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 Kid Minneapolis View Post
    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.
    Again, A reason, not THE reason.

    When you have multiple reasons for something, they add up. Hence the whole "straw that broke the camel's back" phrasing. You can't simply removing a reasoning you don't agree with, simply because it doesn't make sense to YOU. YOU aren't the one make the decision, so whether or not it's rationale, to you, is irrelevant.

    We don't get to pick and choose whether or not we believe other people's reasonings because we wouldn't make the same decision with the same factors.

    Clearly money isn't a motivating factor for West.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: West declines his player option

      Originally posted by LG33 View Post
      I know somebody who is in the locker room every single day of the season, and he only has the nicest things to say about Roy Hibbert. I can't tell you who he is, but he tells me that the true team cancer is Assistant Coach Dan Burke. He told me in confidence that Dan Burke split the locker room after the second game against Phoenix when he got into a verbal altercation with Popeye Jones in the showers. It apparently started when Burke approached his fellow coach and stated, "You don't look like no Popeye Jones. More like someone jonesing for Popeyes" and popped the naked Jones right in the face. He declined to share the details of what happened next, but apparently the situation escalated to the point where C.J. Watson had to be removed from the Fieldhouse for towel whipping Ian Mahinmi unconscious.
      Nice...

      Ok not going to lie you had me fooled at first, damn you and your overly smart sense of narrative.


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

      Comment


      • Re: West declines his player option

        Originally posted by Tom White View Post
        Unless he was answering a question from Kravitz.
        If it wasn't a factor and Kravitz asked him about it "it wasn't part of the decision making process" or something similar gets the job done.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: West declines his player option

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          No we don't. There's no "ILRBI" or Internal Locker Room Burea of Investigation" that anyone needs to tie off with. There's absolutely no reason they would ever come out and divulge this type of info. Just like TJ said, that would torpedo his value severely beyond any thing you guys Bird did with his comments. They have zero obligation to us to comment any further on that subject.

          I cannot ever remember a single instance of any sports team holding a press conference to clear the air about rumored locker room issues just to appease their paranoid fans.
          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
          Good God Almighty! Are we now to call him to the witness stand and have him swear on a bible?
          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
          We really don't need to know. It'd be entertaining, but that's it.

          I will say this. There is an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire. I know of at least 3 people that are close enough to the team that have said very negative things about Roy's locker room presence. And the stories corroborate.

          And I'll also say this. Media members that are close to the team know WAY more than they ever report. There is a lot of off the record stuff and things they witness that just can't be mentioned.
          Fair enough to all you 3. I just really want to know what's happening. I have supported Roy through all of this but if he's really treating his teammates badly and causes problems then I have no reason to continue doing so. That's why I want to know.

          Originally posted by RWB View Post
          Easier said than done when comes to beat writers covering pro teams. I can tell you a specific story I witnessed which actually involved the reporter in question.

          I had the opportunity to be around the Indy Colts during the summer for 12 years. During that time one of their more popular players was a TE named Dallas Clark. Really was a nice guy and treated everyone (that I saw) with respect. One day after practice all the reporters had left except Phil Wilson. He was still hanging around to see if he could get any more interviews.

          Dallas Clark comes walking past and says hi to me but completely ignores Phil Wilson standing there. I ask Wilson "why didn't you grab Dallas for an interview"? Wilson proceeds to tell me "Dallas is pissed off at me for writing something negative in a article and says forget about anymore interviews". Wilson goes to say " It really wasn't that bad and he did feel bad that Dallas took it so personally because he (Dallas) was one of his favorite players to talk to". Wilson went on to explain there is a lot more unkindly stuff they (reporters) know and it never sees the light of day. It is hard because you can get too close seeing these guys all the time and you have to be careful because they'll shut you out if they want to when you do write something negative.
          I see. Journalism can be tough. I have thought about working as a sports journalist but I have some reservations. What is happening in Greece right now is really making me hate journalism as a profession.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: West declines his player option

            Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
            Was Burke's black eye last year or two years ago???
            The way I understand it, Burke popped him and then backpedaled into a modest crowd of supporters before Jones could respond. Lavoy Allen then charged Burke's gang with a rolling laundry cart full of game-worn jerseys. The Sloan Ranger, armed with a handful of soiled jock straps, shot out from the laundry cart once it reached Burke's corner, and total bedlam ensued. Another friend of mine who's a member of the media told me that PG's return was delayed several days because Josh Corbeil and crew had to shift focus to a mess of injuries sustained in the incident. I can't verify this specific fact, but I did hear that international scout Pete Philo was stabbed with a basketball pump during the scuffle.

            Comment


            • Re: West declines his player option

              Originally posted by LG33 View Post
              The way I understand it, Burke popped him and then backpedaled into a modest crowd of supporters before Jones could respond. Lavoy Allen then charged Burke's gang with a rolling laundry cart full of game-worn jerseys. The Sloan Ranger, armed with a handful of soiled jock straps, shot out from the laundry cart once it reached Burke's corner, and total bedlam ensued. Another friend of mine who's a member of the media told me that PG's return was delayed several days because Josh Corbeil and crew had to shift focus to a mess of injuries sustained in the incident. I can't verify this specific fact, but I did hear that international scout Pete Philo was stabbed with a basketball pump during the scuffle.
              So much more entertaining than FA.
              Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

              Comment


              • Re: West declines his player option

                I don't doubt there's multiple reporters saying Roy Hibbert is a pain in the *** to deal with.

