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

Fire Nate McMillan now!

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

  • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

    Originally posted by DrBadd01 View Post
    I said if Frank Vogel was fired I would quit cheering for the team. Ergo if the person who I view as responsible for all of this nonsense is gone than I have no reason to not cheer for them. It was an Anti-Bird move.
    Trust me, I've been against Bird ever since he broke up the 13-14 team. I'll be elated when he steps down (since I don't think that anyone's firing him, unfortunately). So, I understand what you're trying. It's just that by reading that post of yours back in the summer I didn't get the feeling that you were going to return when he's finally gone. It sounded like a permanent decision, not a temporary one. That's all I'm saying.

    That said, glad to know that you're just on strike
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Trust me, I've been against Bird ever since he broke up the 13-14 team. I'll be elated when he steps down (since I don't think that anyone's firing him, unfortunately). So, I understand what you're trying. It's just that by reading that post of yours back in the summer I didn't get the feeling that you were going to return when he's finally gone. It sounded like a permanent decision, not a temporary one. That's all I'm saying.

      That said, glad to know that you're just on strike



      Bird's biggest screw ups were trading Leonard for Hill. Then in Paul's broken-leg season not trading David West for Terrence Ross.

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        Bird's biggest screw ups were trading Leonard for Hill. Then in Paul's broken-leg season not trading David West for Terrence Ross.
        People need to stop saying Bird traded Leonard for Hill.

        Bird traded the pick, that ended up being Leonard for Hill before Leonard ever fell in the draft(which was not suppose to happen). Even then, we had Danny Granger and Paul George at the time anyway, and while he had clear potential on the defensive side of the ball there were still question marks with his offense. Not to mention he got to learn from arguably one of the best coaches in basketball history, and played beside 3 hall of fame players. Its pretty obvious the situation in San Antonio is much, much, MUCH different than it is here.

        If you wanna argue, "Bird should not have traded that pick until we knew who was available." fine, I can get on board with that. But every thing I have read about the trade, is that we agreed to it before we knew Leonard would be there. Maybe there is a chance we could have backed out of the trade upon learning Leonard would be available, but that just all goes back to the previous points I've said before of already having a SF of the future and needing a PG badly.

        Thats like saying we traded Michael Jordan for Tom Owners because we could have had the #2 pick.

        EDIT: I'm not arguing it was a good trade by any means, just annoyed with the narrative.
        Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 11-05-2016, 01:37 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
          I don't know about you guys, but I so disagree with and have a big problem with the following quote from Nate:



          Link: http://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/brun...125-pacers-107

          That's totally alien to me to be honest. I think everyhting starts with defense. Why because defense is not always completely about talent, but effort and discipline are crucial too and defense can help you keep in games, even when you are not having a good night offensively. The other way around IMHO is a completely different story and much, much harder and unreliable to rely on to keep you into games.


          You can get hot offensively, but getting things down defensively IMHO is really the basis of a good to great basketball team. Again to me a pretty worrying quote from Nate.
          Wow, he really said that? WTF

          Good defense happens when the head coach actually prioritizes defense, as opposed to just paying it lip service. It sounds a lot like Nate is being distracted by problems on the offensive side. Yes, turnovers make it worse for the defense, but under Vogel we were a good defensive team while also being bad at turnovers. Tell me again how the head coach doesn't matter when it comes to defense.

          Hopefully Nate just misspoke or somehow failed to make his meaning clear, but dang that's not what I want to hear from my head coach.

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

            Yes, we discussed trading 15 for Hill, but once we found out it was Leonard, we discussed keeping the pick.

            But West for Ross? I'm relieved we didn't make that move.

            In other words, we traded Leonard for Hill. There is no doubt about it.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
              Yes, we discussed trading 15 for Hill, but once we found out it was Leonard, we discussed keeping the pick.

              But West for Ross? I'm relieved we didn't make that move.

              In other words, we traded Leonard for Hill. There is no doubt about it.
              I'm sure if they knew Danny's knees were as bad as they were and that the game would change the trade wouldn't have happened. Still having Danny is what made them pull the trigger. But they still could have backed out

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                Bird's biggest screw ups were trading Leonard for Hill. Then in Paul's broken-leg season not trading David West for Terrence Ross.
                No, we didn't trade Leonard for Hill. We traded the pick that would become Kawhi Leonard for him. Dr. Awesome is 100% correct on this. There is no doubt in my mind that we would never actually pick Kawhi Leonard had we kept that pick. We already had DG and PG. I blame Bird for a lot of things but this isn't one of them.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  There is no doubt in my mind that we would never actually pick Kawhi Leonard had we kept that pick. We already had DG and PG.
                  Disagree on this one, Nuntius. Leonard was widely projected as a Top 10 pick and clearly was the best player available when the Pacers would have made a pick. Larry even has said recently that he had hoped Paul George would continue playing the shooting guard position. Moreover, Leonard would have been developing while Granger's knees would suggest fewer minutes. In my opinion, the lineup would have worked very well.


                  "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                  - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    No, we didn't trade Leonard for Hill. We traded the pick that would become Kawhi Leonard for him. Dr. Awesome is 100% correct on this. There is no doubt in my mind that we would never actually pick Kawhi Leonard had we kept that pick. We already had DG and PG. I blame Bird for a lot of things but this isn't one of them.

                    The FO has said that they almost backed out of the trade. They never believed he'd be available.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                      If we did have Kawhi Leonard, one silver lining is that we probably would've been better and wouldn't have been low enough to select Myles Turner--so there's that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                        Early Night Nate is back tonight!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                          Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                          Disagree on this one, Nuntius. Leonard was widely projected as a Top 10 pick and clearly was the best player available when the Pacers would have made a pick. Larry even has said recently that he had hoped Paul George would continue playing the shooting guard position. Moreover, Leonard would have been developing while Granger's knees would suggest fewer minutes. In my opinion, the lineup would have worked very well.
                          You have every right to disagree, my friend. I just don't believe that we would have gone with Kawhi. Yeah, he would probably be considered BPA at our pick but we've shown in the past that we our draft board tends to be significantly different than the rest of the league.

                          Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
                          The FO has said that they almost backed out of the trade. They never believed he'd be available.
                          Perhaps that's true or perhaps that's just PR talk from the FO. We can only really talk about what has actually happened. And what happened is that we drafted Kawhi for the Spurs. Therefore, I really cannot blame the FO for the trade. We really needed a player like GH at the time and he helped us be a very successful team.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                            http://grantland.com/features/analyz...erence-finals/

                            (in my Yoda voice)

                            Read this article. Find answers you will

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                              I'm not impressed with Nate. Did not adjust his starting lineup vs Charlotte. It was obvious Monte has no business guarding MKG, and Nate does it anyways. Doesn't want to try and be creative with his lineups to matchup with other teams. Has 2 pg's in the starting lineup, and will not start a real SG, CJ Miles. If the team doesn't care, which it looked to be the case last night, this is on the coach
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Nate McMillan now!

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                I'm not impressed with Nate. Did not adjust his starting lineup vs Charlotte. It was obvious Monte has no business guarding MKG, and Nate does it anyways. Doesn't want to try and be creative with his lineups to matchup with other teams. Has 2 pg's in the starting lineup, and will not start a real SG, CJ Miles. If the team doesn't care, which it looked to be the case last night, this is on the coach
                                Unless there is a mandate from above, which I tried to tell everyone last season.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X