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

George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

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

  • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
    We're in the middle of free agency, but if Indiana is unable to move him, because teams are "aware" of his intentions and don't want to take the risk...did he or did he not behaved in a manner that could fall under conflict of interests?

    Paul George shouldn't have the power to dictate where he plays while under contract with the Pacers....
    If they have trade offers on the table (Pritchard's words not mine) then he's not preventing them from trading him at all.

    Comment


    • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      Except Paul George has no authority over being traded. The Pacers can trade him anywhere they want and George will play there next season. That's all he's under obligation to do.

      What you want is to get actual superstar value for him, and since he has only 1 year left of team control, he's a rental with limited appeal. Teams have every right to ask him if he has any intention of re-signing with them, and he has every right to tell them no.

      every one of the other 29 NBA teams would take Paul George next season. All of them. They just won't pay more than rental price.
      And Indiana is wrong for wanting superstar value for him?


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Okay.......what happens if the likely scenario of the Pacers not signing Hayward likely plays out?
        That guy's delusional. Hayward hasn't, isn't and won't consider us. He's not coming to Indiana, as much as we all have hard-ons for Butler basketball. Hayward is NOT coming to Indiana, and PG is NOT signing an extension with us. People just can't seem to fathom the reality of the situation.

        So the likely scenario remains that we trade PG for less than what he's worth. Probably a single first round pick and some fringe players, perhaps a starter, but they'd only be included for salary purposes. Nothing has changed.

        Comment


        • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          Well, that's what KP said. PG agent in a "very difficult" conversation said PG wanted a trade and then leaked it making it difficult for Pacers.

          So if you know more than KP no reason to discuss further.
          Leaked it to whom? It wasn't leaked to the media because we hadn't heard of that scenario until KP said something.

          I must have missed Pritchard saying that Paul leaked a trade request. I know he said Paul leaked his intentions to sign in LA next summer, but thats different

          Comment


          • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            And Indiana is wrong for wanting superstar value for him?
            Indiana isn't wrong for wanting what PG's actually worth, but it's just never going to happen. KP holding the line at a "king's ransom" doesn't help our team move on to the Turner era.

            What's the current report now? that KP want the Lakers and Brooklyn picks as well as starter quality players? Never. gonna. happen. I'd love to see it, but we have neither the leverage nor do the Celtics truly have the need for that trade to occur. They know damn well they're outbidding anyone without having to come close to offering that and they also know they'll be able to hit the ECF for the next couple of years regardless of what PG does. We're the ones with our backs to the wall. Not PG, not Boston, and not LA.

            Comment


            • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

              Originally posted by Jake0890 View Post
              That guy's delusional. Hayward hasn't, isn't and won't consider us. He's not coming to Indiana, as much as we all have hard-ons for Butler basketball. Hayward is NOT coming to Indiana, and PG is NOT signing an extension with us. People just can't seem to fathom the reality of the situation.

              So the likely scenario remains that we trade PG for less than what he's worth. Probably a single first round pick and some fringe players, perhaps a starter, but they'd only be included for salary purposes. Nothing has changed.

              I know Hayward is not signing here. Been known for months

              Comment


              • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                And Indiana is wrong for wanting superstar value for him?
                They can ask for the moon. But if they actually expect it? Yes,. that's stupid.

                A player's value is not just his skills, it's his contract. 2 years of Paul George would net you a lot more value than one for a variety of reasons. That's why Boston wants a minimum 3 years of him before they talk trade. That's why the Timberwolves were able to get 2 guaranteed years of Jimmy Butler for a guaranteed 6-7 years of three decent prospects.

                If Paul were willing to negotiate an extension with other teams, his value would go up, but he is under zero obligation to do that. He's scheduled to be a free agent in 2018 and that's his chip to negotiate with.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Leaked it to whom? It wasn't leaked to the media because we hadn't heard of that scenario until KP said something.

                  I must have missed Pritchard saying that Paul leaked a trade request. I know he said Paul leaked his intentions to sign in LA next summer, but thats different
                  He said PG camp leaked that he no longer wanted to be a Pacer. He's already recruiting for LA. I'm sure there's other stuff we don't know and it's not ridiculous to think perhaps his conduct has been detrimental to the league.

                  Comment


                  • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    His contract doesn't obligate him to aid the Pacers in trading him. If the Pacers wanted teams to not care about his future intentions they should have traded him a year ago.




