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

The Pacers ownership and front office are either incapable or not willing to make the decisions that will bring us a championship.

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

  • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

    15 years ago the Pacers went 61-21 giving the team the number 1 seed in the East and the best record in the NBA. We had two All-Stars that year in Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal. JO was 2nd team All-NBA and 3rd in MVP voting. Artest was 3rd team All-NBA and 1st team All-Defense. 2 players that we would later sign or trade for were 2nd team All-Rookie.
    Yes, did you forget thr part where they gavd Brad Millrr to the Sacramento Kings for the worthless pile that was Scot Pollard. Because they didnt want to pay him?
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • I’m also confused by people complaining about last off-season. These are one year deals, stop gap players... duh. Exactly.

      There were no big, great moves to make. They don’t fall from the sky or grow on trees. If there’s no move to make you reload and maintain flexibility so you can make the RIGHT move in the future.

      I’d love to here all the complainers here if this team had gone the Charlotte Hornets route and locked in on a bunch of mediocre talent for years and years, is that considered building toward something?

      Pritchard has done this 100% correctly, if the move isn’t there you reload and wait, maintain flexibility. Most of this is luck and you have to be ready when the opportunity presents itself.

      The alternative is being Kstat trying to talk yourself into Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. Oh hey look! We signed people... how did that turn out?
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

        Yes, did you forget thr part where they gavd Brad Millrr to the Sacramento Kings for the worthless pile that was Scot Pollard. Because they didnt want to pay him?
        No, but I did forget the part where you are an idiot.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
          I’m also confused by people complaining about last off-season. These are one year deals, stop gap players... duh. Exactly.

          There were no big, great moves to make. They don’t fall from the sky or grow on trees. If there’s no move to make you reload and maintain flexibility so you can make the RIGHT move in the future.

          I’d love to here all the complainers here if this team had gone the Charlotte Hornets route and locked in on a bunch of mediocre talent for years and years, is that considered building toward something?

          Pritchard has done this 100% correctly, if the move isn’t there you reload and wait, maintain flexibility. Most of this is luck and you have to be ready when the opportunity presents itself.

          The alternative is being Kstat trying to talk yourself into Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. Oh hey look! We signed people... how did that turn out?
          I think that people look at RFAs like Aaron Gordon and UFAs like Will Barton this offseason, and think that because we didn't sign them we somehow failed to have a good free agency.

          The truth of the matter is that in both of those cases, there wasn't really an option to sign them away unless we wanted to woefully overpay them. Which is less an issue of being frugal and more an issue of cap flexibility. I think in Gordon's case, there was mutual interest, but that was really only possible if Thaddeus declined his player option.

          I'm hoping what will tilt the scales in our direction is being a true contender. That, and cap flexibility. That will encourage folks on the fence to take a hard look at us.

          This probably sounds cold, but I look at Bogie, Young, and Collison as expiring contracts that should be on the market for the right price. All focus should be on adding as much raw talent as possible, especially at the 1 and the 3.

          I'm going to believe for now that if there's no trades, it's because they can't advance their long term future with any of the options on the table.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            No, but I did forget the part where you are an idiot.
            That's not cool. ;( Disagreeing isn't grounds for attacks like that.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

              Yes, did you forget thr part where they gavd Brad Millrr to the Sacramento Kings for the worthless pile that was Scot Pollard. Because they didnt want to pay him?
              Being a GM is way easier in retrospect.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by docpaul View Post

                I think that people look at RFAs like Aaron Gordon and UFAs like Will Barton this offseason, and think that because we didn't sign them we somehow failed to have a good free agency.
                Have we ever gone after any RFA? Maybe we did earlier in the franchise's history but we definitely haven't gone after any RFA in this decade. I don't think that expecting us to go after an RFA is realistic. If people are disappointed about not going after an RFA then they probably haven't been paying enough attention.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • https://www.nbadraft.net/players/eric-paschall

