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

West declines his player option

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

  • Re: West declines his player option

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I've asked Kidd and no response, so I'll open it up to anyone.

    When West say's "It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back" how is it possible to take that as Bird's comment wasn't a straw at all? I'd really like to hear rationale on this.
    It was a very important factor maybe even a key straw but I think having to watch the Finals again without participating in it was the final straw.

    Comment


    • Re: West declines his player option

      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
      Hibbert opts out and gives the franchise a ton of cap space.
      That worked...
      uno, due, trezegol!

      Comment


      • Re: West declines his player option

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        It was a straw. But what most are saying is that he still leaves anyway even without the comments. The comments just gave him one extra thing to talk about.
        Agreed.


        Comment


        • Re: West declines his player option

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          I mean the guy did the interview. What more do you want? Does David West say "I left because of what Bird said." Or does he just say he didn't really care for it? I don't really care for the way the water tastes at Bub's burgers but I still eat there.
          Maybe we need to talk about the idiom "straw that broke the camel's back" because I don't think you guys actually understand the phrase.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_...mel's_back
          The idiom the straw that broke the camel's back, alluding to the proverb "it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back", describes the seemingly minor or routine action which causes an unpredictably large and sudden reaction, because of the cumulative effect of small actions.
          This gives rise to the phrase "the last straw" or "the final straw", meaning the last in a line of unacceptable occurrences, provoking a seemingly sudden strong reaction.
          So clearly Bird's comments about Roy was a "straw" or one of the unacceptable occurrences that built up over time. I don't need Kravitz's opinion on what he thinks David meant, I have what David ACTUALLY said.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: West declines his player option

            What everyone is focusing on, West statements about being annoyed with the franchises treatment of Roy, is not the issue. Oh it may be an issue but not THE issue.

            For those of you that would not give up the ghost and kept lamenting to let "the core" have another run, David West arguably one of the more important pieces in that core, just verbally said that it was no longer a contender.

            Now remember by all accounts Paul George is healed, of course its going to take awhile to get into playing shape but there is nothing to indicate he won't come around soon. That being said West just told you that even with a healthy Paul George that this team is not a contender and he does not see us being one anytime soon.

            This rebuild should have begun last season.

            We have gone from a franchise that had 5 solid talented starters who could compete at a high level and came so close to reaching the finals to a team that basically has a lack of talent at every position other than small forward and swing guard. Think about that for a minute. Other than Hill and George there virtually is no one on our roster that other teams would give up anything of value to get.

            West has just told you that George & Hill is not enough. It might be enough to make the playoffs, I don't think that is going to be as easy as some of you think but I could be wrong.

            As to West statement about Bird and Roy.

            I'm okay with it, in fact we have actual confirmation now that Birds statement did rub at least one player the wrong way and this gives guys who were upset at Bird for doing it ammunition for future debates. However having said that I'm still not upset at Bird for saying what he said. I don't think what he said was all that bad but certainly the undertone of what he meant was clear as glass. Believe me when I say Bird knew exactly what he was saying and why he said it.

            But at the end of the day I just hope this puts a steak in the heart of the hope that the team as was constructed was going to do anything ever again, West knew it and really the Pacers knew it as well. Now let's hope some of us can just accept the fact that the rebuild is for real and it should have started the day we lost to Miami two seasons ago.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: West declines his player option

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I've asked Kidd and no response, so I'll open it up to anyone.

              When West say's "It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back" how is it possible to take that as Bird's comment wasn't a straw at all? I'd really like to hear rationale on this.
              Okay. Let's throw a bunch of straws on David West's back, let's say ---- twelve million of them. And then Bird is a meanie-head to Roy Hibbert in a press conference, so let's throw 1 more straw on that back. It didn't break his back. That's what it means.

              DWest was already ready to move on, and that this incident was not what was the deciding factor. That's what he said, that's what Kravitz reiterated, and that's what it means --- it wasn't the deciding factor. It was simply a man who wasn't happy where he was at, and decided to take a pretty silly parting shot at an organization that treated him well for 3 years. The fact that only David West has been taking shots should tell you the state of West's mind right now. Just disappointing because I had more respect for West. Just wished he had moved on without causing any more drama, but he couldn't do that.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: West declines his player option

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                If that's the case then he should talk NOW. He needs to make this public and reveal the truth as soon as possible.
                This actually lines up with someone at the forum party who said they had a local media member who had told them this stuff. I won't reveal who it was, but it is interesting to see this stuff now after hearing a similar story at the forum party saturday.


                Comment


                • Re: West declines his player option

                  So coming into this 10 pages after the interview...

                  1) Does anyone have a link to the full transcript of the post-season presser? I can't find it to confirm my memory, but I thought everything Bird said was blunt but correct. Anyone who believes that was throwing Roy under the bus would really be hard pressed to find terms for what JOB and Larry Brown used to do - chop players to bits with rusty spoons? Draw and quarter players with extreme prejudice? Folks are freaking out over a GM saying a player didn't play well but reiterating his support for that player, all because he also said that they might have to change their style of play (to a style that subsequently won the NBA Championship) and said player would have to earn his spot in that. Holy cow, it isn't like Bird went all PacersPride on Roy. It was also in answer to a question, and the "OMG what a puff piece" comments would have been flying around here if Bird had said anything at all positive about Roy, while the "why bother interviewing these guys" would have happened if he'd just said "no comment" (plus the speculation of how bad things must have been for him to say that, along with being excoriated for not saying something good about Roy). I've commented before about how ridiculous it is to think that other organizations' scouts and management change their minds about a player due to one press conference expressing something lots of people also saw.

                  2) Does anyone else see the irony in West feeling this team is not a contender and the thought that was absolutely true with a front court of West and Hibbert? The crowning irony is that by West opting out we are on a much quicker path to contending. As has been pointed out, West says nothing at all about his responsibility for anything.