                    And lo and behold, he doesn't!
                    So, blame the team for not trading early in his contract although the whole point of his contract is to be a Pacers player?

                    The contracts are not "3 years as a good solider then 1-2 of trying to force your will on the team whether it's directly on indirectly". If Paul George wanted to explore his options sooner than the original contract, then he should have taken a contract with less years.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                      So, blame the team for not trading early in his contract although the whole point of his contract is to be a Pacers player?
                      Absolutely. Paul George is and will continue to be an all-star player. He's honored his contract. What you're mad about is that he's going to walk away next summer and cost the Pacers their biggest asset. That's not George's problem. If the Pacers wanted to avoid that problem and extend his value, then yes they should have liquidated him long ago into more long term assets like draft picks or prospects on rookie contracts.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Considering Denver and Orlando got actual value for guys that didn't want to be there? I'd imagine they are happier.
                        It takes impatient teams on the other side to get anything for a star who only wants to go one place. Obviously Magic isn't impatient. The miscalculation that PG probably made was that he thought the Pacers would blink and accept whatever toilet p*ss Magic offered on draft night. Didn't happen. PG has to be just shell shocked that he's still on the Pacers.

                        Comment


                        • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          So, blame the team for not trading early in his contract although the whole point of his contract is to be a Pacers player?

                          The contracts are not "3 years as a good solider then 1-2 of trying to force your will on the team whether it's directly on indirectly". If Paul George wanted to explore his options sooner than the original contract, then he should have taken a contract with less years.
                          Obviously you believe that if the Pacers trade Monta Ellis, and Ellis doesn't want to play for the team they traded him to, then Ellis has every right to say he won't play for that team. Ellis signed his contract to play for the Pacers, and therefore the Pacers shouldn't be allowed to trade him to a team without Ellis' consent.

                          Based on your recent posts, that's what you're saying. Because what's applicable to Paul George is applicable to Monta Ellis.

                          Comment


                          • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Absolutely. Paul George is and will continue to be an all-star player. He's honored his contract. What you're mad about is that he's going to walk away next summer and cost the Pacers their biggest asset. That's not George's problem. If the Pacers wanted to avoid that problem and extend his value, then yes they should have liquidated him long ago into more long term assets like draft picks or prospects on rookie contracts.

                            Easy to say on a message board when your opinion has no consequence. The Pacers have only had fans back for about five years after almost 10 years of being completely irrelevant. You usually don't gain fans by trading star players. This idea that the Pacers were supposed to be Dr. Freud and weigh all of his mixed signals is just laughable. This is a business. Trading stars for draft picks so that you can suck like Orlando has ever since Howard left is not something you ever want to do.

                            Sure people would be mad if he had left in a year as a FA, no one is disputing that. As it stands now, most are mad because he wants to leave AND because this whole spectacle has held the franchise hostage while creating a giant circus. There is an extra layer to it that has been clearly laid out time and time again by a billion different posters.

                            Comment


                            • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                              If the Pacers started talking trade a year ago, most NBA teams would not have given two ***** what Paul George thought. That's 2 full years of a superstar with (presumably) a plan in place to change his mind. Here's your bushel of draft picks/prospects for your top-15 player, thanks for doing business.

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Easy to say on a message board when your opinion has no consequence. The Pacers have only had fans back for about five years after almost 10 years of being completely irrelevant. You usually don't gain fans by trading star players. This idea that the Pacers were supposed to be Dr. Freud and weigh all of his mixed signals is just laughable. This is a business. Trading stars for draft picks so that you can suck like Orlando has ever since Howard left is not something you ever want to do.
                              Baseball teams learned decades ago how to compete when they were way more financially outmatched than small market NBA teams are now. You don't fight the system, you make it work to your advantage by turning your high priced soon-to-be free agents that you probably can't keep into cheap, long term prospects and win by developing young talent. Pretending like the Pacers were going to fold if they dealt Paul George is just absurd.

                              And if your player is sending you mixed signals, that's the time to press the panic button.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 06-30-2017, 06:52 PM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: George informs Pacers of intent to Leave: Woj

                                I think we have every right to be pissed at PG for leaking he only wants to play for one team while we are trying to trade him. I have no idea how arguing that what he's done is technically not breaking his contract changes that, who the **** cares? It's a move that completely ****s over the Pacers and gives us every right to be livid with the guy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X