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

Hibbert dealt to the Lakers for a future 2nd round pick

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

  • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

    Bird wants players who are mentally tough, and he probably had all he could
    stand of Roy's flakiness.

    That in itself would be good enough reason to let Roy move on.

    Comment


    • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

      Brunner, seeker of truth, know malcontent ever since the Pacers booted his arse out of the door for undisclosed reasons.
      He has been unable to write ONE positive artice about the Pacers since he "left" and you are now trying to convince me that he sat on that bombshell for all that time to protect his former employer's what?

      I will allow for Roy being sullen, pissed of things weren't going as they were before, but that doesn't make him a locker room cancer by a long way, if he was people like West on their way out don't have to say positive things about him, and to be honest, I'd trust DWest from afar and Brunner not even if I had him in my hands.
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment


      • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

        Originally posted by able View Post
        Brunner, seeker of truth, know malcontent ever since the Pacers booted his arse out of the door for undisclosed reasons.
        He has been unable to write ONE positive artice about the Pacers since he "left" and you are now trying to convince me that he sat on that bombshell for all that time to protect his former employer's what?

        I will allow for Roy being sullen, pissed of things weren't going as they were before, but that doesn't make him a locker room cancer by a long way, if he was people like West on their way out don't have to say positive things about him, and to be honest, I'd trust DWest from afar and Brunner not even if I had him in my hands.
        able makes a good point. There is a difference between a 'locker room cancer' that is 'sullen' with newspaper reporters or other guys covering the team and a guy that is a problem with the other players and coaches. Phillip B. Wilson, Conrad Brunner and Michael Grady are guys that have access to the Locker Room, that is true. But they are outsiders who cover the team to the players and coaches on the team. There very well could be a guy who is mad and uncooperative with the press, but better with the players on the team. Especially since a guy on the court says something different than the guys covering the team. There are two different dynamics here.

        Comment


        • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

          Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
          able makes a good point. There is a difference between a 'locker room cancer' that is 'sullen' with newspaper reporters or other guys covering the team and a guy that is a problem with the other players and coaches. Phillip B. Wilson, Conrad Brunner and Michael Grady are guys that have access to the Locker Room, that is true. But they are outsiders who cover the team to the players and coaches on the team. There very well could be a guy who is mad and uncooperative with the press, but better with the players on the team. Especially since a guy on the court says something different than the guys covering the team. There are two different dynamics here.
          he's also right about Bruno. That guy is so negatively biased in his reporting. I'm not as big of a fan of Bruno since he was let go. But that's just me.

          Comment


          • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

            2 more days until the trade can be finalized. That means 2 more days of this debate....

            Comment


            • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

              Originally posted by cramerica View Post
              2 more days until the trade can be finalized. That means 2 more days of this debate....
              Hope you are right. Only two more days would be great. But, based on the Lance thread being about a bazillion pages long, don't get your hopes up too much.

              Comment


              • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                My problem with the trade is we don't get anything we need. No bigs like Tarik Black or Jordan Hill. No scoring forwards to back up Paul or start next to him at the 3 if he's playing the 4 like Nick Young. Of all the pieces the Lakers have that are gettable we will walk away with Sacre and Kelly? Ugh!
                First, let me say that I enjoy reading your trade and singing idea. You obviously work pretty hard on them. However, none of your suggestions seem to be the same as Bird's thinking. I have whined for years about the way Larry trades players that the Pacers have worked with and trained and made into decent to good players and gets nothing in return. I have finally figured out that LB either doesn't read my posts or just ignores them because I know nothing about the business.

                Comment


                • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                  The difference between Roy and Lance leaving is that Lance's supporters pegged him for potential superstardom and were angry we "let" him get away.

                  I think it's safe to say I'm one of Roy's biggest fans here and I'm almost relieved everything our big man does won't be heavily criticized. Are least for a couple more years anyway.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                    There is a lot of stuff that happens in sports locker rooms that is never discussed by the media. Essentially, it boils down to a couple things. 1.) the teams don't want everything reported on and you can and will lose your access. 2.) the players definitely don't want things reported on, and you can and will definitely lose your access, and 3.) a lot of it is personal, oh and 4.) it is still a bit of an old boys network, and in many ways, the players, coaches, FO and media work together to keep the machine running. It doesn't help any of them or the NBA to have the gossip, infighting, insleeping, gambling, drinking and/or drug issues splashed all over the front pages.

                    If you listen to the local media when they actually talk about players, it gives you a hint as to the things that are really going on.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      The difference between Roy and Lance leaving is that Lance's supporters pegged him for potential superstardom and were angry we "let" him get away.

                      I think it's safe to say I'm one of Roy's biggest fans here and I'm almost relieved everything our big man does won't be heavily criticized. Are least for a couple more years anyway.
                      Well, that and Lance was the scapegoat for the locker room issues by all the PG and Hibbert supporters, even though all the media said he wasn't the locker room issue. And Hibbert is still defended even though the media say he was a locker room issue.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        Well, that and Lance was the scapegoat for the locker room issues by all the PG and Hibbert supporters, even though all the media said he wasn't the locker room issue. And Hibbert is still defended even though the media say he was a locker room issue.
                        Hibbert is still defended even though he was the only player to publicly criticize other players with the "selfish dudes" comment. This statement is a fact that Roy was being a jerk in the locker room. True leaders and true professionals never call out their teammates to the public. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, a true leader like Andrew Luck, would never publicly rip other players. If Roy had .1% of Luck's leadership skills, the Pacers make the playoffs last season
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          If Roy had .1% of Luck's leadership skills, the Pacers make the playoffs last season
                          What about D.West? Or does he not get the blame?

                          Also, comparing anyone to Andrew Luck is silly. Though I think his leadership is a bit overrated around here (blasphemy i know) he is a rare breed, and a transcendent talent. Just because certain things come naturally to him, doesn't mean that should be the expectation of every athlete everywhere.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                            Let me put it this way. Even if Lance was just a scapegoat, and I don't believe that's all was, he was only a scapegoat for a part of 1 year. Hibbert has been in the official PD scapegoat rotation for about 5 years. He's got 7 years of service put in. The people who like him really like him and feel loyal to him.

                            But nobody is claiming Hibbert is going to make us pay like Lance was, and it's not due to lack of faith in his abilities. It's just the different kind of ways that the groups of supporters tend to argue their points.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                              They didn't. People took assumptions and pretended they were facts.

                              Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                              What assumptions were made that weren't reported?

                              EDIT: I'll just go ahead and answer the question for you. None. The only specific that was mentioned was that Danny and DJones got into a locker room spat with Lance. That's it. That was reported. There are no assumptions being made. None whatsoever.
                              Last edited by Since86; 07-07-2015, 09:27 AM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                                Well, that and Lance was the scapegoat for the locker room issues by all the PG and Hibbert supporters, even though all the media said he wasn't the locker room issue. And Hibbert is still defended even though the media say he was a
                                locker room issue.
                                And here you are defending Lance, a year after the fact, while the media also called Lance a locker room issue. Can't have it both ways.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X