wells report in what the Pacers goals was this year, it doesn't sound to me like they were trying hard to get a big free agent or even a decent free agent to come here:


          http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...TS04/120712043


          The plan going into free agency was simple for the Indiana Pacers.

          There would not be any off-the-wall recruiting pitches by team President Donnie Walsh or general manager Kevin Pritchard in the early hours of July 1 to try to woo All-Star point guard Deron Williams. The Pacers would not be one of many actors in the Dwight Howard soap opera with the Orlando Magic. Nor did the Pacers have interest in a one-year rental of Howard.

          It’s been all about fine-tuning the roster since they lost to the Miami Heat in the second round of the playoffs in May.
          Last edited by vnzla81; 07-22-2012, 02:16 PM.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

            There is more than one side of the court... Take what Hill brings on offense and defense, and compare it to Tinsley's passing skills, and they are at the very least equal I would say.

            Comment


            • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              "There is no try. There is only do." -- Pacers Digest
              Well they have tried before and as I result the Pacers have got the great free agents of, Travis Diener, Kareem Rush, Head, Jesicavishus(or whatever), Dahntay Jones, Solomon Jones, David West, Augustin, Gerald Green, etc,etc..


              Thanks god they are trying because I don't know where would the Pacers be if it wasn't for this guys...
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                There is more than one side of the court... Take what Hill brings on offense and defense, and compare it to Tinsley's passing skills, and they are at the very least equal I would say.
                No, Tinsley was a much better PG but that was he only position he could play. Hill is more versitile. I think Tinsley was a pretty good defender but when you look at them as citizens of the community, that is what really separates them...... ...

                Comment


                • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                  Vnzla81,
                  It doesn't matter how many quotes like that you bring up. It doesn't matter how much history Walsh and Simon have in this regard. It doesn't matter how much circumstantial evidence exists. Larry Bird could've said "Ol' Herbie doesn't want to go all in chasing a championship, doesn't want to chase costly free agents, and it's his team. My back has been bothering me anyway so no use staying here and dealing with that if we don't see eye to eye on where we need to go next" and I have no doubt people would still be arguing he left because of his health.

                  People just don't seem to want to believe the Pacers would willingly ignore going all in for a high profile FA/RFA and that the team wouldn't be aggressive in getting to the next level.

                  As much as people thought Bird was conservative, just wait until you revisit Donnie DN Walsh with fresh eyes.
                  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


                  • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                    Vnzla81, BBall and a few others seem to have it all figured out what goes on inside the Pacers front office and what more importantly goes on inside their minds.

                    If what you guys think or think you know, why are you a fan of the Pacers at all ? there must be several teams that are easier to root far.
                    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                    Comment


                    • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                      Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                      Vnzla81, BBall and a few others seem to have it all figured out what goes on inside the Pacers front office and what more importantly goes on inside their minds.

                      If what you guys think or think you know, why are you a fan of the Pacers at all ? there must be several teams that are easier to root far.
                      Bringing Donnie Walsh back certainly has me questioning that... And has squarely sealed my opinion of Simon as well.

                      But alas, I'll always follow the Pacers to some degree. But if they aren't going 'all in' then I'm not either.

                      And the rest of the NBA means almost nothing to me. If there was no INDIANA Pacers there could be no NBA as far as I'm concerned.
                      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


                      • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                        Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                        Vnzla81, BBall and a few others seem to have it all figured out what goes on inside the Pacers front office and what more importantly goes on inside their minds.

                        If what you guys think or think you know, why are you a fan of the Pacers at all ? there must be several teams that are easier to root far.
                        Stop it!!
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Stop it!!
                          Right back at ya!
                          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                          Comment


                          • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            People just don't seem to want to believe the Pacers would willingly ignore going all in for a high profile FA/RFA and that the team wouldn't be aggressive in getting to the next level.
                            So all you want is for them to publicly go for a high profile FA/RFA no matter whether that FA/RFA would help the current roster, has made themselves open to go to any but a couple of teams, or has been promised by their current team that they will match?

                            Please, I ask again, for THIS incarnation of the FO, which of the listed top 20 FAs do you think the Pacers should have publicly thrown everything at in order to get and why do you think that by doing so they would NOT have lost anything doing it?

                            If there are NO FAs/RFAs you feel the Pacers COULD have gotten this year but you STILL feel they should have gone after one anyway, why?

                            And if you DON'T feel they should have gone after one of the FAs/RFAs who was already a "not going to get" due to position/current team situation/existing trade demand, then WHY are you so adamant that this is proof they will (or have) never even tried to get a major FA?

                            It's like sending your kids out to the parking lot to pick up fallen $20 bills. They come back with some $1 and $5 bills and you conclude they never would have picked up a $20 bill if it was there - when the reality is that there were no $20 bills.
                            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: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                              Bills,
                              By signing Hibbert and Hill early when they did and effectively killing their cap space and ability to do anything else it makes your question a moot point IMHO.

                              ...while also confirming they weren't interested in being aggressive at all IMHO...
                              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


                              • Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                                We shouldn't be surprised about these FA moves, this is DW's specialty. He took a chance on JO, an underated Brad Miller, drafted Tinsley and Harrington. We have to give these moves a chance based on the excellent track record of Walsh.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X