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

LORD HELP OUR PACERS

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

  • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

    I understand exactly what you are saying. My biggest problem was why not take care of Lance first before signing Miles, Whittington and Rudez. That should have been priority one.
    I just respectfully disagree. We have different opinions and I understand that. But I honestly feel so much more comfortable not seeing Lance in a Pacer Uniform. Do we need better guys in the 2nd unit? Yes I think so. BUT that can be done rather soon. As long as Miles and Stuckey play well this year. We will be back to being a contender in the ECF soon. Lance was part of a great defensive team but It's not like he was the heart and sole of the defense's success. He is replaceable. I knew nothing about CJ miles and Stuckey before they came and honestly am already happy with those two over Lance.

    My issues start with Scola, an aging west(although I love the guy, he's not gonna be playing much longer), and Mahinmi. Mahinmi in my opinion being the least of the 3 problems.
    Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

    www.jjhughesracing.com

    Comment


    • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
      He's been so messed up on drugs, alcohol and who knows what else over the years, inherited a business that his father built and had it all screwed up until he brought in Polian to salvage things - and you're putting him as an owner higher than the Simon people ??

      Good God .....................
      He inherited a team that was in the toilet and the laughing stock of the NFL because of his father's actions and turned it into one of the most successful franchises the last 15 years or so. He is the one who hired Polian in first place, he also hired Tony Dungy and if you think he doesn't sign off on most deals the team makes your crazy. He also hired Grigson, signed Pagano so your really being naive if you think he has done nothing. His personal life is a mess and hopefully he can get that turned around. For your information I do appreciate what the Simons have done. They saved our franchise quite possibly but I do not think he is an owner with the same passion and knowledge of the game as Irsay. He put Donnie in place and let him do his thing and I also think Donnie has done some very good things over the years but he is pushing 80 and it is time for him to move on.

      Comment


      • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

        Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
        He inherited a team that was in the toilet and the laughing stock of the NFL because of his father's actions and turned it into one of the most successful franchises the last 15 years or so.
        Just a minor point, but Jim played a big part in the Colts struggles while Bob was still the owner. Jim's stint as GM didn't go well at all. That was Jim that traded 2 first round picks for Fredd Young. But to his credit, Jim learned his lesson and learned to rely on football people to make football decisions (so I'm agreeing with you).

        Comment


        • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          Throughout the entire free agency period the Pacers never retracted their offer to Lance. Lance was the one out there waiting for teams' first and second options to fall through before offering him an ever-so-slightly better offer than the Pacers. Charlotte made their offer because if they didn't get Lance they weren't going to get any kind of impact player and they would have wasted their year of cap space. Lance accepted because he was going to sign with whoever offered him the most money per year, regardless of where he was headed.

          I would have been happy keeping Lance for 9 million a year, and we very nearly accomplished it. But with how close the offers were, it's very clear Lance chose to leave. It's not even like Charlotte blew our offer out of the park. And I bet Simon, Bird, and our coaching staff are relieved they don't have to babysit Lance or have specific "save Lance from himself" protocols anymore.
          Lance signed because the term of the contract was 2 years and he wanted to be able to do it again when the new collective bargaining agreement would take place because there would be alot more money to be had. He was betting on himself with that move. If he is successful he was probably smarter than most people think and would make alot more in the long run. He is taking the gamble we will see if it pays off. Why didn't the Pacers want to give him a 2 year deal? My guess is they didn't really care to keep him anyway, they took him for granted or they just wanted him long term at a marginal contract.

          Comment


          • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

            Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
            I didn't say the Pacers are underachievers I said they have some players that are. Do you think Hibbert played up to expectations last year or Scola. Hill did what Hill does and is that enough to trade for him with the salary he has. Nobody wants Hibbert at 15 million dollars, if they did he would be gone. Scola did not play the way he is capable of. Did Turner? That is underachieving in my book any day of the week. Now their 2 best players are not here and most people don't even think they can make the playoffs. So where does the true value of the team lie. Did Stuckey ever play the way they thought he would in Detroit. How about Miles. What about Soloman Hill has he played like a number 1 draft pick. No way. That is what we are left with.
            Roy ended up averaging what I figured he'd average. He averaged 11 and 6.6rebs, and I expect Roy to average 12-13 and 7-8 rebounds. I'm not going to bust his balls over 1pt and 1reb.

            How does the team have success when so many players underachieve?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

              Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
              Lance signed because the term of the contract was 2 years and he wanted to be able to do it again when the new collective bargaining agreement would take place because there would be alot more money to be had. He was betting on himself with that move. If he is successful he was probably smarter than most people think and would make alot more in the long run. He is taking the gamble we will see if it pays off. Why didn't the Pacers want to give him a 2 year deal? My guess is they didn't really care to keep him anyway, they took him for granted or they just wanted him long term at a marginal contract.
              Except if he's good enough that he would cash in 2 years, he won't get the chance. Charlotte holds the option in the third year of the deal, Lance doesn't get to decide whether he's a free agent in 2 or 3 years.


              And in that third year he won't be making any more than he would be if he took Indiana's deal.
              Time for a new sig.