                  I want this guy on the Pacers. Brutally strong and can score and rebound and defend at a decent level.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by docpaul View Post

                    That's not cool. ;( Disagreeing isn't grounds for attacks like that.
                    If it was simply a disagreement I would not have made such a comment.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      No, but I did forget the part where you are an idiot.
                      I forgot how friendly you are
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by docpaul View Post

                        Being a GM is way easier in retrospect.
                        Cmon man everyone was confused by that trade, at the time. And it was made by the cheap owner. We still had a very good team but it sure didnt help us to give away our starting center, thats all Im saying.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                          I am glad that people on Pacers Digest are not the one's making decisions. We would be at the bottom of the league, out of the playoffs and probably sold to someone who would move the team.
                          We could be the Phoenix Suns, still struggling to make it back to the Playoffs. They've gone through a bunch of lottery picks over the past 8 yeare and they're still spinning their wheels at the bottom of the NBA. The Bulls are still horriBull, the Knicks made a lot of risky trades and one bad injury has really changed their trajectory.

                          Complain all you want but building a championship team isn't easy and you usually doesn't happen without a top 4 draft pick. Well, the Pacers have a #2 draft pick on the roster. They actually have two of them (even though Tyreke's not playing like one). It's not like they aren't trying to build towards anything. So far, they're getting good results. If they can add a Kenna Walker or a Mike Conley, they definitely should do it. But if they have to trade Sabonis or Turner, they might be taking a step back considering how well those two have been playing.

                          ​​​

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post

                            You can look at the Utah Jazz as the model western conference mirror franchise to the Pacers. Not a destination, but manages to stay competitive consistently without tanking. The Jazz, much like the Pacers, have had a few near brushes but just fell a hair short. I look at the Jazz and the Pacers as near the model of what you do in a small non-destination market. They haven’t won, but they’ve come damn close and nearly always in the conference finals mix.

                            Its almost like all the people whining that the owner won’t take risks to contend had some sort of memory blackout in the early 2000s, where we took on talented but combustible personalities in an attempt to win one for Uncle Reg. It nearly worked... but instead blew up in our faces and resulted in the Pacers worst stretch of play since the 1980s.

                            Those were moves that were high risk that carried high potential rewards, and this wasn’t even that long ago. I don’t understand where this “ownership won’t take risks” stuff is coming from.

                            I firmly believe the complainers in this thread would be complaining regardless of the circumstances. It’s just a result of a general pessimistic and miserable outlook. What really is the alternative? Endless tanking? You really want to trade places with the Minnesota Timberwolves? Who has that even worked for?

                            Before someone says it, Golden State’s key players were all drafted outside the top 6. With Klay outside the top 10 and Draymond second round. Philly has yet to achieve anything (no more than recent good Pacers squads, 3 different ones over a 25 year span) who is the great tanking success story? There’s sure plenty of failure stories to go around.

                            If we aren’t doing it with a tank or a big time marquee free agent signing (which isn’t happening, and it has zero to do with Herb’s desire to spend) what exactly is the suggestion here? Make moves for the sake of making moves? Precisely what crappily run franchises do. Ugh.

                            Im not sure I’m properly summarizing my thoughts here but this thread kinda blows my mind, the team is pretty good and well positioned to succeed in the future unlike 80% of NBA franchises and I feel like I stumbled onto the Bizzareo Earth.
                            Perfectly sums up my feelings. They traded a very solid All-Star caliber PF/C for a skinny Forward straight out of high school. They make it to the Finals the very next year. They broke up the team that went to the NBA Finals, traded a fan favorite for a raw backup Center, let their starting PG to walk in Free Agency, and then one year later they traded their leading scorer and picks for some young prospects. All we're risky decisions. Later they traded another fan favorite forward for a SG with a reputation for being a hothead all so they could go all in against the Pistons and win a championship.

