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

  • #91
    Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    Because they said so. So even if someone wants to believe Bird left because of his health (regardless of the backstory), or that we're Basketball Siberia and nobody would ever come here (regardless of our ability to re-sign our own players when we want), none of that matters because TPTB have already been quoted saying they never intended to be players in FA this offseason (and signed Hibbert and Hill and closed the door on the idea before they had to).

    And if you need any further proof that this is in the team's DNA look no further than back in the day when Barkley wanted to come here, even lobbied for it thru Reggie, and the team brass didn't even entertain the idea.
    I've been a Pacers fan for a looong time, and I don't remember this Barkley coming out and saying this at all. Could you provide proof?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

      who has final say on trades, drafting, FA, etc at this point in our FO. Walsh or Pritchard ?

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

        Originally posted by pogi View Post
        I've been a Pacers fan for a looong time, and I don't remember this Barkley coming out and saying this at all. Could you provide proof?
        Here is the best I can find: http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996...ller-and-smits

        The article only mentions the interest from the Pacers not from Barkley, but he definitely had a big interest in the Pacers as well. You can hear the defeatist tone in DWs quotes. Ultimately DW decided he was to expensive to pursue. I remember it pissed me off because it was the rare chance to add a great player and we passed. That's the starting point for me to start questioning the teams desire to win a title. If you want to win a title in Indiana you are going to have to take some big chances. They won't. They'll take the conservative good team over the potential great team every time. And, unfortunately, it will be good enough in this market. 6 years from now everyone will call the team a success as long as they make the playoffs and tease you with the possibility that if all the stars aligned, they maybe, possibly could almost win a title. And when they don't, the fans will say "they tried hard, what else could they have possibly done?"

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

          I was around when Barkley picked Houston over the Pacers, not sure about all the revisionist history now saying we were just to cheap to pursue hm. Barkley thought he had a better chance at Houston, period......... he was wrong.
          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

            Originally posted by Hoop View Post
            I was around when Barkley picked Houston over the Pacers, not sure about all the revisionist history now saying we were just to cheap to pursue hm. Barkley thought he had a better chance at Houston, period......... he was wrong.
            Barkley was traded and didn't "pick" Houston - Phoenix did. Barkley wanted to go to a contender and gave a list that included Indiana. I remember some reports that Indy was very high on that list. DW thought the price was too high.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

              Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
              Ownership only cares about being a fringe playoff team. That way more people stay interested and more likely to go to games. This is not a championship caliber team, but a team that can definitely win 1 playoff series. I just feel the Pacers are destined to always be hovering around the last seeded teams. Never getting better, never losing enough games to draft a difference maker.

              From the uninspiring draft picks to low risk/low-medium reward FAs, the Pacers will forever stay just good enough to get a low seed for the playoffs.

              While there are teams that always seem to languish in the lottery, I guess it could be worse, but damn, as a fan, I want to believe that management wants that championship.
              Can you prove that management doesn't try to go after these big-name free agents? Just because the Pacers aren't mentioned in conjunction with these FAs doesn't mean they didn't at least inquire. If Nash knew all along that he wanted to go to a city where he could enjoy the spotlight in his basketball twilight years, then would he answer the Pacers' call? D-Will would have been nuts not to return to a team whose owner is willing to massively overpay everyone. Not to mention the Pacers FO has had a reputation for keeping their movements secret until the very last minute, so if we didn't get a guy, it's unlikely we hear about negotiations with him, unless an agent leaks it. Just because we don't get the FA doesn't mean we didn't try. Sorry for the rant, but I can't take much more of this. It's like saying the Thunder or Spurs or Pacers, for that matter, didn't want to win the NBA Finals, then saying "I know this because they didn't win, so obviously they didn't try."

              Phew. OK, rant off.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                Originally posted by Hoop View Post

                Hicks, I certainly get why you are leaving now.

                Am I missing something here?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post

                  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?

                  If Hibbert couldn't see the advantage of holding off re-signing for the good of the team shame on him. He was going to get paid what Porland was going to pay him. Was he afraid Walsh would go back on his word? Same applies with Hill.

                  Devil's advocate: I firmly believe ownership put a limit on what they would pay this year. The money wasn't there to spend, so Hibbert and Hill got signed early. What was left got spent to solidify the bench.

                  In order for this team to get an Allstar and have a shot to get the NBA finals this coming year, there is going to have to be a trade, probably Granger. I'd love to think Simon gave Walsh the green light to spend up to the LT, and Walsh is keeping the 5 mil held back for salary of an incoming Allstar in a trade this off season. I believe that is just wishful thinking on my part.

                  I'm not advocating Granger being traded. He's just the most reasonable choice to get an Allstar and being able to match an Allstar salary with Granger's salary plus the 5 mil I mentioned.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: How do you like our new/old FO so far?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    What really matters is the Pacers don't even try.
                    You can say this 1,000 more times in 1,000 more posts, and the fact is you don't know that. You can assume it to your hearts content though.

                    I think it's just as plausible that the front office courts those guys but are never at the top of their list, so they move on before the discussions ever get serious. Why waste time talking with someone you're a long shot at ever signing?

                    Also, vnzla likes to point out that people go to the Lakers because they can do whatever is necessary to win, but the fact is they can do whatever it takes because they can afford it. If Simon was netting a 200 million a year TV deal, among everything else, he wouldn't care about how much he spends either. The ability to do "whatever is necessary to win" goes hand in hand with being a large market as well.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Your list looks good to me... Which ones did we go hot and heavy after?

                      I refuse to believe if we go all in for a FA that it wouldn't matter and we'd still have to put an X by their name. I don't buy this inferiority crap that is being sold.
                      It's doesn't stem from inferiority, it stems from the fact that either because of restricted free agency or redundancy of position, 17 of the top 20 free agents were impossible for us to sign. And I don't mean impossible like "hard to do." I mean it like "cannot happen in the laws of this universe."

                      There are plenty of legitimate things the Pacers have done wrong. Please complain about those, not the things they have completely no control over.

                      Comment


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

                        I'm not sure how much direct evidence (quotes, etc) and circumstantial evidence you need before you realize that the Pacers do not purse high profile FA's. But you can believe what you want I guess.
                        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 Bball View Post
                          I'm not sure how much direct evidence (quotes, etc) and circumstantial evidence you need before you realize that the Pacers do not purse high profile FA's. But you can believe what you want I guess.
                          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.

                          Comment


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

                            If you want I can contact the Pacers and see if they'll fax over the expense reports from the trip to Denver that the team president, GM, head coach and assistant coach went on to try and get Nene. Cause that sure sounds to me like they were pursuing a free agent.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              If you want I can contact the Pacers and see if they'll fax over the expense reports from the trip to Denver that the team president, GM, head coach and assistant coach went on to try and get Nene. Cause that sure sounds to me like they were pursuing a free agent.
                              Was that Walsh or Bird's watch? And which one is here now?
                              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 Bball View Post
                                Was that Walsh or Bird's watch? And which one is here now?
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X