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

Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

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

  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

    Originally posted by mattie View Post
    Seriously. Someone for the love of GOD tell me why Durant would not want to play with his friend, his USA teammate, and superstar Paul George?
    If PG was his only superstar friend, you'd have a point. Durant's comments fit a lot of other places, and potential teammates, than just Indy/PG.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

      Originally posted by mattie View Post
      So in a league where it is required to have at least 2 stars to win a championship, why do we even watch if "it is unlikely" to sign a star? Look I completely buy the argument that given random choices, Indiana wouldn't be chosen, but Indiana has a massive selling point, that EVERYONE glosses over.

      Seriously. Someone for the love of GOD tell me why Durant would not want to play with his friend, his USA teammate, and superstar Paul George?

      Now rather then random projections, here is what Kevin Durant said on free agency:

      "And I'm doing this in Oklahoma City," he said. "I don't care about commercials, I don't really care about this s---, I just want to hoop. But this comes with it and I got all this being in Oklahoma City. So all that stuff doesn't really matter to me. It's all about who I'm gonna play with, what type of people I'm going to be around every single day and I'll go from there."

      He also says:

      Asked what he means by a "basketball decision," Durant said it's not necessarily about the spotlight or the money.

      "Just who I'm going to be playing with and the people I'm going to be around every single day, that's what it's all about for me," Durant told ESPN.com in an interview at Stubb's Bar-B-Q in downtown Austin. "You tend to hear about the market and the opportunities you can get off the basketball court, but I'm blessed, man, to be making what I make as a basketball player."


      So he CLEARLY cares about WHO he plays with, and the chance to win.

      Further more, regardless of your all's self loathing opinions on Indianapolis as well as PG ("PG is really good, but he's maybe top 20 at best" you might hear around here), here is what Kevin Durant said about Paul George in comparison to Kawhi Leanord, the leagues darling:

      "I just said Paul George is better, I like Paul George better as a player. I can be a fan of the game, too. And one of my guys was debating with me and said that he was better than Paul George at the time, and I didn't think so. You know, I'm not taking it back."

      Soooo. Lets see, Durant wants to go where he can win, with people he likes and respects, and players he thinks who are great. Now. Apparently he thinks Paul George is without a doubt one of the best players in the NBA.

      Now- Indiana has shown zero desire to court Kevin Durant, so I don't think we have a chance based on that. I think you court players and you show them you want them. Indiana's actions are NOT helping, that's why I think we are out- but in general, based on a hypothetical, that Indiana courted Kevin Durant, I absolutely think Indiana is in in the running. It is an obvious move based on Durants own words!
      Ha, dude, it's 100% possible Durant could be a Pacer, just like he could be a Wiz, Knick, etc.

      It's still possible the Pacers can sign him, and you have no idea if we have requested a meeting or are doing so through PG. Relax.

      But at the end of the day, the scenario of him coming here just isn't very likely.

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        If PG was his only superstar friend, you'd have a point. Durant's comments fit a lot of other places, and potential teammates, than just Indy/PG.
        I agree. There are definitely other opportunites. But ****. It is a short list.

        And again- much like LBJ wanting to play with Wade, I doubt there are very many players above Paul George on Durants list.

        Wade? No way.
        Lillard? no.
        Kawhi? No.
        Steph? Yes.
        LBJ? Duh.
        Westbrook? Maybe? But I seriously Doubt it.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

          Originally posted by mattie View Post
          He does have a midrange, but truly spread the court, you need that three point- if we was a great enough scorer, that he could dominate the ball and make a lot of opportunities for others, then that midrange would be valuable, but as it stands, his position on the court needs to be filled by simply a shooter, that's it, and he's not good enough of a shooter to fill that role.
          If his midrange is going it still spreads the floor and keeps the defense honest. If he stays I hope he fills that role off the bench.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

            Guys. Here is the point: If Durant considers him better than every player in the NBA besides LBJ/Steph and Westbrook??? That means Indiana is ahead of every single team in the NBA besides those 3.

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

              Originally posted by mattie View Post
              I agree. There are definitely other opportunites. But ****. It is a short list.

              And again- much like LBJ wanting to play with Wade, I doubt there are very many players above Paul George on Durants list.

