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 Bball View Post
    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...
    I would like to ad to this that Bills didn't like people complaining that no moves were made as soon as the moratorium was over because according to him we had a whole summer to make moves, how is that working out now?
    @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 Bball View Post
      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...

      Early? Compared to what, the first game? They made it a point to deliver a contract offer to Roy equal to the Blazers' expected offer so he wouldn't sign their sheet so they wouldn't be tied down to a definite time to re-sign him. I assume they did the same for Hill, who, I might add, signed at the same time as Hibbert.
      EDIT: Even if they didn't wait out the entire offseason to re-sign Hill and Hibbert, they still re-signed them only when they finished the moves they wanted to make. All of the top-tier FAs were gone by then.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I would like to ad to this that Bills didn't like people complaining that no moves were made as soon as the moratorium was over because according to him we had a whole summer to make moves, how is that working out now?
        So since the top FAs are all signed it means the trade deadline has passed as well?
        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?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          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...
          Which ones did they pass on that they had any kind of chance at getting if they had not said they were signing Hibbert and Hill? Who was left on the block the date they ACTUALLY signed Hibbert and Hill that they could still have gotten for a non-ridiculous price?

          I think they overpaid by a couple million for Hill, but if they had NOT re-signed Hibbert then I suspect Portland would have been touted as the biggest FA signing of the year - and you guys would be talking about how the FO didn't want to spend any money at all.
          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?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            So since the top FAs are all signed it means the trade deadline has passed as well?
            According to reports the Pacers are done making moves not only that but the cap space is gone making it even harder to do
            Anything, so yeah the trade deadline has passed for the Pacers.
            @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 BillS View Post
              Which ones did they pass on that they had any kind of chance at getting if they had not said they were signing Hibbert and Hill? Who was left on the block the date they ACTUALLY signed Hibbert and Hill that they could still have gotten for a non-ridiculous price?

              I think they overpaid by a couple million for Hill, but if they had NOT re-signed Hibbert then I suspect Portland would have been touted as the biggest FA signing of the year - and you guys would be talking about how the FO didn't want to spend any money at all.
              Scola? Brand? they were there for the Pacers to take and decided not to do 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?

                I can't complain too much with what the Pacers did. Sure I can sit here and nit pick and say they shouldn't have drafted Miles or that they overpaid for Hill and Hibbert but at the end of the day I like what they did overall. I love the addition of Gerald Green and I think DJ was a nice addition to replace Darren Collison. I am not sold on Ian Mahinmi but he will be better than Lou. I think the Pacers are going to be a better basketball team next year than they were this past year.

                The new front office faces a tough task next summer when deciding on what to do with David West. He will be a free agent and 32 years old. Even though his numbers don't back it up I think he had a quality year as a starting power forward but I don't expect him to be able to keep that up for long. I think he can be a very good backup though and is worth re-signing. Who do you replace him with in the starting lineup though? It is very important for the Pacers to have, at the least, a good player at every position in the starting five. The Miami Heat don't have to do this because they have Lebron but the Pacers do. Part of the reason Roy was so interested in Portland was playing with a top power forward in LaMarcus Aldridge. I am a little worried on how this will play out.

                Comment


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

                  The interesting thing will be next offseason.

                  West comes off the books
                  Pendergraph comes off the books
                  Hans probably comes off the books, he'll be a RFA, and I doubt he is back unless he has a stellar season. Personally, if Ian/Plumlee do well, I hope Hans is just traded.

                  So the Pacers could have 0 PFs next season, if we aren't considering Ian a PF.

                  Millsap and Jefferson will be UFA. I do hope West resigns though.

                  That's all a long way off. Although I haven't liked the Pacers offseason as a whole, I'm truly looking forward to watching this team on the court. Should be a lot of fun.
                  Last edited by Sparhawk; 07-22-2012, 09:13 PM.
                  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: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                    Originally posted by Young View Post
                    I can't complain too much with what the Pacers did. Sure I can sit here and nit pick and say they shouldn't have drafted Miles or that they overpaid for Hill and Hibbert but at the end of the day I like what they did overall. I love the addition of Gerald Green and I think DJ was a nice addition to replace Darren Collison. I am not sold on Ian Mahinmi but he will be better than Lou. I think the Pacers are going to be a better basketball team next year than they were this past year.

