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:
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

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


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ben is broken, plain and simple. Can he ever be fixed? Not enough, IMO.

    He would absolutely drive me F'ing crazy, passing up shots, missing so many free throws. Most talented player not being a factor in crunch time. Drive me F'ing crazy.
    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"


    • For everyone saying Simmons is a small ball 5, I totally agree that he should be on offense, but I think it dampens the impact of his single best quality: perimeter defense. He's kind of an enigma to build around of course, and I think Myles is close to a decent fit with him, but even he probably doesn't shoot well enough. 6ers don't want Domas, just like they don't want Myles. Would have to get exceptionally creative to make a deal happen, because you need Brogdon on a realistic Pacers team that has Simmons. Brogdon+Whoever+Warren+Simmons+Turner isn't half bad imo, and offers size and space at least. Get a quick footed guard that can play a little defense (Sumner if his shot carries over?) and call it a day. I'd probably do Levert and Sabonis for Simmons and something, but it's a hard deal to structure for all parties.


      • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

        First off, hes 24 years old. Youre wrong. He isnt a finished product whatsoever.

        Secondly he has been a very good player in the league for a half decade. Hes not a scrub.

        And lastly, he needs to be the focal point of the offense. The primary ball handler. And hes the best playmaker we could possibly get.
        I agree with most of it, but I so strongly disagree with him being the primary ball handler of an offense. He doesn't make great plays in the halfcourt, and a lot of it is that it's harder for him to create space for himself or others as a non-shooter. I think something that needs to be explored is so much more pick and roll. Let him use his athleticism and playmaking as far away from the perimeter as possible. Idk though, he makes so much money, but it seems like his ceiling is higher than anyone we currently have, and his ability level is at least even to any single guy on our team imo.


        • Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post

          Gawddamit dude wtf is wrong with you.

          I never compared Sabonis limitations to Simmons limitations.

          I said Simmons developing a jump shot is as likely as Sabonis' arms suddenly having a growth spurt.

          Read the **** post before you comment. I'm putting you on ignore the next time you quote, HEY IF YOU READ, you might pick up on the fact that I spent the entire list taking about how if they haven't fixed his mechanical issues by now it's not a mechanics things it's a head thing (you know, the one where I say Simmons issues are mental... Which you just responded to my saying naw man Simmons issues are mental) to say something idiotic BRUH.

          The next person who had reads my post in order to quote me and say no that's wrong and then reply with THE SAME THING I ACTUALLY SAID gets ignored.
          I can't tell if you're trolling with all these hyper charged defensive replies. No offense, but who are you? lol
          You get intensely hyped up from people simply thinking you're wrong. (I don't think either of you are right or wrong in this particular matter of Simmons' shooting being able to improve or not, because I don't fcking know, nor will I pretend to...).
          It just feels like you think people have to take your word for everything sometimes, and that people can't challenge your "authority" or something like that. It's just jarring to see in the middle of what seems to be a series of chill-ish conversations get blown up on your end. Seriously not trying to be rude, just an observation. Granted, I've also seen Taterhead go off the rails recently I think. Maybe the current state of Pacers bball is just driving all of us insane.


          • Turner hasn't converted the three very well over the last two years after his attempts went up. He does however stretch the floor. Teams honor him out there and contest hard when he gets a catch behind the arc. He isn't the perfect big to pair with Simmons on the offensive end but IMO it is a better fit than Sabonis. Turner and Simmons would however be a load on the other side of the ball.

            I don't see how Simmons ends up in Indiana without including a 3rd team and Sabonis or Turner in the deal....


            • I am boggled by how people are trying to pencil him in as a starting center...

              People complain about Turner being a starting center, but you're willing to put in a person that's technically never play center as a center? That don't even make sense to me.

              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?


              • Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                I am boggled by how people are trying to pencil him in as a starting center...

                People complain about Turner being a starting center, but you're willing to put in a person that's technically never play center as a center? That don't even make sense to me.
                I don't think people that say he should play center actually want him on this team. That said, Ben's a high IQ player (supposedly) so he could handle a switch to center. Playing center's not exactly rocket science.


                • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                  The fact you see Warren as a dog just tells you how far away from competitive dogs we are. I’m not sure we’ve had a dog on our team since Lance and even he wasn’t totally one.

                  Warren is a good player, but dog? Nah

                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                  Maybe we have different definitions of dog? What I meant is that Warren is competitive and he is not out there to make friends. And he is never afraid of opponents. Right now that’s him and Domas, and maybe a couple rotation guys in Aaron and Edmond. And that might be it.


                  • I'm going on record to say I wouldn't make this Ben Simmons trade, not if it involved anyone among our core+1 players: Brogdon, Sabonis, Turner, Warren, Levert or JHola. I know some folks will disagree, but here's my rational:

                    Why would you trade for a player who averages 15.9 ppg over his 4-year career (essentially a rookie; 14 ppg over the last 3 years), averaged on 14.3 ppg in 2020/21 and attained his highest average ppg at 16.9 in 2018/19 over any one of of our core+1 players who averaged over 17.6 ppg the last 3 years (except for Turner @ 12.6 ppg and JHola @ 9.4 ppg)? Why would anyone looking at the numbers in scoring AND salary due over the next 3 years even consider this trade? Because you see some upside with him per his youth?

                    The Pacers are having a difficult time developing the young players they have now. What makes you think a guy with confidence issues - because by all accounts that's what we'd be dealing with - would be an asset on this team if he can't find the inner strength to push himself?

                    No, don't fall in love with talent again, folks. This would be a terrible move for the Pacers considering what being suggest they'd give up and this guy's expensive contract over the next 3 years.


                    • If you trade for Simmons, which I am not advocating for, you do not trade Brogdon, Warren, or Sabonis for him. If you trade anyone it is Levert. Simmons cannot shoot beyond 10 ft, the last thing you want to do is trade your best outside shooters (Brogdon and Warren) or your best offensive player (Sabonis). The trade only makes sense if you have players who he can play off of, and who can play off of him. From the Pacers point of view keeping LeVert does not make sense within that context. So any trade should be centered around LeVert and Simmons.

                      Also, in the long run between Sabonis and Myles, I would bet on Sabonis being the player who can develop into consistently being able to shoot the 3 above 35%. So I am not worried about spacing with him, and I don't see Myles being the floor spacer people often perceive him to be. His corner 3 is atrocious, and he really only hits consistently from the top.


                      • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                        The fact you see Warren as a dog just tells you how far away from competitive dogs we are. I’m not sure we’ve had a dog on our team since Lance and even he wasn’t totally one.

                        Warren is a good player, but dog? Nah

                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                        I wouldn't call TJ Warren a (bull)dog on the floor. He's more like a quiet storm. He sneaks up on you and before you know it he's scored in buckets, yet he won't back down for a challenge either. He very much reminds me of Kawhi Leonard in that regard...says very little but let's his on-court performance speak for him.


                        • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          If you trade for Simmons, which I am not advocating for
                          I mostly lean against trading for him because of all the other moves it’d require, but Simmons would bring some things to our team. He is absolutely an elite defender who can successfully guard quick point guards. He’s also great in transition and in passing.

                          I hate to say it, but he’s basically Lance with elite defense and less shooting.

                          If he could even get to serviceable as a shooter he would be an MVP candidate. It’s tantalizing to think about.


                          • Can't we just bring him in and send him to Billy Keller basketball camp and
                            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.


                            • Reminder to those that forgot, we are talking about the Pacers
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                              • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                And I'm sorry to Turner fans but your dream of moving Sabonis because you can't deal with the thought of moving your mancrush Softner by himself is not happening.

                                Also the myth of Turner been some type of reliable shooter is just that a myth, him and Pork are two of the worse pretenders to be shooters in the league.

                                Moving on from Turner and Sabonis has very little to do with not wanting the Pacers to have Sabonis but not turner and everything to do with the fact that the league is leaving big men behind even as we talk about how there is a big man renaissance in the league, it's still a guard's league, a perimeter league. Once you hit the playoffs, that's where you win basketball games. The only big man remaining worth a damn that plays a free throw line in game is Ayton and he happens to play with the best back court remaining which makes his life a lot easier.