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

Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

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

  • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    why is the Granger trade still an issue. The Heat were better than the Pacers in 2013 and in 2014, whether Granger was traded or not. We weren't going to beat them whether we traded DG or not. So why is it an issue in 2017
    Chemistry. May not have played a role at all, but potentially a move that peeved off Paul George and made him question loyalty of the Pacers organization among a long list of other factors.
    Last edited by PR07; 07-05-2017, 04:29 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      Chemistry. May not have played a role at all, but potentially a move that peeved off Paul George and made him question loyalty of the Pacers organization among a long list of other factors.
      4 years later it was a factor. I doubt that

      Comment


      • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        4 years later it was a factor. I doubt that
        I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but I think it could've factored into PG wanting out along with:

        1) Wanting to play in his hometown
        2) Not having an all-star here next to him
        3) Not being "kept in the loop" at the trade deadline
        4) Trading George Hill
        5) Letting Frank Vogel go

        Comment


        • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          I know. But the entitlement of fans or customers that think they're paying for them just because they happen to live in the same area where they work is quite similar.
          Nowhere did I say, demanded or show that I had a right or privilege. All I ever said is that I believe that the NBA should have franchise tags, as the franchise player is awe so invested by the community, yet the player can walk away in a whim and leave the invested community with nothing. Now if anyone has an entitlement here, its not me and its definitely not you that doesn't pay taxes for the Pacers to be here, its the NBA player and the owner that continue to show the entitlements.

          Its amazing how one can make a simple statement and it can blossom into a bunch of crap that has zero to do with the original statement. WTG!

          Definition of entitlement
          1
          a :* the state or condition of being entitled :* right
          b :* a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
          2
          :* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also :* funds supporting or distributed by such a program
          3
          :* belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

          Comment


          • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
            Nowhere did I say, demanded or show that I had a right or privilege. All I ever said is that I believe that the NBA should have franchise tags, as the franchise player is awe so invested by the community, yet the player can walk away in a whim and leave the invested community with nothing. Now if anyone has an entitlement here, its not me and its definitely not you that doesn't pay taxes for the Pacers to be here, its the NBA player and the owner that continue to show the entitlements.

            Its amazing how one can make a simple statement and it can blossom into a bunch of crap that has zero to do with the original statement. WTG!

            Definition of entitlement
            1
            a :* the state or condition of being entitled :* right
            b :* a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
            2
            :* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also :* funds supporting or distributed by such a program
            3
            :* belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
            Look, I really don't an opinion on franchise tags. I know very little about them so I cannot comment on whether they'd be a good thing to have or not. I commented on this back and forth because of the following two posts:

            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
            Yea ok, but that's not my point, my point is the fans pay for the salaries, period. And the players can care less about the fans. Without fans they are nothing.
            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            This is a little like pointing your finger at a public servant and saying "I pay your salary." While technically true, you don't necessarily speak for nearly enough people to have any real authority in the matter.
            The people who lash out at public servants and say "I pay your salary" are indeed entitled. I think that the parallel with these people and the fans who say "I pay for those stars" is valid enough. Therefore, I considered Kstat's reply logical enough. That's what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on franchise tags.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
              No way in hell PG re-signs with OKC. PG is already a robin, but not in his own mind. Westbrook will prove PG is a robin and PG will want no part of it very long. Playing second fiddle with a ball dominant star.
              Well your point would be valid if PG had any interest in OKC to begin with beyond this season sure its a better situation than playing for this team for another season. He might actually make a playoff run. But why do you assume that PG is really going to be upset either way he knows its Westbrook's team and he probably doesn't care because he's set on going to L.A. for all you know this whole season could be one long recruitment process for Westbrook to the Lakers or something.

              Comment


              • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                Look, I really don't an opinion on franchise tags. I know very little about them so I cannot comment on whether they'd be a good thing to have or not. I commented on this back and forth because of the following two posts:





                The people who lash out at public servants and say "I pay your salary" are indeed entitled. I think that the parallel with these people and the fans who say "I pay for those stars" is valid enough. Therefore, I considered Kstat's reply logical enough. That's what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on franchise tags.
                Well his comment was off base from my original post. He was making more out of it then need be. Then you intervene and support his ridiculous statement. Then say crap as I am acting like a fan with entitlement, blows my mind.
                Last edited by Pacer Fan; 07-05-2017, 06:50 PM.
                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                Comment


                • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                  Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                  Well his comment was off base from my original post. He was making more out of it then need be. Then you intervene and support his ridiculous statement.
                  Again, the post of yours I quoted above does say quite literally that your point was that the fans pay for the salaries. I don't believe that it's off base to make the comparison after a statement like that.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Well at least there are some new teams in the final four
                    These were the same exact teams over a month ago.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Again, the post of yours I quoted above does say quite literally that your point was that the fans pay for the salaries. I don't believe that it's off base to make the comparison after a statement like that.
                      Whatever, turn it, twist it all the hell you want,
                      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                      Comment


                      • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        Well your point would be valid if PG had any interest in OKC to begin with beyond this season sure its a better situation than playing for this team for another season. He might actually make a playoff run. But why do you assume that PG is really going to be upset either way he knows its Westbrook's team and he probably doesn't care because he's set on going to L.A. for all you know this whole season could be one long recruitment process for Westbrook to the Lakers or something.
                        We're talking about the same dude who made a scene on the court and complained about CJ Miles taking (arguably) a wide open shot during the playoffs. To me, Paul George wants to be "The Man" so bad, but he doesn't know how to. Then he complains in the media about what's going on. Let's be real for a moment....does RW look like the type of player who's going to keep his mouth if PG does something out of line or tries to play the game like it's his team? Let's see what happens the first time Paul George takes a contested shot when RW had the better shot. How does that saying go...

                        You thought you was Billy Badass until you met Billy Badass.


                        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: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          We're talking about the same dude who made a scene on the court and complained about CJ Miles taking (arguably) a wide open shot during the playoffs. To me, Paul George wants to be "The Man" so bad, but he doesn't know how to. Then he complains in the media about what's going on. Let's be real for a moment....does RW look like the type of player who's going to keep his mouth if PG does something out of line or tries to play the game like it's his team? Let's see what happens the first time Paul George takes a contested shot when RW had the better shot. How does that saying go...

                          You thought you was Billy Badass until you met Billy Badass.

                          Paul George in OKC is a one year rental he has no attachment or obligation to them beyond this season. Common sense would tell you why would he care about how things are in OKC if he isn't going to be there beyond this season.

                          I also think Billy Donovan is a better coach than Nate McMillan so I doubt it would get to that point and if it did it won't matter because he's not long term in OKC anyways.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                            Whatever, turn it, twist it all the hell you want,
                            Again, I have to clarify that I'm not trying to accuse you of anything or twist it to make you look bad. All I'm saying is that I see the connection between the two arguments and personally I disagree with both.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Paul George in OKC is a one year rental he has no attachment or obligation to them beyond this season. Common sense would tell you why would he care about how things are in OKC if he isn't going to be there beyond this season.

                              I also think Billy Donovan is a better coach than Nate McMillan so I doubt it would get to that point and if it did it won't matter because he's not long term in OKC anyways.
                              So you're saying he's going to play for OKC like he did for Indiana until about March?


                              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: Gordon Hayward signs with the Celtics

                                There is something I do not understand. All I have read for 24 hours is how the Celtics have to clear salary in order to sign Heyward. Kelly, O and now they are looking for some team to take Smart, Crowder and Bradley. OK, then how were the Celtics going to trade for PG? If they have to clear space to sign Heyward, then how could they also acquire PG's $19M salary. What am I missing?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X