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

  • Originally posted by BornIndy View Post

    Turner > Simmons
    And is not up for debate
    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.


    • Originally posted by Motion Offense View Post

      Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
      Frankly, the more I think about it, the less crazy it sounds.

      And that's not even counting that at least Myles shows up to work.


      • Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post

        Frankly, the more I think about it, the less crazy it sounds.
        It's really not.

        Ben's career PER is 18.8

        Myles is 16.9.

        Take into consideration their salaries and attitudes - and I know I'd prefer to deal with Myles.


        • Originally posted by BornIndy View Post

          Turner > Simmons
          And is not up for debate
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


          • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

            It's really not.

            Ben's career PER is 18.8

            Myles is 16.9.

            Take into consideration their salaries and attitudes - and I know I'd prefer to deal with Myles.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


            • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

              what's your take on royce white? should we give him the max or just the mle?


              • It has to be for Smart, fillers and picks. Smart opened his mouth recently and ruffled some feathers. Ben would be a great fit with Tatum and Brown, who love to score. Keeps Ben from having to shoot.


                • Originally posted by rimrattler View Post
                  It has to be for Smart, fillers and picks. Smart opened his mouth recently and ruffled some feathers. Ben would be a great fit with Tatum and Brown, who love to score. Keeps Ben from having to shoot.
                  What did Smart say?


                  • Originally posted by rimrattler View Post
                    It has to be for Smart, fillers and picks. Smart opened his mouth recently and ruffled some feathers. Ben would be a great fit with Tatum and Brown, who love to score. Keeps Ben from having to shoot.
                    I thought the same actually but I think Smart can't be traded this season cuz he was extended.

                    I'm fuzzy on the rules but the ESPN trade machine won't let you include him in deals so I presume that means something.


                    • Originally posted by Ozys Nepimpis View Post
                      They have nothing to offer outside Tatum and Brown...they won't offer it's probably Simmons and picks for Brown
                      This is Philly so I'm sure they're asking for Brown, picks and pick swaps. The Celts are probably offering Horford for SImmons and a first. No way to these 2 come to terms the way they both overvalue their assets.
                      Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                      Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.


                      • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                        What did Smart say?
                        He called out Tatum and Brown for not wanting to pass the ball.



                          How would 76ers’ Ben Simmons fit with Celtics? Is Jaylen Brown too high a price to pay?

                          By Jay King and Rich Hofmann Nov 8, 2021 125
                          The Celtics and 76ers have held trade discussions over three-time All-Star Ben Simmons, according to The Athletic’s Shams Charania.

                          Within his Inside Pass column Monday, Charania reported the Celtics have expressed interest in the 25-year-old Simmons, who has not played yet this season after informing the 76ers he would prefer to be traded. According to Charania, talks between the Celtics and 76ers have had “no traction” so far. Considering the high asking price Philadelphia continues to demand, Charania believes the Celtics would potentially need to include All-Star wing Jaylen Brown in a trade offer.

                          To further analyze the situation, we brought together 76ers beat writer Rich Hofmann and Celtics beat writer Jay King.

                          King: With Danny Ainge retired, I thought maybe the Celtics would no longer be linked to every halfway available star. Yet here we are. Before we get into the possible trade fit between Boston and Philadelphia, where does the Simmons situation currently stand?

                          Hofmann: Jay, good to be chatting with you.

                          Over the weekend, the Sixers and Simmons were still very much in a standoff that seems to be never-ending. Simmons told the team a few weeks ago that he was not mentally ready to play and the Sixers organization believes they have been supportive of that request. Now that we’re over two weeks after Simmons’ initial request, the Sixers would like to be more clued in on, if not the nitty-gritty details of Simmons’ mental health work, the progress he’s making and where this process is generally heading.

                          There is no getting around it: This has been an ugly situation throughout and it has the chance to get even more contentious because the team and player interests are in direct conflict. Daryl Morey is on the record saying that the potential returns that the Sixers are getting in Simmons trade talks don’t increase the team’s championship odds (which is how he views team-building) and that the team’s best chance to win at a high level is to reintegrate him to the roster, as far-fetched at that may seem. On the other end of the standoff, nothing Simmons has done so far indicates he wants to play another game for this franchise. The mental health aspect makes things tricky, especially after it comes on the heels of a trade request and holdout. But the bottom line here is the Sixers still expect Simmons to play for them at some point and they’re playing well enough without him that they’re not exactly feeling much pressure to move him quickly to improve the team. Simmons still wants to play anywhere but Philadelphia.

                          Hey, Boston isn’t in Philadelphia! It seems like it has been an interesting start to the season up there.

                          King: Oh, it has been an interesting start. Ime Udoka has criticized the Celtics publicly several times. Marcus Smart took a shot at Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown during a news conference. Boston held its first players-only meeting less than two weeks into the season, just another sign things have been weird.

                          After that bit of drama, the Celtics have played well over their last three games, all on the road. Their defense has come back to life. Tatum, after a slow start, finally looked like himself during a last-second loss to the Mavericks. At just 4-6, though, the Celtics have a lot to figure out.

                          Would Simmons help? Sure. I mean, he’s a three-time All-Star. He finished second in NBA Defensive Player of the Year voting last season. He’s a huge wing with top speed and awesome court vision. Though much of the conversation lately has focused on what he can’t do, he can still do a whole lot. If you could plop him onto the current Celtics roster, he would make a big difference for them, just like he would for a lot of teams across the NBA.

                          But what could the Celtics give up for him that would make sense? I don’t think they should include Brown in a package because he’s the same age, less expensive and more of a scoring threat.

