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

Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

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

  • #46
    Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

    Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
    Be prepared for next off-season. GRIII has the same agent.
    Trade GRIII now

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

      Originally posted by immortality View Post
      What to you want them to do man? Do you think Houston is going to beat Warriors? Do you think we are actually going to beat LeBron? KP was being pragmatic as well as trying to be competitive as possible. Perhaps that's too complex for you to understand.
      Houston sure as hell is doing everything they can to try and beat GS.

      It won't matter lol but they're trying. It def sounds like PGs camp soured on KPs FA plan and wanted out

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Houston sure as hell is doing everything they can to try and beat GS.

        It won't matter lol but they're trying. It def sounds like PGs camp soured on KPs FA plan and wanted out
        That's the thing, unless we get Lebron James, or another MVP caliber player, there is no way the Pacers beat either Warriors or Cavs. How is that the Pacers fault? Props to Celtics getting Hayward, but they won one game against the Cavs, that was because Marcus Smart went 8/9 on 3's. Will Hayward actually make them go over the hump ?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Gallo (20mil) and Jrue (20/25mil) Hayward at 30 was not possible. (needed a PG)
          Stretch waive Monta and they'd gain, what, almost $9m more in space? Also could have stretched Al. It was possible.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            Sabonis has gotten a lot of mileage out of being the token starter on that 47 win Russy show last year.
            I guess I get it, but it's a little rough to me to dismiss Sabonis because of those circumstances. If he was garbage they would have just gone with someone else, no?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I suspect it will be awhile before we make any deals with Boston
              Did the rumor really harm the Pacers though? Seems to me having that rumor out there gave the Pacers an attempt at some leverage.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                He did explain one thing about draft picks that I really liked. He's not that big on draft picks, because he want players now and who already have NBA experience. Plus, he and Nate went through that in Portland, and they already know it's a long, undesirable experience.
                That confirms that Portland did offer their picks for PG. Draft picks increase the possibilities of getting good players, which is important to small market teams. The Warriors, Spurs, and Thunder are perfect examples of building through the draft.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                  Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                  I thought the tail end of this was interesting. JMV asked what his expectations were for this season and Pritch said (paraphrasing) "we want to build something here. Play the right way, play our young guys, and the wins will come in time. Not concerned about wins and losses right now."

                  He said nothing about the playoffs.

                  I think we're closer to "rebuilding" than some people think.
                  I think no matter what direction they took things after Paul's exodus it was going to be about taking at least a step or two backward. The only question was what philosophy were they going to have for taking new steps forward. As he said at the press conference, they looked at multiple ways to go, including bottoming out, and made their choice. I'm sure Herb Simon had influence on it as well. I think it's a debatable, but fair, choice they've made. It's not set in stone that they are doomed to mediocrity for going this route.

                  We've seen this same franchise ascend to something better than that going this way once before, but even still it's a 'rebuild' no matter what to get things started because Paul's departure mandated it unless they magically could have gotten dollar for dollar value in a trade.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Stretch waive Monta and they'd gain, what, almost $9m more in space? Also could have stretched Al. It was possible.
                    I'm looking at 47mil by stretching Al/Monta and renouncing everybody, Jrue/Hayward are 55mil together, very hard thing to do.


                    Now Gallo/Jrue was going to be 45mil, 2 mil under the 47 I was talking about.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                      Im surprised no reporter has asked him about Hayward

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                        Getting superstar draft pick(s) is the only way Indiana is going to win a title...no free agent of superstar significance is going to sign there unless the team is already a good contender...Gordon Hayward didn't even talk to the Pacers and he's a local guy.

                        The Warriors got to where they are through the draft, Golden State was not a destination over the Lakers or Heat until they built a title team. They got a 7th pick superstar, an 11th pick sharpshooter and hit gold in the 2nd round...also Harrison Barnes was a decent player at 7 as well until they dumped him for Durant.

                        If the draft talents are strong enough, somebody may end up showing up to put the final piece in the puzzle.

                        Overall it seemed like the proposals were pretty garbage though I think the Cleveland avenue was always available and there would've been a better package for Love than PG imo...Nuggets and Suns had interest in him but I don't think Indiana was ever going to do PG a favor like that.
                        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                        ----------------- Reggie Miller

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                          Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                          Im surprised no reporter has asked him about Hayward
                          Nobody outside of PD thought that was even an option

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                            You never know fact from fiction in NBA rumors but I did read that Boston requested to speak with Paul and we turned them down. I still don't see any reason that we should have rushed to this trade and not given Boston permission to speak with Paul. Just because they didn't make a firm offer doesn't mean that they wouldn't have since they wanted to wait until they signed Hayward first. I still think it would have been worth waiting to see if we could have pryed either the Brooklyn or Lakers pick from them for Paul and I'd take that pick on a rookie scale that has a chance on becoming a franchise player over Oladipo on his contract who has no chance of being that level of player.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I'm looking at 47mil by stretching Al/Monta and renouncing everybody, Jrue/Hayward are 55mil together, very hard thing to do.


                              Now Gallo/Jrue was going to be 45mil, 2 mil under the 47 I was talking about.
                              In that scenario I think they get Hayward (assuming he was willing to come here in this scenario) and use the remaining 17m or whatever elsewhere and feel good about it. Actually, in that case they probably just re-sign Teague since they can go over the cap for him. So use the rest on something else.

                              In that case they'd have Teague, Paul George, Hayward, Young, and Myles, so use it to shore up the bench with FAs or trades.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pritchard on JMV show. Celtics never made an offer - pure fabrication, if they offered what was reported, we take it

                                Another takeaway from the interview is that a couple more moves are coming pretty soon. We'll see.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X