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

Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

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

  • #91
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

    theres really no minutes for plumlee right now. that might change next year if hansbrough/west are not brought back

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

      Originally posted by mrknowname View Post
      theres really no minutes for plumlee right now. that might change next year if hansbrough/west are not brought back
      At a qualifying offer of 4,225,423 there is that distinct possibility.
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        and yes Bulls fans are the absolute worst when it comes to being front running jock sniffing egotistical snot bags, among other things, so no they weren’t going to come here and sit quietly.
        No, they're not. Why are we always so bitter towards them for coming to support their team? Every team has fans who are Dbags, its natural that big markets will have more. They're not half as bad as the worst Lakers fans and Knicks fans to offer.

        But more importantly, why the hell do people always label them as "bandwagon" or "front running"? Last I checked these are people who are driving 3 hours to watch their 33-25 team play without their star player. These are fans who showed up to games BEFORE Rose came through, are we doing to blame them for showing up after? Seriously, I have no idea where the hell we get the right to label them like that, Bulls fans show up no matter what.
        //

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

          Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
          No, they're not. Why are we always so bitter towards them for coming to support their team? Every team has fans who are Dbags, its natural that big markets will have more. They're not half as bad as the worst Lakers fans and Knicks fans to offer.

          But more importantly, why the hell do people always label them as "bandwagon" or "front running"? Last I checked these are people who are driving 3 hours to watch their 33-25 team play without their star player. These are fans who showed up to games BEFORE Rose came through, are we doing to blame them for showing up after? Seriously, I have no idea where the hell we get the right to label them like that, Bulls fans show up no matter what.
          Oh maybe because there is friendly rivalry and then just idiots who want to start a fight over a basketball game. Never experienced it with Laker, Celtic, Knick, Heat or even Piston fans during the brawl years. But I've had plenty of Bulls fans attempt to get into my face at games. They're a special breed.

          On to your other point.... I have to disagree because I sure don't remember this wonderful Bulls fans base coming to Pacer games between the Jordan years and Rose when they were pretty crappy.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

            Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
            No, they're not. Why are we always so bitter towards them for coming to support their team? Every team has fans who are Dbags, its natural that big markets will have more. They're not half as bad as the worst Lakers fans and Knicks fans to offer.

            But more importantly, why the hell do people always label them as "bandwagon" or "front running"? Last I checked these are people who are driving 3 hours to watch their 33-25 team play without their star player. These are fans who showed up to games BEFORE Rose came through, are we doing to blame them for showing up after? Seriously, I have no idea where the hell we get the right to label them like that, Bulls fans show up no matter what.
            Because they aren't driving 3 hrs from Chicago.

            I have a ton of Bulls fans friends that were born and raised in Indy. And yes, they're part of the douches that go to BLF. And yes, I call them douches.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              Oh maybe because there is friendly rivalry and then just idiots who want to start a fight over a basketball game. Never experienced it with Laker, Celtic, Knick, Heat or even Piston fans during the brawl years. But I've had plenty of Bulls fans attempt to get into my face at games. They're a special breed.

              On to your other point.... I have to disagree because I sure don't remember this wonderful Bulls fans base coming to Pacer games between the Jordan years and Rose when they were pretty crappy.
              They might not have been filling up other stadiums quite as much, but you better believe they were filling up the United Center every single game. So they might be more interested in traveling more when they're team is better? Are we going to blame them for that?

              Sorry but when fans who travel (some at least) to support their 4th seeded 33-25 team playing without their star player are labeled as bandwagoners, something is wrong.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Because they aren't driving 3 hrs from Chicago.

              I have a ton of Bulls fans friends that were born and raised in Indy. And yes, they're part of the douches that go to BLF. And yes, I call them douches.
              A lot of them are. in fact coming from Chicago, I know a group of my friends who went with around ~60 people from their college. Call them douches all you want, but labeling them as bandwagon or front runners just comes off as jealous
              //

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
                A lot of them are. in fact coming from Chicago, I know a group of my friends who went with around ~60 people from their college. Call them douches all you want, but labeling them as bandwagon or front runners just comes off as jealous
                I don't think anyone is calling them those names.

                Yes it's a rather generic statement, but it's aimed at those who fit the bill, not 100% of the Chicago fan base. I can think of a few other terms that might, not not those specifically.

                A guy born in raised in Indy, going to school at LN, going to an Indiana college, rooting for the Bulls with no family ties or anything, just because MJ was at the top when they started watching NBA would be the textbook definition of frontrunner/bandwagoner, IMHO.
                Last edited by Since86; 03-05-2013, 01:28 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                  Anymore, I don't really care who roots for what team and why. The only thing that offends me is when people come to BLF and are impudent or belligerent or get physical with opposing fans (assuming, of course, said fans weren't just as guilty and baiting them).

                  Some people root for the home team, some people root for their favorite players, some people just root for the greatest players and teams. Some do it all the time, so only when things are bright. I don't care.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                    Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                    Really? I thought Teague looked lost out there for most of the game. It was probably one of his worst games of the season. Both of their PGs got shut down but in the games I've seen the Bulls play, Robinson has been the better PG.
                    Bulls D was much, much better with Teague.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Yeah, rebounders and defenders have nothing in common. You can say Foster did it at a much higher level, of course, but Plumlee filled the exact role with Duke that Foster did here. It's easily assumed that it's the very reason why he was brought in, considering the timing with Jeff and all.

