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

Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

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

  • #91
    Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

    Suppose trades just are not practical. Lance is resigned.

    My fear is that the system will not change. Even if we were more consistent, miami has obvious talent, a different approach to the game given their roster, and the ability to adapt. I have not seen hat we have the ability to adapt. Here are your options from this year: impose our style and win, fail to execute and get lucky because individual talent - hero ball, or fail to execute and fail to adapt and loose convincingly. Coaching, individual accountability, and team play could make the difference next year over questionable roster changes.
    ! Free Rick Sanchez !

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

      My big thing is this:

      If the Front Office internally knows that there truly were individual(s) that were locker room cancers and caused the various rifts in our lockerroom and play, then I want them GONE.

      I don't care if it's PG, Roy, Lance, West, Hill, whomever. G-O-N-E.

      However, if there was no "drama" behind the scenes and the guys truly can co-exist and play together, then I would be happy to have the core back for another year. But quite frankly they just HAVE to get their **** together. No more turning into the type of players/teams that we HATE (like the flopping, whining, crybaby Heat)

      I love Roy as a player, WHEN he is providing his stellar defense, rebounding and being effective offensively in spots. I LOVE Hill when he is being aggressive. I LOVE Lance when he is being aggressive and making smart plays that involve his teammates.

      I love a lot about all the guys on our team. But quite simply, almost all of those things I loved just disappeared for most or ALL of the last half of the season and the playoffs. Baffling... Frustrating... Heartbreaking.

      So, whatever, I don't know.

      Trade everyone, bring them all back, whatever. All I care about is that we have players who give full effort every night and are consistent.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
        im good with hill for another season... prefer him as sg, believe he will be more aggressive. if for simply the spurs experience. good giving Vogel another chance as well... why i dont know, just believe he deserves it.

        i dont want lance as the teams point gaurd of the future. prefer to find it via trade.


        i say offer Hibbert a buy out... if thats still a possibility. We gotta get out from under his contract asap.
        If you buy out Hibbert he's still on the salary cap for the original contract. Buying him out just gives us no Hibbert but he takes up the same cap space so you get nothing.
        Buyouts generally occur in the players last year & midseason so it doesn't bother future seasons. Tinsley was a buyout though lol. He was on the cap for 3 or 4 years after they paid him up front to just go away.

        Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
        1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
        3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
        5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
        7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

          Originally posted by dal9 View Post
          Hill can't defend larger SGs, and his one-on-one layup against LBJ shows how good he would work at the 2 against serious defensive teams. If he's here, it has got to be at the 1, despite his real limitations.
          Hill's a 6th man realistically, but he was just worried LeBron was gonna get his famous chase down block he gets allot & got him with in game 5. Every time I see the LeBron char down I ask why not jump stop & let him fly past? Well I guess that block is why!

          Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
          1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
          3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
          5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
          7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
            Larry Bird? He hasn't done much either lately...
            Thank you. Bird made a lot of changes this year, which may or may not have contributed to the chemistry problems. If there's blame being dished around, I'm not sure why he's exempt.

            Anyway, I find the poll to be faulty. There should be a none of the above option. As I've said before, returning everyone for another go isn't the worse thing. And hopefully no more wholesale bench overhaul that fails to be an upgrade year after year. We're a team that thrives on chemistry, doesn't it make sense that our starters play well because they've been together a while, while our bench changes wholesale every year? I mean, we're probably going to lose some guys (Turner, Scola) but keep Mahinmi and Watson at least.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
              I can't see Larry and Pritch just standing pat. Their disappointment has got to be huge.
              I'm disappointed in them too. Are they going to fire themselves?

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                I think Vogel must go.

                I bet he still wore his winter coat today because he thinks summer will adjust to him.

                Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
                1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
                3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
                5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
                7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  I can't see Larry and Pritch just standing pat. Their disappointment has got to be huge.
                  Every member of the Pacers organization (and our fanbase as well) shares those feelings.

                  No one should act on the raw emotions that those feelings cause, though. Neither the players nor the FO should make rash decisions. Everyone has to evaluate their own mistakes first and foremost and determine when it started going south (and what they did or didn't do to stop it from going even souther).
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    I bet Hibbert comes back and has a great season next year.
                    Exactly. Would be right in character for him.

