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

    "West was seething" when listening to Larry's comments. "But his comments weren't even a reason." Come on...

    By a raise of hands, who gets mad at something they don't even care about.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: West declines his player option

      It sounds like Bird and West were on the same page, actually. Bird indicated his desire to change direction and get "smaller and faster" in the post-season presser. That's not what somebody says when they think their squad is primed to contend for a championship the following season. West, whether influenced by this or not, believed Indy wouldn't be contending in the near-future, and thus opted out. You can speculate about bad blood all you want, but at the end of the day, both guys looked at the roster and drew the same conclusion - the team is not ready to win.

      The only thing that confuses me about the whole thing is that Bird let David West off the hook for his poor play this past year. He made it clear that he doesn't think Hibbert's the right guy for it, but does he really think West is suited for a more uptempo offense? Why would he want West to opt in if he isn't making another title run?

      Comment


      • Re: West declines his player option

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Depends how you define contender.

        IMO there is only 1 championship contender in the east - the Cavs. Pacers aren't near them with West, with a good Hibbert, with a healthy PG, and G. Hill. But some people consider a contender to be a team that can win 50 games, get a homecourt in the first round of the playoffs and get to the ECF. I think it is reasonable to believe the pacers could have been that type of contende .
        I would define making the EC finals as a contender.

        I do not believe that the lineup as we had it was a contender and yes that means I don't think we would have made the EC finals.

        I think honestly that we become (not you UB I'm just talking about the generic Pacer fan here) so homer centric that we get a little arrogant. We think that we improve every year but refuse to believe other teams do, we think keeping together players to build a team makes us stronger but we don't think it helps other teams.

        In other words how many people actually think that the Hawks, Wizards and Raptors really weren't that good but yet they built their teams in a similar fashion to what we did yet Atlanta was a fluke and well the Raptors & Wizards just suck.

        I don't believe that. I actually think all three of those teams were either catching us in talent and play or were very close.

        Each of them have now passed us by IMO and that does not even include the Cavs or the Bulls who everybody just throws out the window now for some reason. Going on talent alone the Magic are getting to the point where they have more than we do overall. Nobody is as good as George and Hill would be almost as good as everybody on their team, but that's it. Now you add in Scott Skiles, who I know both of us like and there is another team that might make some noise.

        We have Frank Vogel and Paul Georg and George Hill and then after that a cast of misfits at best.

        Now saying that I want to say that I look forward to the rebuild. I want to start improving again and I think those three are solid building blocks. But its just as clear as day to me that we are not a contender and David West opting out had nothing to do with that.

        Edit: Oh yea I forgot to mention the Bucks who IMO have the potential to be a very scary team. If Greg Monroe can just add to their team and not take away from it they just got even more dangerous as a team and possibly a team who has passed us by.
        Last edited by Peck; 07-02-2015, 11:50 AM.


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

        Comment


        • Re: West declines his player option

          West seems to define it as making the NBA finals since that is what he references on more than one occasion in the article.


          Comment


          • Re: West declines his player option

            Click image for larger version

Name:	accumulated-microtrauma-the-straw-that-broke-the-camels-back-400x241.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	11.2 KB
ID:	3241326

            Comment


            • Re: West declines his player option

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Now saying that I want to say that I look forward to the rebuild. I want to start improving again and I think those three are solid building blocks. But its just as clear as day to me that we are not a contender and David West opting out had nothing to do with that.
              If anything, West opting out just allows us to get on with it sooner than later. Moving Hibbert comes next. I wouldn't have chosen Bird's style personally in his press conference... not my style. But I can't complain with the outcome.

              Comment


              • Re: West declines his player option

                I think we can be a conference finals type team by 16-17 assuming Paul is fine. And once you're that close, then you've got a chance JMO. West I think wants more of a sure thing THIS YEAR. And that's fine. I don't think we can get by CLE, CHI, or ATL unless Paul just makes a gigantic leap, but I think with our cap space next offseason we can do some nice things and we'll be right back in the thick of it.


                Comment


                • Re: West declines his player option

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  But to even include it as a serious factor is also not right.
                  If it wasn't a factor then West wouldn't mention it at all.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: West declines his player option

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    "West was seething" when listening to Larry's comments. "But his comments weren't even a reason." Come on...

                    By a raise of hands, who gets mad at something they don't even care about.
                    But who actually lets that factor into leaving 12 mill on the table? There's a difference between something making you mad and something actually factoring into a major decision.

                    If this actually factored into him leaving that much money on the table, then I have serious questions about Mr. David West.
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-02-2015, 11:51 AM.
                    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.
                      Isn't that sort of what he did on the radio? I didn't hear the broadcast, but from what people who did hear it are saying, he did just what you said he should do.

                      Comment


                      • Re: West declines his player option

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I think we can be a conference finals type team by 16-17 assuming Paul is fine. And once you're that close, then you've got a chance JMO. West I think wants more of a sure thing THIS YEAR. And that's fine. I don't think we can get by CLE, CHI, or ATL unless Paul just makes a gigantic leap, but I think with our cap space next offseason we can do some nice things and we'll be right back in the thick of it.
                        Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe as well but honestly with the absolute lack of talent at our other positions how do you see us in the conference finals again in 16-17? We have free agent money right now and other than making overtures towards Ellis we are not a player at all.

                        Sure if Turner turns into something special maybe I could see us making a run but that is really taking a leap of faith.

                        I think we can rebuild it but its not going to look like it does now and IMO it won't happen for a few years. I hope your right & I'm wrong btw.


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: West declines his player option

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          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.
                          Another poster has already revealed who that someone at the forum party was.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: West declines his player option

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe as well but honestly with the absolute lack of talent at our other positions how do you see us in the conference finals again in 16-17? We have free agent money right now and other than making overtures towards Ellis we are not a player at all.

                            Sure if Turner turns into something special maybe I could see us making a run but that is really taking a leap of faith.

                            I think we can rebuild it but its not going to look like it does now and IMO it won't happen for a few years. I hope your right & I'm wrong btw.
                            JMO that Paul George if healthy is still the second best player in the eastern conference and that is worth quite bit. That's really what I'm basing this on. Plus, like you, I have an exceptional amount of faith in Frank to maximize the rest of the roster. And like I said at the forum party, I think George Hill is an all star next year if he continues his level of play and is healthy.
                            Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-02-2015, 11:58 AM.


                            Comment


                            • Re: West declines his player option

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              I was going to make a very similar post but I thought it would just come across as me once again trying to rake Roy over the coals so I'm grateful that you are the one who wrote this.

                              Let me tag onto what TJ is saying here. We had a very well respected member of Pacers Digest, who NOBODY could ever accuse of being anything other than a sunshiner to almost the nth degree, state that his friend (a local reporter with nightly access to the locker room) stated that Roy Hibbert had become and I quote "A jerk over the past two seasons to deal with".

                              Had this been said by almost anyone else at the party I think most of us would have taken it with a grain of salt, however who said it at least for me anyway left zero doubts in my mind.
                              Based on his quotes to the media over the past two years, anyone who believed Roy was a boy scout in the locker room must be delusional.

                              Comment


                              • Re: West declines his player option

                                Even with West and a healthy Paul George, Pacers weren't going to seriously challenge the Cavs. That core had clearly run its course, and there were major changes needed. If not this year, next.

                                However, anyone saying that Bird's pointed comments at Hibbert didn't play a factor in West opting out is delusional. No one's saying it was the primary factor or one of the main factors, but it likely factored somewhere into the decision-making process even at a small level. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?

                                I don't know about you, but I normally don't bring up things I don't care about just for the hell of it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X