                            When it all blew up in their faces, they improvised and traded their selfish forward with mental issuesifor s sweet shooting SF from Europe to try to stay competitive.

                            Skip ahead about 6 years and they traded a #15 draft pick for an up and coming PG. That #15 pick would go onto become a Finals MVP.

                            Saying they haven't made any risky trades or moves to build a championship caliber team is just wrong. Many of the moves didn't work out. Those are the breaks. That's the NBA. That's sports. Reggie Miller said it best. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

                            Comment


                            • All that stuff is 15+ years ago, except the Leonard-Hill trade, which was a boneheaded, short sighted trade. George Hill was not gonna tip the scale in our favor, and everyone knew that. So why give up a prospect like Kawhi Leonard?

                              The funny part about that trade is Kawhi wouldve given us a much better chance against Miami than George Hill ever did. His defense against Wade and Lebron James wouldve been a huge asset in those series.

                              Its mind boggling that they get a pass for that with the bulk of the fanbase. Their job is to evaluate talent and determine its worth, and they obviously didnt bother to evaluate Kawhi properly.

                              I am more concerned with recent history, like our All NBA SF saying he wanted out and forcing a rebuild? Or the countless crap signings that have occured? Because there hasnt been much that wasnt forced on them. They signed a couple guys last year I like a lot, but they are just role players for the bench IMO. Nothing of significance outside of the OKC trade whatsoever.

                              I loved the Myles Turner pick. I was on here hyping him leading up to the draft and was extatic when they made the pick.

                              I even liked the TJ Leaf pick. Honestly, I still do. But they havent developed him, IMO.

                              I liked the Aaron Holiday pick. I like Alize Johnson, I like Edmund Sumner as well. I just feel the odds of any of these guys actually turning us into a juggernaut are pretty slim.

                              And, thats 5 guys and 4 of them arent getting much of a chance to play. And Im not sure we are that great at developing our young guys anymore.

                              I mean I could go on, but I dont want to make Eleazars' head explode.
                              Last edited by Taterhead; 01-23-2019, 06:22 AM.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                All that stuff is 15+ years ago, except the Leonard-Hill trade, which was a boneheaded, short sighted trade. George Hill was not gonna tip the scale in our favor, and everyone knew that. So why give up a prospect like Kawhi Leonard?
                                So much revisionist history...
                                The reason they gave up Kawhi, to the extent that they did, was they already had a raw, athletic wing who was primarily known for defense and taken from a small school in a small conference backing their all-everything SF/face of the franchise at the time. There was no way to predict Danny's career altering and ultimately ending series of knee injuries at the time. The Pacers adding veteran help (in the way of Hill and later that year David West) were more important at the time than adding another developmental piece. The Pacers went from a fiesty first round exit (at the hands of the 1 seed Bulls) that was ranked 23rd on offense and 12th on defense to a team that took the eventual champs to 6 hard-fought games (in the 2nd round) and finished the season 7th on offense and 9th on defense largely on the strength of the contribution of the aforementioned vets, along with growth from all three of Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Roy Hibbert. The next two seasons yielded even greater results, featuring the team making the Eastern Conference Finals and pushing the Heatles to 7 games the next season (and finishing as the NBA's number 1 defense by a country mile) and a 2nd consecutive trip to the ECF that ended in 6 games following a particularly rough patch of team chemistry following the now-infamous GQ shoot. (I say, in jest)

                                George Hill and David West's timely additions to the team took them from a scrappy 1st round out to a perennial contender overnight. San Antonio had an even greater degree of success with KL, but they were better prior to the trade. I know everything has to be defined in terms of who won and lost a trade now days, but I honestly don't think this particular trade was as lop-sided as it is pilloried for being by large portions of our fanbase. Knowing what we know now, I don't think many would argue that a top-5 player in the league would not be worth keeping but that is the nature of the incomplete information of an amateur draft.
                                Last edited by Drew46229; 01-23-2019, 02:47 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X