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

Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

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

  • #31
    Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

    We have nice potential frontline with Shawne, Ike and Danny, IMHO that I would LOVE to see Bynum in Blue and gold next year, its a big if but if Karim Rush can keep his summer league momentum we'd have two good shooters in Marquis and Karim, the bad news is that AI wannabe Tinsley, I hope JOB can get him to hustle and show that he can run an NBA offense, however the Celtics have improved, the Hawks are getting better and we play in the toughest division in the Eastern Conference. We're lottery bound this year, but hopefully with a ping-pong ball miracle we'll get OJ Mayo and then we will be on the upside.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Although I would much rather see Baby Bynum in a Pacer uniform, I think the RJeff/Krstic trade would result immediate improvement....and if offered, there is NO doubt at all that we will take that deal.

      RJ is an all-star level talent in his own right and would average 18-20ppg for the Pacers playing SG. He is probably a top 30-40 player in the league.

      Krstic has already proven that he will be one of the better centers in the east and will easily average 15-18ppg. Just in his 3rd season at the tender age of 23, he averaged 16.4ppg after increasing his production nicely each year since the beginning of his career in the NBA. He is already better than Brad Miller ever was and will make a fine center.

      No, neither of these players are as good as JO. JO is a top 20 player if healthy. However, I think they fit our needs better right now and particularly in the future as JO ages. BTW, RJ and esp. Krstic are much younger.

      The only concern I have is our interior defense. We really do need a shot-blocking presence in there...not shotblocking, just the threat of it. Ike, Murphy, Foster and Krstic are NOT shot-blockers at all. Harrison cannot be relied upon.
      I agree with you that RJeff is a solid player that can probably achieve the level of scoring that you suggest.....while ignoring that I think that he is more of a SF then a SG along with the fact that TPTB does the same ( since we play SFs at the SG rotation anyway ).....the problem isn't with what he brings to the court....its the fact that he is owed about $14mil for each season until the 2010-2011 season.

      I wouldn't mind getting Krstic which would add to our young core of Granger, Ike and Shawne....but the problem is that we are still in a financial bind ESPECIALLY after adding RJeff's long term ( and huge contract ) to Tinsley, Dunleavy's and Murphy's contracts.

      Unless there isn't much of a concern to resign all 4 players and we take a "let's burn that bridge when we get to it" mentality....adding RJeff does not allow for any type of financial flexiblility to resign anybody that we draft...much less any of our young players that we do want to keep. I don't think that we are going to easily move any of those Huge Contracts that we have anytime soon...or at least not before we have to resign the young players that we want to keep.

      However, if we take a "let's win now" approach....then we can pick the best 2 players from our core of players....and then move the rest in S&Ts.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

        Originally posted by SoCalPacers View Post
        We're lottery bound this year, but hopefully with a ping-pong ball miracle we'll get OJ Mayo and then we will be on the upside.
        I don't believe in miracles anymore....Stern and the Pacers have destroyed all hope that I have.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

          Lakers should be included they are a sinking ship.
          "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I agree with you that RJeff is a solid player that can probably achieve the level of scoring that you suggest.....while ignoring that I think that he is more of a SF then a SG along with the fact that TPTB does the same ( since we play SFs at the SG rotation anyway ).....the problem isn't with what he brings to the court....its the fact that he is owed about $14mil for each season until the 2010-2011 season.

            I wouldn't mind getting Krstic which would add to our young core of Granger, Ike and Shawne....but the problem is that we are still in a financial bind ESPECIALLY after adding RJeff's long term ( and huge contract ) to Tinsley, Dunleavy's and Murphy's contracts.

            Unless there isn't much of a concern to resign all 4 players and we take a "let's burn that bridge when we get to it" mentality....adding RJeff does not allow for any type of financial flexiblility to resign anybody that we draft...much less any of our young players that we do want to keep. I don't think that we are going to easily move any of those Huge Contracts that we have anytime soon...or at least not before we have to resign the young players that we want to keep.

            However, if we take a "let's win now" approach....then we can pick the best 2 players from our core of players....and then move the rest in S&Ts.
            Great points on the contract situation. It does hurt our flexibility...and that is one of the reasons I prefer the LA deal. But there are a few reasons I would trade with NJ if the LA deal falls through.

            First, we are not contending anyway for literally years due to those bad contracts. JO is not getting us there for sure. We should at least try to win a few more games for a couple years. What it comes down to is, I think we are better with Krstic and RJ than JO.

            Second, BOTH Shawne and Danny do not fit in the starting lineup. One will need to be moved if both deserve to start. Most people like them both, but I think one is gone after this year depending on what TPTB longer term plans are.

            Third, Ike is just potential right now. There are several holes in his game and he is a very undersized PF for a franchise that wants to compete for a championship. Until he plays like Elton Brand, I suspect his tenure will be short here. If he shows he can dominate the block this year, we may have a good problem. Then, we will probably need to make a call whether to keep Krstic or Ike...and hopefully make a clever deal to recover from that spot. ...but if Ike does not make major improvements, his value drops and we re-sign him on the cheap.

            In any event, we sacrifice Quis and Foster to keep 2 of the 4 among Granger, Krstic, Williams and Ike. Then we have 4 HUGE valuable expiring contracts to re-engineer the team. In the meantime over the next couple years, this trade keeps the Pacers in Indy and probably in the playoffs.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

              BlueNGold-

              'Keeps the Pacers in Indy' ? Do you know something we don't
              or what ?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                I like Martin. Do we mean head to head or is it record against the league because then the West teams are at such a disadvantage?

                Sac fitting together wise, thanks to a scoring PG and Ron is in trouble in my opinion.
                I just meant team situation,I think that sactown has alot more options than the pacers.
                LoneGranger33 said
                Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?

                  Minnesota - KG > JO and their bad contracts aren't nearly as bad as your Bermuda triangle (Troy, Dun, Tins). As a Laker fan, I'd trade Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Farmar for KG and their 3 worst contracts if possible. OTOH, I'd only trade 2 out of Odom, Bynum, and Kwame for JO and Tinsley. I wouldn't take Dunleavy or Troy under any circumstance. Brewer may end up being just as valuable as Granger down the line. Foye > Williams at this point. I like Ike's potential, but based on what I've read, I don't think his value is very high right now.

                  SAC - Their bad contracts aren't as bad either. Kevin Martin is comparable to Granger in value. However, they don't have anybody half as valuable as JO. You've got them beat, but if JO opts out next year, all bets are off.

                  NY - Depends on Curry and Z coexisting and Marbury becoming less selfish. I don't count on either happening. Knicks will continue to be in luxury tax hell.

                  ATL - Clippers East but at least they aren't paying for it.

                  ORL - Not right now, but they will end up regretting the Rashard Lewis signing. He's hardly the kind of player that can carry a team on offense.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X