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

Kevin Pritchard

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

  • ksuttonjr76
    replied
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

    Woj actually talks about deal with Bogdanovic almost done and how Pacers thought it was done deal until Utah came out of nowhere and stole him.

    Seriously the podcasts are there to listen to it’s not that hard.
    That was the same impression that I got too when I watched the one video. Bojan was pretty much a done deal (as well as Rubio) until Utah came and offered him more money. This wasn't a case where the Pacers were "hoping" that no one would offer him more money. Brogdan was actually Plan B, and I do believe that TJ Warren was supposed to be the backup SF. Personally, I'm not too upset, because we ended up getting a bigger and younger PG with Plan B.

    Leave a comment:


  • vnzla81
    replied
    Originally posted by owl View Post
    Panicked indicates you had no other plan. That is clearly wrong. And I am certain that the Pacers had an idea someone was going to throw big money at Bogie
    That was COMMON knowledge. So there strategy was well mapped out ahead of time. No panic at all, just move onto plan B which was pretty good.
    Woj actually talks about deal with Bogdanovic almost done and how Pacers thought it was done deal until Utah came out of nowhere and stole him.

    Seriously the podcasts are there to listen to it’s not that hard.

    Leave a comment:


  • owl
    replied
    Panicked indicates you had no other plan. That is clearly wrong. And I am certain that the Pacers had an idea someone was going to throw big money at Bogie
    That was COMMON knowledge. So there strategy was well mapped out ahead of time. No panic at all, just move onto plan B which was pretty good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ichi
    replied
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

    Woj and Brian explained the whole timeline very clearly so I know what I'm talking about.

    Plan A was Rubio/Bogdanovic and once Utah came out of nowhere to offer Bogdanovic all that money (Pacers offer was 3/53) that plan was gone, according to woj Pacers (panicked) and moved quickly to get Brogdon (woj says they did it in 24 hours).

    Thanks you Utah
    Someone posted a clip of Rachel Nichols, Chris Mullin, others breaking down our first two FA moves the other day, and I believe they said we had already been sure about Brogdon a day or two before FA moratorium started. Haven't seen much of what Woj, Shams, or others have said, but I don't recall Bogie to Utah being a sure thing so early. Then again, maybe it was and was just not out yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • vnzla81
    replied
    Originally posted by imawhat View Post

    If true, our plan Bs have worked out better for us, IMO.

    Our '17 plan A was Galinari and Jrue Holiday to keep PG. I think Vic/Sabonis/Bogey/CoJo was much better. I also prefer our '19 plan B, but Bogey over Lamb + Warren would be even nicer.
    No doubt, plan B was way better than the original one.

    Leave a comment:


  • imawhat
    replied
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

    Woj and Brian explained the whole timeline very clearly so I know what I'm talking about.

    Plan A was Rubio/Bogdanovic and once Utah came out of nowhere to offer Bogdanovic all that money (Pacers offer was 3/53) that plan was gone, according to woj Pacers (panicked) and moved quickly to get Brogdon (woj says they did it in 24 hours).

    Thanks you Utah
    If true, our plan Bs have worked out better for us, IMO.

    Our '17 plan A was Galinari and Jrue Holiday to keep PG. I think Vic/Sabonis/Bogey/CoJo was much better. I also prefer our '19 plan B, but Bogey over Lamb + Warren would be even nicer.

    Leave a comment:


  • imawhat
    replied
    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Let me state this here.

    Kevin Prithcard had one of the worst if not the worst off season free agent periods last summer we've ever had. Not only because every player was a bust (O'Quinn being the only exception) but because of expectations. We had more money than anyone at the time. Now I'm sure some (BillS) will jump in here to say this was by design because this was the summer they were shooting for, which no matter if it was by design or accident was true. However IMO he did a masterful job of drafting talent at lower levels. I am a Holiday fan and I really want to believe in Alize Johnson (neither may work out but I can dream)
    Last year's free agent class sucked. No Brogdon this year if we'd gone after an Aaron Gordon or if Will Barton had wanted to come here.

    Our offseason last year was still terrible, no doubt about it. But I'd rather have a terrible offseason when there's a crappy FA class and then have a good offseason when the FA class is strong. That's what we were able to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • vnzla81
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
    You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Woj and Brian explained the whole timeline very clearly so I know what I'm talking about.

    Plan A was Rubio/Bogdanovic and once Utah came out of nowhere to offer Bogdanovic all that money (Pacers offer was 3/53) that plan was gone, according to woj Pacers (panicked) and moved quickly to get Brogdon (woj says they did it in 24 hours).

