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

Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

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

  • #16
    Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Pacers would be lucky to trade Danny for anything.
    Come on now. It's not like Danny's worthless. If anything, I think it's clear how valuable he is to this team.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

      Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
      We're not going to be able to keep all of our starting five. It's going to come down to who we want to keep between West and Granger I imagine. I think we have to let Granger go over West. If PG, Hill, and Lance continue to improve while Hibbert and West stand pat I think we should have a solid squad for the next few years. Since we need to improve our bench I wouldn't be surprised if he gets traded for some spare parts.
      Everyone has said that. We've seen what this current group (minus G.Hill) looked like without West...an 8th seed. And now we're seeing what this team looks like without Danny (currently a 7th seed) We aren't anything but an extremely mediocre .500 level team when we take one of these two vets out of the lineup.

      So do we let one walk and hope that we can sign someone in FA that is an obvious upgrade? Do we attempt to trade one for someone that makes a little less and hope they can replace their production? It'll be interesting to see what route the Pacers go in.

      For what it's worth, when you lack superstars--familiarity/chemistry is very important. If we can sign West to a reasonable contract, then I say we do so, and then do the same with DG. If one or both of them want too much than what we can afford, we allow them to expire and look in FA.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-19-2012, 04:23 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

        Originally posted by Goyle View Post
        The problem is this team has delusions of grandeur and think they can win a title with this core. We're not trading our "shot" at a championship this year by trading away West, and we can't resign him without putting us in a bad position financially.
        Depends on what West is willing to sign for, and how smart the team is with drafting, trades, and bench players.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

          I'll be sad if Danny is not on the team next year

          I seriously hope that the fans are going to start coming to our home games. Maybe if we raise our attendance, the owner would be willing to go into LT territory.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

            Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
            Come on now. It's not like Danny's worthless. If anything, I think it's clear how valuable he is to this team.
            Think about it, lets say that his name is not Danny but Leo and he plays for the Wizards, would you trade for a player with knee issues that is making 13mil a year for the next two years? my answer is no.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Everyone has said that. We've seen what this current group (minus G.Hill) looked like without West...an 8th seed. And now we're seeing what this team looks like without Danny (currently a 7th seed) We aren't anything but an extremely mediocre .500 level team when we take one of these two vets out of the lineup.
              That's with a VERY poor first 10 games and we haven't looked like the same team since. Not to mention PG, Hill, and Lance are going to improve. Probably by a lot. Maybe even Hibbert too. We'll probably use the money and/or trade Granger to improve our bench or get an upgrade over Lance. Do you have a better idea? I think we'll still win close to 50 games this season and only get better going forward.
              Lifelong pacers fan

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
                Do you have a better idea?
                Keep Granger and find a replacement for West.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  Keep Granger and find a replacement for West.
                  Why? West is far more valuable to this team than Granger IMO.
                  Lifelong pacers fan

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                    I basically said this in another thread, I like PG more at the 3, so time to move on with Danny, as far as trading him for cheap, what is cheap, I mean saving a ton of money off top helps, but I am think trading him to a vet team, and picking up picks, not sure we really get to much of SG value.

                    How about to Min, for Shvyed, Williams and a protected 1st, idk.... not really a vet team, but getting back prospects that could fit or system and a 1st while saving some cash would not seem to be too bad a trade for me, especially for a guy that is on the north side of 30 and is coming back from injury.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                      Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
                      That's with a VERY poor first 10 games and we haven't looked like the same team since. Not to mention PG, Hill, and Lance are going to improve. Probably by a lot. Maybe even Hibbert too. We'll probably use the money and/or trade Granger to improve our bench or get an upgrade over Lance. Do you have a better idea? I think we'll still win close to 50 games this season and only get better going forward.
                      1. Did you watch the game last night? We are now 2-10 (i do believe) against teams with a winning record. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of being a good team.
                      2. I could say that MAYBE Lance improves "a lot" but I don't think he'll be anything more than a marginal starter/1st guard off the bench type. Paul George has shown us what he has the potential to do, but I want to see it consistently and not over the course of 6-7 games. And George Hill is pretty much the player he's going to be (though I think he's great, just needs to be more consistent with his shot)

                      Idk if we'll be able to reach 50 wins this year. We already have 12 losses after 25 games. We would have to go 37-20 over the final 57 games to be able to hit 50. A potentially daunting task given that the Pacers schedule has been 3rd easiest thus far this year.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        So ESPN writer says Danny's on the trading block. Welcome to 2007. Wake me up when it happens.
                        Being on the trading block and actually being traded are two different things, wouldn't doubt there was a possiblity for him getting traded in many years, he was our most valuable asset and we were a team that was stuck being average., now he could be on a trading block for a different reason, we are a team that is making strides, and we have a young guy that plays the same position and could still use him as an asset to improve other areas of the team, even though he is no where near as strong of an asset as he was in the past.
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                          When Vogel took over for us in 2010, we went 20-18 with a lineup of:

                          DC/Price
                          George/Dunleavy
                          Granger/Rush/Jones
                          Hansbrough/McRoberts
                          Hibbert/Foster

                          Two years later, we're playing with a comparable roster but all of our young starters from that year have another year of experience and are or have been generating hype this year and last. But we have David West in and Granger out.

                          Our record is currently 13-12. I'm not going to lie, West has been a big reason for our success this past year. But if you HAVE to pick one or the other remember that West is doing almost exactly what Danny did with the roster minus 2 years of experience.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Think about it, lets say that his name is not Danny but Leo and he plays for the Wizards, would you trade for a player with knee issues that is making 13mil a year for the next two years? my answer is no.
                            Pacers signed West for $10M per year for 2 years after he was coming off knee surgery. $3M per year difference isn't peanuts, sure, but I think the upside to a healthy Danny upon return is higher than the upside for a healthy David West. Maybe you'd be right and we wouldn't get some off-the-chart superstar for him, but he isn't worthless by any means.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                              i don't know why we are talking about this when Danny and Paul have not played a minute together this season.........

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                Pacers signed West for $10M per year for 2 years after he was coming off knee surgery. $3M per year difference isn't peanuts, sure, but I think the upside to a healthy Danny upon return is higher than the upside for a healthy David West. Maybe you'd be right and we wouldn't get some off-the-chart superstar for him, but he isn't worthless by any means.
                                West was a free agent so the Pacers didn't have to give any value for him, Danny is not a free agent so the team that would want to trade for him would have to send some value back big difference.

                                And also Danny has chronic knee issues since college the only way I see somebody trading for him is if the Pacers are willing to take into a similar non tradeable contract.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X