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

Kravitz: The Pacers are stuck in purgatory, and the NBA is to blame

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Kravitz next article is going to be titled "poor Pacers and poor owner they can't never catch a break NBA should just give them Kwahi back"


    Greg Doyel's article at about the same time "the city of Indianapolis should give more tax breaks to Pacers owner poor guy can't catch a break"


    J Michael's article "I have talked to a bunch of GM's and they all feel sorry for Pacers, they also told me that the Goga pick was a home run"
    Surely their editors would handle titling the articles and use proper punctuation. Right?! And also spell the first name of maybe the best player in the league correctly?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

      Who else was willing to offer Tobias the max? Did he even meet with other teams?
      I could be wrong, but I don't think Tobias was getting offered the max by any other teams. If Jimmy didn't go to Miami I doubt he would have received the max.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        And once again I have the receipts LOL

        (This is 2 years before Kwahi was drafted but yeah nobody knew he had knee issues GTFO)






        "bUt nObOdY sAw iT cOmInG"
        Is a player's immediate demise only limited to aching "knees"? What about "ruptured Achilles", or a "nagging quad", or a "small labrum tear", or a "torn ACL", or "strained groin", or what about the "worst ankles in sports". Should the Nets, Clippers, Warriors, or Lakers be concerned about some of their guys?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post

          I could be wrong, but I don't think Tobias was getting offered the max by any other teams. If Jimmy didn't go to Miami I doubt he would have received the max.
          I'm pretty sure that I've read multiple articles that pretty much considers Harris's contract to be the worse of the offseason.


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

            I'm pretty sure that I've read multiple articles that pretty much considers Harris's contract to be the worse of the offseason.
            Ok? It could be the worst contract in the history of organized sports but the article we are all responding to said we couldn't even get a meeting, to which most here are saying "cause Indiana lol". Yet now that is being refuted and it's suddenly not about Indiana at all anymore, it's about the money and how lucky we are to not have signed him? Why do people have such a hard time just being intellectually honest in these discussions and feel the need to constantly shift the goalposts

            Comment


            • #66
              Look as the one person here who hates it more than almost anyone I will tell you this. Vnzla81 had been saying for years that Danny's knees were going to be an issue. even in years that they weren't. He was even correct about it being a condition, not an injury. That being said, nobody knew he would go as fast as he did after the Hill-Leonard trade including Vnzla.

              I was with Hicks, Roaming Gnome, Doug, Diamond Dave & I think Naptown Seth might have been there all at Gnomes house and not a one of us were upset about that trade. In fact most of us looked at each other and kind of shrugged our shoulders and said "Yea that makes sense, we need a good point guard".

              NONE OF US knew what Kawhi Leornard would be. If I ever tell you I did I would be lying. We did have an all star in Granger, a great prospect in George and then we had Darren Collison at point. Darren at the time was worse than he was his second tenure with the team.

              Now as to the other stuff.

              I am going to admit ignorance here, what numerical value does a # 1 draft choice have in the overall scheme of a salary cap? I know they have some but I just don't know what it is.

              That being said I do not want to get into a pissing contest over trying to make this year sound worse than i think it was. I think this off season has been outstanding.

              But years ago when we were lining up this off season for all of that free agent money I can assure you that many of you were not thinking along the lines of Malcolm Brogdon, Jeremy Lamb, T.J. McCullum or T.J. Warren.

              You might have been smart enough to know it wasn't going to be Durrant or Leornard but I'm guessing someone somewhere was thinking an all star caliber player.

              But again to be clear, it was a great off season.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                You might have been smart enough to know it wasn't going to be Durrant or Leornard but I'm guessing someone somewhere was thinking an all star caliber player.
                You're saying Brogdon isn't an all-star caliber player? I mean, if that's not what you're saying, then getting Brogdon exactly fulfills what people were thinking in your example.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Wage View Post

                  Ok? It could be the worst contract in the history of organized sports but the article we are all responding to said we couldn't even get a meeting, to which most here are saying "cause Indiana lol". Yet now that is being refuted and it's suddenly not about Indiana at all anymore, it's about the money and how lucky we are to not have signed him? Why do people have such a hard time just being intellectually honest in these discussions and feel the need to constantly shift the goalposts
                  How many people are saying “cause IN”. Even Kravitz was clear that small markets with limited resources have to be very careful. Throwing darts & buying FA scratch offs can quickly turn into a trip to cap hell & a bad team.

                  Does intellectually honest just mean tagging along with the screeching torch & pitch fork crowd?


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Like others have said, don't expect this to change anytime soon. As much as I would love the Pacers to be a destination for big name free agents, I do like rooting for the underdog team and it is rewarding to see this team succeed knowing that we are at a disadvantage from the get go. I remember the playoff series from last year where we were a few bad calls away from knocking out Lebron, that was exciting as hell and being the underdog in that scenario made it more fun. Yes we lost the series, but everyone knew we should have won and it was entertaining basketball.