                  3) West not going to the Knicks and going to a contender should notch down by a huge amount the idea that he left because of a toxic situation. He left for the same reason he came here, and the annoyance is just that - an annoyance expressed after being asked specifically about the issue.

                  I get a lot of flack here for making snarky hyperbolic remarks, but at least it's pretty clear they are snark. The extremes to which a turn of phrase can be taken on PD, such that "not the straw that broke the camel's back" becomes "but a really big heavy straw that might have broken the camel's back but just happened to not break it" never fails to ... well, meet my expectations, actually.
                  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


                  • Re: West declines his player option

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Okay. Let's throw a bunch of straws on David West's back, let's say ---- twelve million of them. And then Bird is a meanie-head to Roy Hibbert in a press conference, so let's throw 1 more straw on that back. It didn't break his back. That's what it means.

                    DWest was already ready to move on, and that this incident was not what was the deciding factor. That's what he said, that's what Kravitz reiterated, and that's what it means --- it wasn't the deciding factor. It was simply a man who wasn't happy where he was at, and decided to take a pretty silly parting shot at an organization that treated him well for 3 years. The fact that only David West has been taking shots should tell you the state of West's mind right now.
                    So when people say it wasn't a factor at all, they're wrong?

                    Thanks for backing up what I'm saying.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: West declines his player option

                      Our Local Radio shows just confirmed the BS of West. Even before the 2014 season started West said that he wasn't about chasing rings.

                      Comment


                      • Re: West declines his player option

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So when people say it wasn't a factor at all, they're wrong?

                        Thanks for backing up what I'm saying.
                        I really don't understand why you're doing this, lol. Here ya go, I'll confess: it was 1/12,000,000 of the reason David left, does that make you feel right now?
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: West declines his player option

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          What everyone is focusing on, West statements about being annoyed with the franchises treatment of Roy, is not the issue. Oh it may be an issue but not THE issue.

                          For those of you that would not give up the ghost and kept lamenting to let "the core" have another run, David West arguably one of the more important pieces in that core, just verbally said that it was no longer a contender.

                          Now remember by all accounts Paul George is healed, of course its going to take awhile to get into playing shape but there is nothing to indicate he won't come around soon. That being said West just told you that even with a healthy Paul George that this team is not a contender and he does not see us being one anytime soon.

                          This rebuild should have begun last season.

                          We have gone from a franchise that had 5 solid talented starters who could compete at a high level and came so close to reaching the finals to a team that basically has a lack of talent at every position other than small forward and swing guard. Think about that for a minute. Other than Hill and George there virtually is no one on our roster that other teams would give up anything of value to get.

                          West has just told you that George & Hill is not enough. It might be enough to make the playoffs, I don't think that is going to be as easy as some of you think but I could be wrong.

                          As to West statement about Bird and Roy.

                          I'm okay with it, in fact we have actual confirmation now that Birds statement did rub at least one player the wrong way and this gives guys who were upset at Bird for doing it ammunition for future debates. However having said that I'm still not upset at Bird for saying what he said. I don't think what he said was all that bad but certainly the undertone of what he meant was clear as glass. Believe me when I say Bird knew exactly what he was saying and why he said it.

                          But at the end of the day I just hope this puts a steak in the heart of the hope that the team as was constructed was going to do anything ever again, West knew it and really the Pacers knew it as well. Now let's hope some of us can just accept the fact that the rebuild is for real and it should have started the day we lost to Miami two seasons ago.
                          Nah, we're a playoff team, like I said probably even a second round playoff team IMO, assuming Paul is actually 100% right now like Vogel said.

                          That being said, West makes it abundantly clear what he views as being in contention, and that is, having a chance at appearing in the NBA finals. And I agree with him on that. I don't know that I agree with him that we won't be close in the near future, but I do agree that we are at least a year away.


                          Comment


                          • Re: West declines his player option

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            So when people say it wasn't a factor at all, they're wrong?

                            Thanks for backing up what I'm saying.
                            We're once again focused on the absolutist or initial response when the consensus discussion is much closer to "was it a small straw or a big one". The vast majority are agreeing it was something that factored in, but the question is whether it was a deciding factor or just something to put in the "pro leave" list.
                            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


                            • Re: West declines his player option

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Maybe we need to talk about the idiom "straw that broke the camel's back" because I don't think you guys actually understand the phrase.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_...mel's_back


                              So clearly Bird's comments about Roy was a "straw" or one of the unacceptable occurrences that built up over time. I don't need Kravitz's opinion on what he thinks David meant, I have what David ACTUALLY said.
                              Just so you're clear, David West did not use the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back". That was a phrase that Kravitz chose to insert on his behalf. It is not in quotes and is the writer's words. Not David West's.

                              "You know, obviously Roy wants to play, he knows he's unpopular right now, but we talked and he's going to be a professional. He's always been a professional. He's had his ups and downs but he's always been a pro and been diligent about his work. He's working to get better. He's going to fight. He's not going to be one of those guys who's going to become a locker room issue.

                              "But that was not the straw that broke the camel's back.

                              "I just watched those finals, and I thought, 'Man, I've got to give myself a chance.' That's the reason I made this decision.‘'
                              This is why I believe Kravitz felt the need to send out the clarifying tweet.
                              Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-02-2015, 11:26 AM.


                              Comment


                              • Re: West declines his player option

                                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                                It wasn't the straw that broke the back. But it was a factor.

                                So David you watched the finals and wanted to be apart of that. So do the Pacers and that is why they wanted Roy to opt out.


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                Lowering Roy's trade out because you want him gone so bad is NOT going to get us to the Finals. Bird needs to understand this.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X