              Comment


              • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                He's been so messed up on drugs, alcohol and who knows what else over the years, inherited a business that his father built and had it all screwed up until he brought in Polian to salvage things - and you're putting him as an owner higher than the Simon people ??

                Good God .....................
                Jim Irsay took over management of the Colts in 1996. He gained full ownership of the Colts in 1997. He hired Polian in 1997. To down play Jim's management of the Colts because his personal life isn't impeccable is ridiculous. Indianapolis is lucky to have Jim and the Simons as the owners of their two major league teams. Most cities can't claim to be so lucky.

                Comment


                • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                  Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                  I would have been happy keeping Lance for 9 million a year, and we very nearly accomplished it. But with how close the offers were, it's very clear Lance chose to leave. It's not even like Charlotte blew our offer out of the park. And I bet Simon, Bird, and our coaching staff are relieved they don't have to babysit Lance or have specific "save Lance from himself" protocols anymore.
                  But what it comes down to is that Charlotte offered Lance what he wanted. The Pacers wouldn't. That's why he left.

                  And the problem is, the Pacers didn't seem to consider the cost of losing Lance. There is no way to replace him. We're capped out so we can't go after meaningful free agents. We took a one year flyer on Stuckey and next year we're going to be back in the same situation shopping the discount bin trying to find someone to hold down the fort for another year.

                  And if we DO have money for free agents in 2016, that means that we'll still be trying to replace Lance along with replacing Roy and West. So basically we're treading water for two years until we can do a total rebuild in 2016 around Paul George.

                  The cost of giving Lance what he wanted (less years) was way less then what the cost of replacing him will be.

                  Comment


                  • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                    Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                    Just a minor point, but Jim played a big part in the Colts struggles while Bob was still the owner. Jim's stint as GM didn't go well at all. That was Jim that traded 2 first round picks for Fredd Young. But to his credit, Jim learned his lesson and learned to rely on football people to make football decisions (so I'm agreeing with you).
                    Well it was his father's decision to make him GM. Anyways that is part of what has made Jim a great owner. He didn't let his ego get in the way, and he learned from his mistakes. So when he did take over instead of relying on his own ability, he instead tried to find the best people for the job and let them do their job.

                    Comment


                    • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                      Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                      But what it comes down to is that Charlotte offered Lance what he wanted. The Pacers wouldn't. That's why he left.

                      And the problem is, the Pacers didn't seem to consider the cost of losing Lance. There is no way to replace him. We're capped out so we can't go after meaningful free agents. We took a one year flyer on Stuckey and next year we're going to be back in the same situation shopping the discount bin trying to find someone to hold down the fort for another year.

                      And if we DO have money for free agents in 2016, that means that we'll still be trying to replace Lance along with replacing Roy and West. So basically we're treading water for two years until we can do a total rebuild in 2016 around Paul George.

                      The cost of giving Lance what he wanted (less years) was way less then what the cost of replacing him will be.
                      I actually disagree on this one. Though Lance is a better player than Stuckey, I thought Stuckey was going to be a better fit on our team. And we have more flexibility over the next two years than many are aware of. The day Paul got hurt was the first day I actually thought we made a mistake in not pushing a different offer, but that's only because having lance as a wing would have been nice to have while PG sits out.
                      Last edited by aamcguy; 10-23-2014, 03:29 PM.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                        Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                        But what it comes down to is that Charlotte offered Lance what he wanted. The Pacers wouldn't. That's why he left.

                        And the problem is, the Pacers didn't seem to consider the cost of losing Lance. There is no way to replace him. We're capped out so we can't go after meaningful free agents. We took a one year flyer on Stuckey and next year we're going to be back in the same situation shopping the discount bin trying to find someone to hold down the fort for another year.

                        And if we DO have money for free agents in 2016, that means that we'll still be trying to replace Lance along with replacing Roy and West. So basically we're treading water for two years until we can do a total rebuild in 2016 around Paul George.

                        The cost of giving Lance what he wanted (less years) was way less then what the cost of replacing him will be.
                        Maybe the front office just had a more realistic idea of Lance's importance to the team than you do.

                        Comment


                        • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Well it was his father's decision to make him GM. Anyways that is part of what has made Jim a great owner. He didn't let his ego get in the way, and he learned from his mistakes. So when he did take over instead of relying on his own ability, he instead tried to find the best people for the job and let them do their job.
                          That's what I said!

                          Comment


                          • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                            Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                            But what it comes down to is that Charlotte offered Lance what he wanted. The Pacers wouldn't. That's why he left.
                            Lance's team shut down talks with the Pacers. I've yet to see a source that said the Pacers wouldn't change their offer, while I've seen plenty say they would, but weren't given the chance. You HONESTLY think the Pacers would have balked at offering Lance 200K more per year, over 3 years, instead of 5? Yeah right.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              Maybe the front office just had a more realistic idea of Lance's importance to the team than you do.
                              I dunno, Bird has said it was his plan to build around Paul and Lance going forward.

                              Comment


                              • Re: LORD HELP OUR PACERS

                                Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                                I dunno, Bird has said it was his plan to build around Paul and Lance going forward.
                                At the price Bird thought Lance was worth and not one penny more.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X