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

  • #46
    Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

    Originally posted by Steagles View Post
    But they did! Our starters built up leads then the bench lost them, plain and simple.


    Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
    Our starters did not win a quarter in the second half of the 4 losses - measured by the almighty + / - stat. They folded when Miami turned up the pressure. You don't win games when your starters suck in pressure situations.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

      When you over spend paying Hibbert and Hill almost 22 mil for this season after paying them less than 5 mil combined last season that took up 17 mil of the cap space.

      Being able to add Green , Augustin and Mahinmi for a combined 11 mil and trading Collison and Jones' 5.5 mil deal was about the best you could expect for what little cap space remained after over paying Roy and Hill.

      Overall the team was improved just wish Hibbert and Hill could have been signed much cheaper.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

        The team has rehired Donnie Do Nothing Walsh and all but confirmed ownership is onboard with staying out of FA as a way to aggressively take the team to the next level. I'd say this offseason could not have thrown anymore cold water on my hopes for the team and the upcoming season. I've went from anxiously wanting to see what happens next to "meh"....

        The Pacers off season has done a great job of getting me to care more about the Colts upcoming season.

        Donnie Do Nothing Walsh back? Really? Blah!
        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


        • #49
          Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          staying out of FA as a way to aggressively take the team to the next level.
          I'm curious, who are these next level free agents we struck out on?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

            I thought this offseason has been a very good one for the Pacers. I like that we kept our starting five and added young athletic players to our bench. As much as I was concerned about losing DC and Dahntay I was just as pleased with what we got in exchange. We got a young big who is strong and then the signings of Green and Augustin made my day. I think we will be seeing another DJ than he was at his prior team because he will be asked more to run the offense and distribute to our scorers. So what that we didn't get any flashy FA's but I didn't think we were even closely in their list of possible teams. I also hope that Tyler will improve from last year and I think with the floor spacing better he will improve. I can't wait to see our new look bench and see the season begin.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

              Did we even get a top 20 free agent with all the cap space other than our restricted free agents? is Green top 20? I doubt it.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                I'm curious, who are these next level free agents we struck out on?
                We struck out with none because we refused to get in the game and go after any.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  We struck out with none because we refused to get in the game and go after any.
                  Ok, but just give me a name of this hypothetical free agent we could have had, had we tried?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Did we even get a top 20 free agent with all the cap space other than our restricted free agents? is Green top 20? I doubt it.
                    Well, let's see. This is CBS sports list of top free agents for summer 2012.

                    http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/ey...40-free-agents

                    X for players who were un-signable, for contract reasons or just the fact that they would not come to Indy
                    Y for players I think the Pacers had no interest in signing, because they're starters at a position we already have starters at
                    O for players the Pacers got

                    X 1. Deron Williams

                    X 2. Eric Gordon

                    X 3. Kevin Garnett

                    X 4. Tim Duncan

                    O 5. Roy Hibbert

                    X 6. Steve Nash

                    X 7. JaVale McGee

                    Y 8. Ryan Anderson

                    X 9. Nicolas Batum

                    X 10. Jason Terry

                    X 11. Brook Lopez

                    X 12. Ray Allen

                    X 13. Jeremy Lin

                    Y 14. Gerald Wallace

                    15. Goran Dragic

                    Y 16. Ersan Ilyasova

                    X 17. Jason Kidd

                    18. O.J. Mayo

                    19. Brandon Bass

                    X 20. Mo Williams (opted in)

                    So, that cuts out the impossibilities, leaving this list. Keep in mind we would have had to top all these deals to get these players.

                    Dragic at $8.5 mil a year
                    Bass at $7 mil a year
                    Mayo $4 mil for one year, then opt out

                    Of the top 20 free agents, there were three that were POSSIBLE for the Pacers to get. One signed with his same team. The other signed with his old team. The other signed a one year deal to try and max his value for next off-season.

                    Had you been GM this summer, how would you have approached that top twenty list? Cause to me there's not much to work with.
                    Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 07-21-2012, 03:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                      The only players I wanted us to sign from that list are Deron, Eric, Kevin and Tim and they are 1 to 4 for a reason. I didn't have any expectations for us being able to sign them.
                      The fifth and final player I wanted us to sign (from that list) is Mayo, but it is obvious that he didn't want to play for the Pacers and come off our bench.

                      While I do think we need to upgrade our starters unit, I don't see where the right opportunity has presented itself. I do see some opportunities for later, like trading for Gordon or trying to sign Millsap or Ellis in free agency next year.

                      Btw George Hill belongs on that list

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                        I'm not a huge fan of the Mahinmi trade (unnecessary talent dump), the Plumlee pick (probably a reach at 26), or the Hill contract (too much or too long, perhaps both), but I'm not totally outraged either. I've talked myself into tolerating all those decisions. I think the Green contract has high reward potential, and getting Augustin at that price, if only for a year, is pretty solid. Of course, I'll be angrier if things don't pan out, but right now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The fact that we didn't just sit on our hands and do nothing is almost satisfaction enough for now.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                          Our bench is stronger and we didnt give up very much talent at all. I like the job they have done even more when I consider that they are not playing on a level playing field. Superstars are not coming to Indiana. They never have and never will unless the NBA adopts a hard salary cap like the NFL has. When all that is considered, the front office has not been good, they have been great.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                            Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                            Our starters did not win a quarter in the second half of the 4 losses - measured by the almighty + / - stat. They folded when Miami turned up the pressure. You don't win games when your starters suck in pressure situations.
                            Well said......

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                              Had you been GM this summer, how would you have approached that top twenty list? Cause to me there's not much to work with.
                              "No much to work with"? cap space? Picks? young players with some "value"? expiring contracts? is that nothing to you? stop it.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                "No much to work with"? cap space? Picks? young players with some "value"? expiring contracts? is that nothing to you? stop it.
                                not trying to criticize, but I think you're making a fundamental mistake about what the FO is doing. All these things you list seem to be 'asset management' type things. It appears that Donnie and Kevin were mainly concerned with making the team better. ie winning more games as opposed to collecting lots of assets for the future. JMO, but it seems easy to get lost in the effort to 'maximize' your return and collect that extra 'young player with value' instead of just trying to make your team better. The test that judges the success or failure of Donnie's and Kevin's summer will be next season, not some hypothetical list of assets they could or should obtain.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X