                      We can discuss Plumlee until the cows come home. If Plumlee wasn't as old as he is, then maybe the pick wouldn't be as bad as there is TIME to let him develop, but that's not the case. I don't expect much more from Plumlee next year either as the Pacers are in a "win now mode".

                      I wanted to trade out of the draft last year, and if the Pacers stay close to where they are now in the standings what is there to look forward to in what is considered a weaker draft this year? Another Plumlee? Apparently, the FO felt this coming draft will produce some future jewel when they refused to put the pick in trades at the TD.

                      People keep saying the Pacers need these picks for salary reasons, well I counter saying there are plenty of Sam Young and Ben Hansbroughs to fill out a roster cheaply w/o having to give guaranteed contracts like later 1st round picks get. Combined both Sam and Ben salaries are not much more than Plumlee's.
                      Last edited by Justin Tyme; 03-05-2013, 02:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So a 1M practice dummy is too expensive with the cap situation going on, but taking that 1M combining another player/salary with it, and turning it into one player with a bigger salary is the better option?

                        Maybe for actual basketball reasons, depending on who you get in return, but I would think for salary situations 2 players at X amount is better than one player at X amount.


                        I'm all for trying to turn a pick or a bench player into a different player that contributes, but the salary situation is going to get that much tighter.
                        Actually, my references were a little vague. Last summer, I would have attempted to do something more meaningful with the pick, prior to signing Green.

                        With this year's pick, I would definitely try to use it to dump salary.

                        For me, the 2 players for total salary x compared with one player at salary x also makes sense, depending on the situation. For example, I don't know that I would want to pay 2 players 3M each that are your 9th and tenth men that might average 15-18 total, if I can use the 6m total to get a better fit/better rounded player that is or 7th man that can give you 24 minutes or so per game. I would rather have better quality players at positions 1-8, or 1-9, even if it means that you only carry 13 players and positions 11 and 12 are minimum salary players. 10-11 players will get you through the season, unless you have a significant number of serious injuries. But, in the playoffs, you want a great 8 players, with #9 and #10 able to give you a few minutes here and there.

                        Right now, I agree that our salary situation is getting sticky. This summer, I see re-signing West as a must. One we see what that amount is, then they can start the work to see if it is possible to keep Danny. By the end of the season, they should also know enough about Danny's recovery to have contingencies in place for choosing between Danny and Lance, and whether there is a chance to retain both (depending on West's new contract amount).

                        If I were the Pacers, I would do my darndest to try to lock Lance in this summer. Perhaps try to give him more years with some reduction in annual dollars. That way he gets some reward next season in a higher salary as opposed to 900k+. Otherwise, if they wait until summer 2014 after what will probably be another full year of improvement, and there will be several teams in a bidding war for him. If we can get that done, it also locks in another core player. Then they can put their plan in place to be able to trade one of Danny or Lance, if necessary.

                        After this season, retaining West and acquiring a backup point guard will make it difficult to keep Tyler. If we plan on doing everything possible to also keep Danny and Lance, considering the re-signing of George, that might even make keeping Mahinmi difficult. But Green and his 3.5m have to go, and we need to sign some of the low- end guys at 400k, not 890k. If the bench fodder want won't play for minimum, then we need to move on to the next set of candidates. But we need to quit overpaying guys to sit in sits. Heck, if they need candidates, maybe the two of us can sit in suits behind the bench and ogle the Pacemates for 400k apiece.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          We can discuss Plumlee until the cows come home. If Plumlee wasn't as old as he is, then maybe the pick wouldn't be as bad as there is TIME to let him develop, but that's not the case. I don't expect much more from Plumlee next year either as the Pacers are in a "win now mode".

                          I wanted to trade out of the draft last year, and if the Pacers stay close to where they are now in the standings what is there to look forward to in what is considered a weaker draft this year? Another Plumlee? Apparently, the FO felt this coming draft will produce some future jewel when they refused to put the pick in trades at the TD.

                          People keep saying the Pacers need these picks for salary reasons, well I counter saying there are plenty of Sam Young and Ben Hansbroughs to fill out a roster cheaply w/o having to give guaranteed contracts like latter 1st round picks get.
                          Or veterans that you can get for the minimum salary like Barbosa, Barnes and others.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            We can discuss Plumlee until the cows come home. If Plumlee wasn't as old as he is, then maybe the pick wouldn't be as bad as there is TIME to let him develop, but that's not the case. I don't expect much more from Plumlee next year either as the Pacers are in a "win now mode".
                            I guess I just didn't realize one or two years can make a break a guys career. Not his talent, not his potential, not is desire (or lack thereof) to get better.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                              Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                              Anymore, I don't really care who roots for what team and why. The only thing that offends me is when people come to BLF and are impudent or belligerent or get physical with opposing fans (assuming, of course, said fans weren't just as guilty and baiting them).

                              Some people root for the home team, some people root for their favorite players, some people just root for the greatest players and teams. Some do it all the time, so only when things are bright. I don't care.
                              I think everyone would PREFER that die-hard Pacers fans fill every seat at BLF. However, if that is not possible, I would still like to see every seat filled. And yes, for me that means that if casual fans are not going to fill out the remainder, I'll even take opposing fans.

                              The only way to prevent that is for us to get online and buy out the Bulls games early. A few rears ago, that would have also been true for the Pistons games.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Bull Chips....

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I guess I just didn't realize one or two years can make a break a guys career. Not his talent, not his potential, not is desire (or lack thereof) to get better.
                                It'd be easier to get past his few extra years if they weren't spent showing his extremely limited talent and potential in front of a national television audience.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X