                    Which is why we MUST get rid of him.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                      I would keep Lance as our point guard with Watson as his backup.
                      Move Paul George to shooting guard, backed up by G. Hill.
                      Bring in a top flight small forward who is a deadly three-point shooter.
                      Keep West with L. Allen as his backup.
                      Keep Hibbert...but insist he play like Chris Anderson whose sole job is getting rebounds, layups, and put-backs, not a "featured" piece of our offense, with Mihimi as his backup playing the same way.
                      Bottom-line...just add a high quality 3-pt shooter at small forward. Bring in a veteran small forward backup, like Rashard Lewis is for Heat.
                      If Lavoy Allen isn't the answer as our backup power forward then find a tough battle tested journeyman power forward to back up West.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                        Lance needs to go. Not Roy. We arent winning anything with that clown on our team. It'd be sick if we could sign and trade him for a PG and roll with GH at the 2. GH is not a good PG but is very underrated as a scorer on this forum.
                        Lifelong pacers fan

                        Comment


                        • Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                          The identity of the core of the team needs to be changed badly. No one besides Lance has the balls to take it to the hoop, everyone is too soft, they pout when things aren't going right, they can't play well down the stretch, and they are inconsistent as hell. The redeeming quality about this team comes from Paul George's talent, Lance's hustle, David's midrange game, and the Eastern Conference schedule. Since Lance is probably gone, we have 3 things going for us.
                          Well said.

                          And the first is inconsistent and the second full of crazy surprises.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                            The most likely scenario for us to have a good center next season is Roy playing well. Does anyone really expect to get anything for him? We are stuck with him until his contract is up.
                            Lifelong pacers fan

                            Comment


                            • Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                              Originally posted by NashvilleKat View Post
                              I would keep Lance as our point guard with Watson as his backup.
                              Move Paul George to shooting guard, backed up by G. Hill.
                              Bring in a top flight small forward who is a deadly three-point shooter.
                              Keep West with L. Allen as his backup.
                              Keep Hibbert...but insist he play like Chris Anderson whose sole job is getting rebounds, layups, and put-backs, not a "featured" piece of our offense, with Mihimi as his backup playing the same way.
                              Bottom-line...just add a high quality 3-pt shooter at small forward. Bring in a veteran small forward backup, like Rashard Lewis is for Heat.
                              If Lavoy Allen isn't the answer as our backup power forward then find a tough battle tested journeyman power forward to back up West.
                              Roy play like chris andersen? ...what on earth

                              Move PG to the 2...why?
                              Last edited by pacers_heath; 05-31-2014, 08:46 AM.
                              Lifelong pacers fan

                              Comment


                              • Re: Who do you NOT want to see return to the Pacers next year?

                                Originally posted by NashvilleKat View Post
                                I would keep Lance as our point guard with Watson as his backup.
                                Move Paul George to shooting guard, backed up by G. Hill.
                                Bring in a top flight small forward who is a deadly three-point shooter.
                                Keep West with L. Allen as his backup.
                                Keep Hibbert...but insist he play like Chris Anderson whose sole job is getting rebounds, layups, and put-backs, not a "featured" piece of our offense, with Mihimi as his backup playing the same way.
                                Bottom-line...just add a high quality 3-pt shooter at small forward. Bring in a veteran small forward backup, like Rashard Lewis is for Heat.
                                If Lavoy Allen isn't the answer as our backup power forward then find a tough battle tested journeyman power forward to back up West.
                                I thanked the snarky response, but this is a pretty good post overall. Simply moving Hill to the 2 and establishing that situation will eliminate a lot of confusion and poor point guard play by GHill. Watson is a fine backup. Lavoy Allen seems like he has potential, and even if he's not hitting his shot (like Scola most of the time) he won't be a defensive liability.

                                Roy can't play like Anderson, but I get your drift that he must be sat down and told he will never be featured on offense. Nonetheless, I don't think you've spelled out a solution for us getting torched by stretch 5's (most importantly Miami). One of Hibbert or Mahinmi must be replaced to do so.
                                Last edited by McKeyFan; 05-31-2014, 08:48 AM.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X