                I'm also not going to blindly ignore the fact that Hibbert made a well publicized decision not to talk to reporters this season. Related, I'm sure, in large part to the cries of "he just needs to shut his mouth and play basketball" every time he said ANYTHING, positive or negative, to the media.

                I happen to think the two are related. Nobody is ever going to have anything nice to say about somebody who just won't work with them. They may not say anything bad, but they won't say anything nice.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • Re: West declines his player option

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  I see. Journalism can be tough. I have thought about working as a sports journalist but I have some reservations. What is happening in Greece right now is really making me hate journalism as a profession.
                  Watching those guys do their job in my opinion has fun moments with lots of crap thrown in as well. They get to deal with the media handlers from the teams and its not always pleasant. Rules change day to day and hour to hour sometimes. Watched some camera men get yelled at for pointing their camera supposedly in the wrong direction (recording secret plays), do what they're asked and point/shoot a different direction, and then a few minutes later someone else from the organization comes up and jumps their *** for taping from the direction they were told to shoot from. Of course this came during the Bill Polian regime so people seemed to be on edge most of the time any way.

                  Good luck if you go for it.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment


                  • Re: West declines his player option

                    Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                    The way I understand it, Burke popped him and then backpedaled into a modest crowd of supporters before Jones could respond. Lavoy Allen then charged Burke's gang with a rolling laundry cart full of game-worn jerseys. The Sloan Ranger, armed with a handful of soiled jock straps, shot out from the laundry cart once it reached Burke's corner, and total bedlam ensued. Another friend of mine who's a member of the media told me that PG's return was delayed several days because Josh Corbeil and crew had to shift focus to a mess of injuries sustained in the incident. I can't verify this specific fact, but I did hear that international scout Pete Philo was stabbed with a basketball pump during the scuffle.

                    See, this is what I mean. Can you imagine if Candace had reported this? She would've been thrown into a trashcan.

                    Comment


                    • Re: West declines his player option

                      Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                      I know somebody who is in the locker room every single day of the season, and he only has the nicest things to say about Roy Hibbert. I can't tell you who he is, but he tells me that the true team cancer is Assistant Coach Dan Burke. He told me in confidence that Dan Burke split the locker room after the second game against Phoenix when he got into a verbal altercation with Popeye Jones in the showers. It apparently started when Burke approached his fellow coach and stated, "You don't look like no Popeye Jones. More like someone jonesing for Popeyes" and popped the naked Jones right in the face. He declined to share the details of what happened next, but apparently the situation escalated to the point where C.J. Watson had to be removed from the Fieldhouse for towel whipping Ian Mahinmi unconscious.
                      Thank you so much for the much needed laugh. I think we should just keep bumping this all season long when the PD speculation reaches Defcon level 1.

                      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.
                        He doesn't work for the Indy Star anymore. I guess it's his prerogative whether he wants to open that can of worms. Sounded like he only brought it up on radio when the hosts were talking about how Roy has been a good guy around the organization. It's more of a classy move NOT to go into detail about it.

                        Comment


                        • Re: West declines his player option

                          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                          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.
                          I guess Nuntius wants all the details. I don't need to hear the details. Phillip B Wilson is being more professional to me by not revealing all the details.

                          Comment


                          • Re: West declines his player option

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            See, this is what I mean. Can you imagine if Candace had reported this? She would've been thrown into a trashcan.
                            Okay, I realize that people are going to be skeptical of my account, but I do have some proof, however limited. Whilst trying to separate Rudez and Stuckey, Roy Hibbert accidentally fell on top of Luis Scola. Then, while getting back up, he took another inadvertent spill onto Shayne Whittington. And a little later he slipped again and landed right on Donald Sloan's head, smashing it into the tiled floor. The training staff feared that Sloan might have internal bleeding, but they couldn't administer the proper tests without word of this incident leaking to the press, so they sent him home. There was a decent chance that he would go to sleep and not wake up, which would have been really bad because we weren't very deep at the point guard position, and also Sloan would be dead. I believe that was when Bird told Donald to report every morning through social media that he was still alive.
                            Last edited by LG33; 07-02-2015, 01:27 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: West declines his player option

                              I'm up.

                              Comment


                              • Re: West declines his player option

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I agree that obviously it mattered to West. It's just that:

                                1) It's pretty clear to me that the main reason he left was because he doesn't view us as a contender anymore. Seems to me that he checked out on this team once PG got hurt. Not too long ago, I seem to remember Peck or someone referencing how bummed West sounded to the media before the season started, and

                                2) Despite all of the fond memories, West leaving a year early as he heads into his age 35 season is a great thing for a franchise that needs some changes.

                                I'm just not really mad about anything here. There are better teams out there for West to play on in the last years of his career. Meanwhile, the Pacers need some tinkering.

                                I do find it a bit humorous that so many people are raising pitchforks about Bird's comments now when three months ago they were downplaying them and instead focusing on the fact that Bird said Roy was a "plus" for the team. Now David West says something three months later and it's pitchforks and rioting.
                                I agree with you on #1. I just think it's ridiculous for a handful of posters on here to say that Bird's comments "didn't play a factor", when they may very well have. Not saying it was the primary factor. On the contrary, it likely was a smaller factor but that's different than not being a factor entirely. I'm also not one of the ones "raising pitchforks" or calling for Bird's head, just feel like more tact could've been used at his end of season presser instead of doing his normal, call it like he sees it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X