                          Hofmann: The first thing to know about this situation has been that Morey’s asking price has been quite high from the start. There are plenty of people out there who would opine it has been too high, for a player of Simmons’ caliber who is also coming off a postseason that was quite damaging to his reputation as a player. The main piece of leverage that Morey has in this situation is Simmons’ contract, which has four years remaining on it. If Simmons is feeling any sort of disrespect — and in fairness to him, the team did attempt to trade him for James Harden last season, the type of trade scenario that could arise again — Morey is holding onto him because he believes keeping Simmons is better than sub-superstar returns.

                          With the Sixers’ high asking price in mind, I look at Boston’s roster and think that any Simmons talks would have to involve either one of Jayson Tatum or Jaylen Brown. Tatum is not even worth talking about, so Brown is where the line would have to be drawn. At his best, it’s unclear if Brown could lift the Sixers’ entire offense the way Damian Lillard (who was the Sixers’ hopeful star target-under-contract over the summer) might.

                          But a 25-year-old two-way wing with legitimate shot creation, a 3-point shot that hovers around 40 percent on decent volume and the ability to get to the free-throw line would be an excellent addition even if the Sixers had to add additional assets. And from Boston’s standpoint, I think Simmons would help them win a bunch of regular-season games. He defends like a beast every night and would greatly improve the team’s playmaking, warts and all. One perhaps undersold aspect of the Simmons saga is that trading him for an offense-first guard like Lillard or Bradley Beal might put a ton of pressure on Joel Embiid defensively. That isn’t to say the Sixers wouldn’t make those trades, but Brown would present fewer issues in that regard.

                          It feels to me like the two sides are probably going to be stuck, right? Although I do believe Tatum and Brown have to demonstrate they can get back to carrying an elite team, Boston would probably view moving one of them as more of a future issue if things don’t improve. But I also think any other package, something like Marcus Smart (who could certainly help the Sixers defensively and would become a very popular player in Philadelphia but can’t be traded until after Jan. 25) and picks is likely not going to get it done from the Sixers’ standpoint. Outside a few no-brainer players who likely aren’t available, would the idea of trading Brown seem like more of a future move to you?

                          King: Morey has been open about his asking price. He has also shared that other teams have been unwilling to meet it. I think it’s obvious by now that teams aren’t eager to send the 76ers a star player in exchange for Simmons.

                          The Celtics have two good young ones in Tatum and Brown. As you said, those guys still need to prove they can carry a great team, but Simmons would come with that same concern. He’s coming off a rough playoff run and he’s a difficult roster fit. If Boston could somehow pair him with Tatum and Brown, the trio would make a lot of basketball sense. But giving up Tatum or Brown for Simmons, given all the questions surrounding him now, would be a bold move that would crush the Celtics’ outside shooting. I doubt the Celtics have enough to acquire Simmons in a straight-up trade without one of those guys unless Morey either lowers his asking price significantly or is extremely interested in an Al Horford-Joel Embiid reunion (lol).

                          Could a three-team trade be possible? The Celtics don’t have as many assets as they once did, but they could build a package around, say, Marcus Smart, Robert Williams, one of their younger wings and multiple first-round picks. I don’t think that would be enough to rope in the type of difference-maker Philadelphia wants for Simmons, but that type of structure seems most likely among all the highly unlikely ideas spinning around my brain. It’s too bad because I would be extremely intrigued by a Tatum-Brown-Simmons trio, but I doubt the Celtics have the right assets to make it happen.

                          Maybe the Celtics would grow more interested in making a big change to their core if they continue to struggle. Still, I just can’t see Mr. Steady, Brad Stevens, overreacting to a slow start while Ime Udoka is learning his way as a head coach and the Celtics players are adjusting to his new system and philosophies.

                          Hofmann: Williams is certainly an intriguing piece. An athletic big man like him who can also make plays with the ball in his hands likely holds some decent trade value around the league, probably just not as much in this discussion. The Sixers learned the hard way that you don’t need to pay another center to play behind Embiid. “The hard way,” in this case, currently wears No. 42 for the Celtics.

                          Due to the positional overlap, it’s hard to imagine Williams in Philly. Perhaps it would have to be a three-team trade, which always increases the degree of difficulty in getting a deal over the finish line. Purely from a value standpoint, I believe the idea of Smart, Williams and a couple of picks is a good offer for Simmons. That won’t move Morey at this point but hovering over all this is the question of what happens if no star-level player becomes available for Simmons. If the Sixers ever get past that point, an offer like the one you proposed doesn’t seem unheard of to me. The problem for Boston is that plenty of teams can cobble together a “solid starters and picks” package for Simmons, so perhaps Morey would receive a similar offer that perhaps provides more perimeter shot creation than those two would provide.

                          In general, I think the Sixers are just trying to push this eventual trade out as far as they can. If they can get to the middle of this season, perhaps conditions change around the league as teams start to see the reality of their rosters. It seems that the front office would prefer to use Simmons and their young players/draft capital in return for a star than multiple pieces in return for Simmons. For now, the Sixers are in a weird holding pattern. The rest of the team is playing inspired basketball and selling the image of a tight-knit group that is willing to sacrifice for the greater good. The absence of Simmons throughout all these good vibes and made 3-point shots is, um, notable. Despite all the potential awkwardness, the Sixers still want Simmons to play for them. Stevens being in the front office adds a fun wrinkle to this, but as long as he stays patient, I’m not sure I presently see a trade at this point between these two old rivals.

                          (Photo of Brown and Simmons: Bill Streicher / USA Today)


                          • This highlight reel is weak!!! The strategy was to let Simmons eat, stay at home on the shooters - it worked. Is this supposed to be impressive?