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

Duarte

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

  • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

    The Pacers were a team that has traditionally managed to keep their stars. The main exception to this is Paul George. Oladipo could also count but we didn't get him when he was in his first contract. Other than these two, we haven't really had trouble keeping our players.
    I guess we should define stars then. I looked at JO and Reggie as stars. I don't think Danny Granger was a star or guys like Artest or Rik Smits. Sure you can go back to the ABA days but in the modern NBA where players have way more power than they ever had in the 80s or 90s.

    We powder up good starters and slap the tag "face of the franchise" on them by default to sell tickets.. Dipo wasn't even a star player given that it was just a flash in a pan.

    The point is we have more of a track record of either being viod of a true star or losing the one we have. All this 3 contracts talk is to push a narrative that we somehow missed out on a star with our pick. We know the probability of that being a true narrative and it would be disingenuous to keep on with that narrative as if we had strong odds to land a star with that pick.

    You very well could be correct that we missed a star level player with that pick. Age certainly is a predictor of value and increase production but you can not ignore that the odds were poor to even obtain a star with that pick regardless of age. Our odds were bad from the start and our odds are still bad and the odds will be bad for as long as the Simon's main goal is to make the playoffs every year.

    Comment


    • Duarte getting some national recognition..

      Comment


      • I'm bracing myself for when he wins ROTY and we're told it's still a bad pick.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post
          I'm bracing myself for when he wins ROTY and we're told it's still a bad pick.
          Well I hated the pick and when it was made I said he would be better than at least half the guys drafted ahead of him and would be a contender for ROY. But I guess 4 years from now at Duarte's retirement ceremony when we haven't been out of the first round of the playoffs in 11 years we can talk about how cool it was to have a guy on the team that won ROY.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wage View Post

            Well I hated the pick and when it was made I said he would be better than at least half the guys drafted ahead of him and would be a contender for ROY. But I guess 4 years from now at Duarte's retirement ceremony when we haven't been out of the first round of the playoffs in 11 years we can talk about how cool it was to have a guy on the team that won ROY.
            So you think he’ll retire at 28?

            he has just as good of a chance of having a 12 year career as anybody drafted in the first round. I’ll let you in on a secret, more than half of the guys drafted will not be in the league for the 2032-2033 season. If you are sure that Moody will have a 12 year career, you are fooling yourself. Drafting a player you feel is worse because he might have a 17 year career rather than a 13 year career is silly.

            Who would have thought that Vince Carter would have a longer career than Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen was three years older than Jermaine O’Neal, was it a mistake to pick him before JO? They retired the same season, and Ray had a much better career.

            Some of you all are acting like he’s 30, talking about his third contract. We literally just signed Brogdon to his third contract, you don’t even have to look that far for an age comparison.
            Last edited by kent beckley; 10-26-2021, 05:43 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

              So you think he’ll retire at 28?
              C'mon man.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wage View Post

                Well I hated the pick and when it was made I said he would be better than at least half the guys drafted ahead of him and would be a contender for ROY. But I guess 4 years from now at Duarte's retirement ceremony when we haven't been out of the first round of the playoffs in 11 years we can talk about how cool it was to have a guy on the team that won ROY.
                I didn't suggest he would stop there, merely that it's the next milestone in whining for the rest of us to "look forward" to, when we'll once again have to hear how the Pacers suck because they passed up on a 7'8" villager from Tajikistan with a 90-inch vertical who'd never seen a basketball before but had "greater potential"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SaintLouisan View Post

                  I didn't suggest he would stop there, merely that it's the next milestone in whining for the rest of us to "look forward" to, when we'll once again have to hear how the Pacers suck because they passed up on a 7'8" villager from Tajikistan with a 90-inch vertical who'd never seen a basketball before but had "greater potential"
                  Haha, yeah I get it, the negativity can get exhausting. In the Bird years I was kinda feeling like this myself. We had one of the most dynamic young players in the league in PG and one of the most fun dudes to watch ever in Lance and were making ECFs and punching goliath in the mouth and it seemed like there was so much complaining. Now I feel like I'm watching a grifter who's only concern is to keep cashin them checks build a team of terracotta JAGs and I'm on the other side.

                  I try to limit my complaining to the off season at least. Once they roll the orange out on the court I just want to support my dudes and have some fun. Speaking of exhausting though I will say less than a week into the season and it's already getting exhausting watching dudes take victory laps against strawmen about a grizzled old rookie 4 games into his career.