                    The new front office faces a tough task next summer when deciding on what to do with David West. He will be a free agent and 32 years old. Even though his numbers don't back it up I think he had a quality year as a starting power forward but I don't expect him to be able to keep that up for long. I think he can be a very good backup though and is worth re-signing. Who do you replace him with in the starting lineup though? It is very important for the Pacers to have, at the least, a good player at every position in the starting five. The Miami Heat don't have to do this because they have Lebron but the Pacers do. Part of the reason Roy was so interested in Portland was playing with a top power forward in LaMarcus Aldridge. I am a little worried on how this will play out.
                    Hibbert was interested because Portland was offering him a max contract. He would have been just as interested in any team that would do that.....

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                      The interesting thing will be next offseason.

                      West comes off the books
                      Pendergraph comes off the books
                      Hans probably comes off the books, he'll be a RFA, and I doubt he is back unless he has a stellar season. Personally, if Ian/Plumlee do well, I hope Hans is just traded.

                      So the Pacers could have 0 PFs next season, if we aren't considering Ian a PF.

                      Millsap and Jefferson will be UFA. I do hope West resigns though.

                      That's all a long way off. Although I haven't liked the Pacers offseason as a whole, I'm truly looking forward to watching this team on the court. Should be a lot of fun.
                      That is not a long way off and should be planned for now. I think they will keep Tyler and let West go unless the contract is smaller and he will get a bigger offer to go elsewhere now that he has shown his knees are healed. Hibbert can be a good backup playing with the right second unit. I expect him to be more productive this year. I think we will be looking to draft a starting PF or signing or trading for one. We can't trade for one without disrupting the starters. I don't think Granger can bring you a starting PF any more.....

                      Comment


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

                        No chance they keep Tyler i cant see it he will never be our PF of the future. hopefully they trade him so they at least get something in return rather than letting him walk
                        Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                        Comment


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

                          I expect us to re-sign West for 3 more years and use the rest of the cap space in another bench player, Josh Smith, Monta and others are going to be free agents but the Pacers don't like to go after those.
                          @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
                            Scola? Brand? they were there for the Pacers to take and decided not to do it.
                            They are not on the top-20 list, which is how I was trying to separate "high profile" FA signing from FA signings like Augustin and Green. What is your definition of a "major" FA signing? It starts to sound a bit like a "major" move is any move you wanted them to make, and any other move doesn't count.
                            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?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I expect us to re-sign West for 3 more years and use the rest of the cap space in another bench player, Josh Smith, Monta and others are going to be free agents but the Pacers don't like to go after those.
                              I don't think that's possible. West's cap hold will pretty much eat up our cap space. So it's either go over the cap re-sign West (and/or Augustin) using exceptions, or sign a FA using cap space, not both.

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              They are not on the top-20 list, which is how I was trying to separate "high profile" FA signing from FA signings like Augustin and Green. What is your definition of a "major" FA signing? It starts to sound a bit like a "major" move is any move you wanted them to make, and any other move doesn't count.
                              Scola's amnesty waiver was extremely surprising. I'll bet no one anticipated that. If anyone did, he'd easily be on their top 20 FA list. I'm not so sure about Brand, but I think he's arguable too when you consider the dirt cheap contract he ended up on.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                Scola's amnesty waiver was extremely surprising. I'll bet no one anticipated that. If anyone did, he'd easily be on their top 20 FA list. I'm not so sure about Brand, but I think he's arguable too when you consider the dirt cheap contract he ended up on.
                                Thanks. So, re-thinking this, can you really call "not stalling re-signing your own FAs in case someone good gets amnestied" the same as "not going after high profile FAs?" We're starting to throw an awful lot of potential deals under the heading of "don't go after major FAs" (or, as sarcasted from vnzla81 above, not going after FAs at all).

                                Do we have any good source to tell us the Pacers definitely did or definitely did not bid on those two anyway? I don't remember when we actually signed Hill & Hibbert but I would think we would still have been under the cap to bid on Brand at least.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X