                    This most recent season, it was awesome watching the team compete for the 3rd seed until we lost Dipo.

                    This year is probably going to be the least exciting start of a season we've had in a while, I don't expect us to win a lot of games with Dipo out but we will see. Either way, enjoy the ride as being a fan of a team that is always going to be a underdog. Given our circumstances, it's pretty impressive how consistently good we have been throughout the years. We've fielded a number of really competitive teams and twice been legitimate contenders. I'm just hoping the Aaron Holiday can actually develop (have my doubts at this point) and maybe TJ Warren, Brogdon, Sabonis, and Myles all elevate their game to the next level.
                    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Kravitz touched on it a little but the biggest thing that stood out to me about Free Agency this year is that players were making up their minds well before free agency started. Players used to want to be wined and dined before signing on the line but not anymore. Kyrie and KD rumors to NY started around the All-Star break and then switched to Brooklyn immediately after the Finals ended. Everyone knew they both wanted to be in NY. As soon as it became clear Kyrie was leaving, Kemba to Boston leaked. We knew that Kawhi only had 3 teams on his list so there was no opportunity there either. So why blame the Pacers for not wasting time offering any of them the max that they were never going to take.

                      It was no surprise that not one All-NBA free agent held meetings with any Small-Market teams. Miami is probably the smallest city to get a major player but South Beach is incredible! I was more surprised that neither the Bulls or Knicks, who are in 2 of the 5 biggest US markets, could get a sit down them too. The Bulls and Knicks signed a bunch of role players (Julius Randle is probably the only exception but he's basically the Black David Lee and would be a role player on a championship team). But the Bulls and Knicks are trash teams right now so that explains it more than anything else.

                      So what happened to the Pacers and their pursuit of the 3rd-tier (top 50 players) of Free Agents? Going into Free Agency, I thought the Sixers were going to re-sign Jimmy Butler and that would've left Tobias Harris open for a near max offer from the Pacers. Jimmy decided to force his way to the Heat and that changed everything. I guess the Warriors asked for Dlo in exchange for KD so he could make a little more in his deal so there went the other player the Pacers were rumored to be interested in. I think they wound up with their plan C option of Malcolm Brogdon + Jeremy Lamb and made some Mike's Hard Lemonade out of the lemons they were handed.

                      Would a hard cap prevent this type of player movement in FA? Yes, but it won't stop players from demanding trades so it's a moot point. I kinda like the what the Pacers did here and think they could be really good this season once VO gets healthy so I'm not salty about it like many of you.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Wage View Post

                        Ok? It could be the worst contract in the history of organized sports but the article we are all responding to said we couldn't even get a meeting, to which most here are saying "cause Indiana lol". Yet now that is being refuted and it's suddenly not about Indiana at all anymore, it's about the money and how lucky we are to not have signed him? Why do people have such a hard time just being intellectually honest in these discussions and feel the need to constantly shift the goalposts
                        Yep now the goal post has been moved to "well I'm glad they didn't talk to us because we didn't want to offer them a max anyways"


                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by BillS View Post

                          You're saying Brogdon isn't an all-star caliber player? I mean, if that's not what you're saying, then getting Brogdon exactly fulfills what people were thinking in your example.
                          No yet, there is potential he could be one but there is also a chance he is as disappointing as George Hill.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Wage View Post

                            Ok? It could be the worst contract in the history of organized sports but the article we are all responding to said we couldn't even get a meeting, to which most here are saying "cause Indiana lol". Yet now that is being refuted and it's suddenly not about Indiana at all anymore, it's about the money and how lucky we are to not have signed him? Why do people have such a hard time just being intellectually honest in these discussions and feel the need to constantly shift the goalposts
                            Well TECHNICALLY, if Indiana didn't think he was worth the max, and they were offering less then they wouldn't have gotten a meeting with him, so.....the only thing that the article "refutes" is that Indiana (among other teams) didn't think he was worth the max. If multiple teams were offering him the max, then the next thing that he would have based his decision on was....

                            Now if Indiana was the ONLY team that was willing to offer the max, then he would have been a Pacers.


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I like how the article refers to those two guys as "Second tier free agents" (which is accurate, they are)

                              Yet they both got the max contract. Both of those deals are going to haunt these teams moving forward.
                              *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                                Yep now the goal post has been moved to "well I'm glad they didn't talk to us because we didn't want to offer them a max anyways"

                                That's not moving the goal post...real talk, he's not worth the max, and if he wasn't willing to accept less then on to the next player. Indiana should not be contacting and signing free agents just for the sake of getting them. Tobias Harris answers the question "Should Indiana have signed him for the max?".

                                https://www.basketball-reference.com...harrito02.html

                                There's nothing that says he's worth that type of money.


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X