                  Comment


                  • Again I think the competitive issue is structural with the union and the association. We compound that issue as a mediocre team that refuses to go into the top 5 lottery ever. IT seems like Duarte is the scape goat excuse for why our owner runs the team the way he does. The issue isn't a 24 year old rookie or a GM who drafted him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wage View Post

                      Haha, yeah I get it, the negativity can get exhausting. In the Bird years I was kinda feeling like this myself. We had one of the most dynamic young players in the league in PG and one of the most fun dudes to watch ever in Lance and were making ECFs and punching goliath in the mouth and it seemed like there was so much complaining. Now I feel like I'm watching a grifter who's only concern is to keep cashin them checks build a team of terracotta JAGs and I'm on the other side.

                      I try to limit my complaining to the off season at least. Once they roll the orange out on the court I just want to support my dudes and have some fun. Speaking of exhausting though I will say less than a week into the season and it's already getting exhausting watching dudes take victory laps against strawmen about a grizzled old rookie 4 games into his career.
                      Keep the flags of discontent flying. Believe me I was 100% with you about KP until this summer when I heard J. Michael say that he knew for a fact that Pritchard wanted to blow this team up and start over because he knows what they are only to be told no by the owner. So to me that at the very least means that KP knows what's what but is only doing what his boss tells him and trying to put as positive spin on it as possible.


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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                        Keep the flags of discontent flying. Believe me I was 100% with you about KP until this summer when I heard J. Michael say that he knew for a fact that Pritchard wanted to blow this team up and start over because he knows what they are only to be told no by the owner. So to me that at the very least means that KP knows what's what but is only doing what his boss tells him and trying to put as positive spin on it as possible.
                        That true? This is the first I've heard of this about KP and given J Michael's track record I tend to take any rumor he hinted at as gospel.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                          Keep the flags of discontent flying. Believe me I was 100% with you about KP until this summer when I heard J. Michael say that he knew for a fact that Pritchard wanted to blow this team up and start over because he knows what they are only to be told no by the owner. So to me that at the very least means that KP knows what's what but is only doing what his boss tells him and trying to put as positive spin on it as possible.
                          Honestly even if it is true it just throws more shade on Herb (which probably doesn't surprise that many people) than it does take heat off KP. This is KP's team to build. His name and reputation are on the line every time they take the court. If the owner is being an obstacle to putting a good product together then it is his job to either change Herb's mind or find creative ways around him. If he can't do either then he has 2 choices. 1. Step down like Bird did or 2. Keep cashing them checks. Now I know it's easy for me to say from behind this keyboard without millions on the line but nothing in life is free, so if you take option 2 the cost you pay is that people are going to call you garbage at your job. Besides there is already a word for someone who sells out their morals and beliefs for money and in most circles it is considered much worse than "grifter" or "con-man" so I'm kinda letting him off the hook.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by croz24 View Post

                            That true? This is the first I've heard of this about KP and given J Michael's track record I tend to take any rumor he hinted at as gospel.
                            If I have time tomorrow I'll go find it. But it was on the "setting the pace" podcast and I believe it was either July or August. They have them cataloged and who is the guest which he was on a couple of times over the summer.



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

                            Comment


                            • Duarte's already getting noticed by his peers..

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wage View Post

                                Honestly even if it is true it just throws more shade on Herb (which probably doesn't surprise that many people) than it does take heat off KP. This is KP's team to build. His name and reputation are on the line every time they take the court. If the owner is being an obstacle to putting a good product together then it is his job to either change Herb's mind or find creative ways around him. If he can't do either then he has 2 choices. 1. Step down like Bird did or 2. Keep cashing them checks. Now I know it's easy for me to say from behind this keyboard without millions on the line but nothing in life is free, so if you take option 2 the cost you pay is that people are going to call you garbage at your job. Besides there is already a word for someone who sells out their morals and beliefs for money and in most circles it is considered much worse than "grifter" or "con-man" so I'm kinda letting him off the hook.
                                I agree. KP can parrot his woe is me small market ******** all he wants but he is ultimately responsible for doing the best he can with the tools he has. Of course, this job isn't as easy as LA or NY but you can clearly win w/ a small market by drafting well and making smart trades. Look at the Jazz and Nuggets. Hell, even the Hornets look way better by adding Ball / Bridges. The problem is that nothing we ever do is with the long-term in mind. We always draft / sign free agents for the immediacy to "re-tool" and "compete". Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. I'm not saying we have to go full tank but go get some younger players with some upside that we can develop.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X