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

Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

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

  • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

    I don't talk to much about what's going to happen next summer because I think there is a lot of different possibilities. Lance is realizing his value, and Herb I think is 70 something now? If his team finally wins a championship, I'm not so sure he'll stick to the "below LT" at all costs mantra.

    Anywho, we'll find out what happens but at the moment, I'm just worried about this season.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      I think the number of times this would be helpful is so small there's no sense trying to work out how to make it balance with the lower talent level generally in the second round.
      Right. Lance has WAY outperformed the intentions of the rule. Such is life, good for Lance. We're looking at a starting 5 where Hill at $8mil (which is market value, I don't want to hear otherwise because you're just wrong) is our lowest paid starter. If we're going to keep Lance it's going to take some creative financing that even the guys that make an actual living from the franchise are probably going to struggle with. I have absolutely no doubt we'll make it happen, but we're going to make some moves that probably won't make any surface sense. Scola's probably a one year rental for instance. Maybe anyway, he's like $400k guaranteed, I don't know what happens if we waive him and clear 3+ mil, I don't know if we could use part of our MLE to re-sign him after waiving him. Copeland'll probably get dumped. Things get desperate maybe Solo gets given away. Danny's gone short of playing for the minimum. Cross your fingers and hope the tax makes a big jump, which it won't, projections are always high, ut can always hope.

      Or Herb decides to spend the tax for at least a year (on paper) and gives them some time to clear space w/o making desperation deals that include dumping future assets. You can get out of the luxury tax until the very last day of a league year, it doesn't start on day one of the offseason.

      And if we make it work, I don't want to hear any garbage about how Herb Simon is cheap, tax or not.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          Sidenote, I really like the new beat reporter. I didn't dislike Mike Wells, but Candace is just better. Besides, we're 8-0 since she took over
          Wells seems like a better fit as a Colts reporter. I don't know why that is. I never really warmed to him on the Pacers beat.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

            Originally posted by jjbjjbjjb View Post
            Wells seems like a better fit as a Colts reporter. I don't know why that is. I never really warmed to him on the Pacers beat.

            He's a better fit as a Colts reporter because the Colts injuries have been season ending, therefore there is nothing for him to get aggravated about on twitter.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              So everybody's noticed the respect we're getting from the refs right? Roy specifically. Everybody but Mahinmi pretty much, refs hate Ian.
              I honestly think it's that the refs start to feel guilty over all the respect they accord to Roy, so then they make up for it by calling iffy fouls on Ian.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                He's a better fit as a Colts reporter because the Colts injuries have been season ending, therefore there is nothing for him to get aggravated about on twitter.
                Haha. WHEN IS WAYNE COMING BACK OH OK THX MIKE

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                  Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                  Simon better open his pocket books a little wider if it comes to keeping/losing lance because of the whole luxury tax threshold especially if this team wins a championship. If I was a billionaire owner i'd want to keep that going for as long as I could.
                  I would do too if I was. For me, the owner will surely spend more if the revenues skyrocket. On the previous seasons, we're winning but the fan base wasn't strong enough to support this team in terms of revenues. Hopefully, with the excitement brought by our young core of PG, Roy and Lance helps get more to watch the games live, help attract national TV contracts for next season and get this team to be more profitable.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                    I think what is so endearing for me is the joy these guys seem to all have playing the game, and with each other. In the last three games in particular, you can just see the focus, their relaxed poise, the fun that they're having. It just seems so "easy" for them right now. I don't know if I've ever witnessed a Pacers team playing so loose and poised for a stretch like this.

                    Naturally, a loss (or a string of losses) will change things. But man, a NBA team owner can't buy the kind of chemistry this team has with one another. They've clearly unlocked "the secret'. The only remaining question is how they'll deal with some real adversity once that comes.

                    I for one appreciate the time that Vogel has given Solomon Hill on the floor, regardless of how he's played. This is probably the only window of time this year where he'll be able to see the court, as once Granger comes back... he's going to be riding the pine. I see potential in Hill to be an important piece in the future, and it starts with building up his confidence that he can "hang" with our team. Letting him play is an important part of that.

                    ...and who is worried about Mahinmi's offense when he's playing alongside Scola now? Talk about a highly complementary pair. I love Lance's pick/pop action with Scola. I literally start to expect two points as soon as Scola picks.

                    I loved seeing the true, young enthusiasm of Lance as he wrapped up his first (of multiple) triple doubles. When he's happy and confident, I think that guy will be unstoppable. The maturity will continue to come. His primary growth will continue to be mental growth. What a joy to watch this kid transform the way he has. I have always rooted for him, and it's just sweet to see his promise fulfilled.

                    Finally, I just thanked the man upstairs for encouraging Larry to come back and take his rightful place as the man steering the Pacers ship. There's no question that the state we're in is on him.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      I'm not completely sure if this is true, but I know there were some that suggested that the Pacers could have declined Lance's option this offseason which in their viewing of the rules would have made him immediately a restricted free agent. So the Pacers might have had that option to effectively turn it into a three year deal as late as this past offseason and chose to turn it down. Of course, the tradeoff is that if Lance had hit restricted free agency this past year, the Pacers almost certainly would have had to cut salary elsewhere this offseason to fit him in.

                      I definitely don't think this an issue with the CBA though. The Pacers could have had Lance as a restricted free agent (whether by signing a theee year deal at the beginning or the possibility they could have turned down the option). They will have all the advantages in unrestricted free agency. It's the luxury tax and the Pacers internal budget that is holding them back more than the quirks of the CBA.
                      I'm pretty sure that declining his option would have made him unrestricted
                      Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Yup, that's pretty much what he was tonight. Give this cat a 32 uniform and we're good to go.
                        lol


                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                          Originally posted by J7F View Post
                          I'm pretty sure that declining his option would have made him unrestricted
                          But he will become unrestricted anyway. Hindsight, we should have declined his option and signed him for, say, $8 million. No one else would have competed, but we knew he was something special. Now we will pay $10 to $12 million or more.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            But he will become unrestricted anyway. Hindsight, we should have declined his option and signed him for, say, $8 million. No one else would have competed, but we knew he was something special. Now we will pay $10 to $12 million or more.
                            I think you're on point there, but it's never been clear whether that was a "legal" maneuver.

                            I also don't think our cap circumstance could have supported an $8mil figure for Lance this year. But I agree that we should have tried to lock him up before the coming out party. I think the signs were pretty clear that he was going to break out. Bird certainly saw it coming.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              is it Friday yet?
                              For real. I've watched 5 games in the last 7 days... WANT MORE PACERS BASKETBALL!
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Grizzlies Postgame Thread 11/11/13

                                The way Paul has figured out how to flip the switch and slam the door on teams is so huge for this team.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X