              Wade? No way.
              Lillard? no.
              Kawhi? No.
              Steph? Yes.
              LBJ? Duh.
              Westbrook? Maybe? But I seriously Doubt it.
              And there's the sticking point. It's not a contest on which friend is the best player. Whether or not PG is above or below them, isn't the deciding factor.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                It should be said, that Leonard quote was before Kawhi was even Finals MVP.

                That said, you are taking quotes and trying to narrow the field as if the Pacers are the only suitable place for Durant.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  It should be said, that Leonard quote was before Kawhi was even Finals MVP.

                  That said, you are taking quotes and trying to narrow the field as if the Pacers are the only suitable place for Durant.
                  No. He reiterated 2 months ago- that he is NOT taking it back. He considers Paul George the better player. This was also a week after PG dropped 45 on him, so I'm sure that was fresh in his mind.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    It should be said, that Leonard quote was before Kawhi was even Finals MVP.

                    That said, you are taking quotes and trying to narrow the field as if the Pacers are the only suitable place for Durant.
                    And I am not. I see his options as:

                    OKC
                    Indiana
                    Miami
                    SAS/GSW/CLE

                    That's 6 teams. Not only that - while he will no doubt consider it, I don't think he will want to JOIN a powerhouse. He will want to build his own instant powerhouse, which is why I personally believe he stays in OKC, plays in Miami, or a distant third, now that Bird gave no effort, play at Indiana.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      No. He reiterated 2 months ago- that he is NOT taking it back. He considers Paul George the better player. This was also a week after PG dropped 45 on him, so I'm sure that was fresh in his mind.
                      Do you really think PG being the better player between the two is what would decide his choice? I mean, PG is the better player in his opinion but the Spurs are a better team by far. So why would Durant pick the Pacers over the Spurs, simply because PG is better than Kawhi? You're shortening a laundry list of reasons down to a popularity contest between individuals.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Do you really think PG being the better player between the two is what would decide his choice? I mean, PG is the better player in his opinion but the Spurs are a better team by far. So why would Durant pick the Pacers over the Spurs, simply because PG is better than Kawhi? You're shortening a laundry list of reasons down to a popularity contest between individuals.
                        First off that is my opinion that he wouldn't want to play at the top3- what I absolutely REFUSE to give up, is the idea that he is NOT considering all 6 teams.

                        Sure I could be completely wrong- and he could simply go play for GSW- Players really care about their legacy. So no I don't think he'll join a team that already won a championship without him.But that's a guess- All I'm asking is that you all ADMIT that he has to consider all 6 of those teams.
                        Last edited by mattie; 06-24-2016, 12:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                          He'll consider any team that has enough money to sign him. But quoting about how he thinks PG is a better player than Leonard means absolutely nothing.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                            My opinion is this- that if Indiana left open complete flexibility and CAP space- their destination would have been extremely attractive- the thought that Durant could consider playing with PG AND bringing maybe one other guy with him.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              Teague is not a real upgrade IMO and I'd rather have GH. I like the trade for Young but only if we keep Ian. Young, Ellis, and Teague are all poor defenders. Right now I'm in wait and see mode but my vote wouldn't change. Bird still has work to do before this can be called a great summer.
                              What exactly do you consider an upgrade? Teague is an all-star, and George Hill is not an all-star. When they met in the playoffs, Teague absolutely torched George Hill. The player that got torched is the same as the player that torched him? I'm confused
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                He'll consider any team that has enough money to sign him. But quoting about how he thinks PG is a better player than Leonard means absolutely nothing.
                                I don't know why everyone INSISTS on taking Indiana out of the conversation. Stop simplifying my argument.

                                I think his multiple comments suggesting he doesn't care what city, that he only cares about who he plays with, and winning matters. So ultimately, his final statement about PG also comes to play, because while it should be common knowlege that PG is elite in this league, I have to use Durants comments to explicitly prove that I am not alone on that opinion.

                                Furthermore, I do NOT think he'll consider any team that will sign him. The majority can give him the same amount of money. If it was about money exclusively, OKC would guarantee he resigns- However, like most players, he cares about his legacy and pulling down a championship ring. So again. We absolutely can make estimations on where he would go, and narrow down his options.
                                Last edited by mattie; 06-24-2016, 12:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X