    Thanks you Utah

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose Slaughter
    replied
    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • vnzla81
    replied
    We should all give a big thanks to Utah for removing Pritchards plan A off the table, thank you Utah.

    Leave a comment:


  • ksuttonjr76
    replied
    Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post

    The Doug signing early was what made last season bad. On paper, the moves looked good (we needed shooting signed a shooter, needed someone that would take some heat off Vic we got Evans who was doing great the year before). But in RL, both players flopped. I don't think Doug is a bad player, but the Pacers didn't have the system right for him.
    I'm going to give Doug one more year. Like I said in another thread, on paper and based on his advanced stats, Doug did exactly what was expected on him, but the EYE TEST said he sucked, lol. Let's see what happens this season, then maybe think about trading him at the deadline.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrwannabe
    replied
    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Let me state this here.

    Kevin Prithcard had one of the worst if not the worst off season free agent periods last summer we've ever had. Not only because every player was a bust (O'Quinn being the only exception) but because of expectations. We had more money than anyone at the time. Now I'm sure some (BillS) will jump in here to say this was by design because this was the summer they were shooting for, which no matter if it was by design or accident was true. However IMO he did a masterful job of drafting talent at lower levels. I am a Holiday fan and I really want to believe in Alize Johnson (neither may work out but I can dream).

    Contrast that with this.

    This summer Kevin Pritchard has had the single best off season that I can ever think of as a Pacers fan. It could be that my expectations were so low he had to hit but it doesn't matter, he hit the mark no matter what. Also we have what appears to be a draft pick that might be able to actually play. I'm not buying the top tier prospect till I see him play, not because I don't believe them I just have no idea who this guy is.

    In other words this off season has kicked ***.

    Hell I'm so happy about it here are some dancing bananas.
    The Doug signing early was what made last season bad. On paper, the moves looked good (we needed shooting signed a shooter, needed someone that would take some heat off Vic we got Evans who was doing great the year before). But in RL, both players flopped. I don't think Doug is a bad player, but the Pacers didn't have the system right for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • RamBo_Lamar
    replied
    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Let me state this here.

    Kevin Prithcard had one of the worst if not the worst off season free agent periods last summer we've ever had. Not only because every player was a bust (O'Quinn being the only exception) but because of expectations. We had more money than anyone at the time. Now I'm sure some (BillS) will jump in here to say this was by design because this was the summer they were shooting for, which no matter if it was by design or accident was true. However IMO he did a masterful job of drafting talent at lower levels. I am a Holiday fan and I really want to believe in Alize Johnson (neither may work out but I can dream).

    Contrast that with this.

    This summer Kevin Pritchard has had the single best off season that I can ever think of as a Pacers fan. It could be that my expectations were so low he had to hit but it doesn't matter, he hit the mark no matter what. Also we have what appears to be a draft pick that might be able to actually play. I'm not buying the top tier prospect till I see him play, not because I don't believe them I just have no idea who this guy is.

    In other words this off season has kicked ***.



    Leave a comment:


  • Peck
    replied
    Let me state this here.

    Kevin Prithcard had one of the worst if not the worst off season free agent periods last summer we've ever had. Not only because every player was a bust (O'Quinn being the only exception) but because of expectations. We had more money than anyone at the time. Now I'm sure some (BillS) will jump in here to say this was by design because this was the summer they were shooting for, which no matter if it was by design or accident was true. However IMO he did a masterful job of drafting talent at lower levels. I am a Holiday fan and I really want to believe in Alize Johnson (neither may work out but I can dream).

    Contrast that with this.

    This summer Kevin Pritchard has had the single best off season that I can ever think of as a Pacers fan. It could be that my expectations were so low he had to hit but it doesn't matter, he hit the mark no matter what. Also we have what appears to be a draft pick that might be able to actually play. I'm not buying the top tier prospect till I see him play, not because I don't believe them I just have no idea who this guy is.

    In other words this off season has kicked ***.

    Hell I'm so happy about it here are some dancing bananas.

    Leave a comment:


  • bumpercar3
    replied
    Originally posted by docpaul View Post

    Agree fully with the spirit of what you've written, but curious: why would you get fired for having traded Bogie, an expiring contract, for Markelle Fultz? Do we know that Fultz is definitely a bust?
    We could have got more than Fultz. Fultz is a dodo bird clown. I would go to games just to watch him air ball lay ups and shoot hilarious FTs. I guess he has value from a pure comedic perspective.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X