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

All right, let's talk about it....

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    OG is a sure thing and I have no doubt Pacers are trading all their assets for him.
    Ban bet?

    if this happens before or at the draft (pacers trade all their picks for OG), ill eat a two month ban. If doesn’t happen, you eat a two month ban.

    in other words, there zero percent chance that happens

    Comment


    • #17
      Use #7 for the best defender available, especially if he plays the 4. Of #26, #29, and #32, package one of those in a trade, use the other two to take the best all-around players still available, especially if they are good defenders. #55 can be used on some random overseas guy who won't be coming anyway.

      Should the newcomers fit in well and fill needs, making the playins at the very least should be a reasonable goal.

      Comment


      • #18
        Imo pick 7 is not tradeable. All the other picks and future 1sts as well as duarte and Hield are on the table
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          I think it's time to make the playoffs, or fire Carlisle and Pritchard. These two clowns have had more than enough time to build a winning team. I don't trust Carlisle. Why would a veteran coach agree to coach a rebuilding team. Reddest of red flags. Both he and KP only here for paychecks. Not serious about winning. They don't take the draft seriously, and don't make any aggressive moves to improve the team.
          Sabonis for Haliburton wasn’t an aggressive move? Hot Take Alert!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

            Sabonis for Haliburton wasn’t an aggressive move? Hot Take Alert!!
            Not aggressive at all. Sabonis wanted out, and once again, KP was reactive instead of proactive. Aggressive would have been trading Turner once they knew Sabonis was the better player. Instead of getting Turner out of his way, they started a ridiculous Twin Towers lineup. Sabonis realized he wasn't playing for a serious organization, and politely wanted out.
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #21
              I think what happens is that KP keeps the 7th pick and rolls the dice for the playoffs. They will will have a meh veteran signing but we will still be far from being getting out of the second round. They won't trade for OG unless there is agreement for a contract extension.

              Comment


              • #22
                Keep the #7 pick unless you get blown away by an offer for a legitimate young talent who fits our timeline (not going to happen). Maneuver however you want with the other picks but ideally bring in at least one other rookie and/or move them for future draft capital (probably the wisest move). Don't give up any future draft capital in a trade for a win-now vet. Sign whoever you want to fill out the roster (we do need some vets in the mix to mentor and contribute). Enter next season with a development mindset. Make sure the young guys get plenty of opportunity again but any notion of purposefully tanking is over. If we're bad and get a high lottery pick again next year, that's okay. More likely, we're better though and at least flirt with the play-in. That's okay, too. Time to slowly start building a culture of winning and let the young core grow into something worthwhile.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Keep the #7 pick. We should only have a maximum of 3 draft picks this year. That means we move draft picks plus Hield, Theis and Duarte to move up in this draft plus get future picks.

                  I am in the minority but I wouldn’t be against trading Nembhard. I know it won’t happen but I don’t see a significant role for him on this team. Nesmith and Nwora can be the backup wings…we could also draft some wings with more size. McConnell the backup PG and Mathurin should be starting SG. I have a fear that Carlisle will start Nembhard at SG and Mathurin at SF. That’s gives us undersized starting wings.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post

                    Not aggressive at all. Sabonis wanted out, and once again, KP was reactive instead of proactive. Aggressive would have been trading Turner once they knew Sabonis was the better player. Instead of getting Turner out of his way, they started a ridiculous Twin Towers lineup. Sabonis realized he wasn't playing for a serious organization, and politely wanted out.
                    Sabonis still doesn’t play for a serious organization

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I would not trade 7. Everything and everyone else is on the table except for Haliburton, Mathurin, and possibly Myles. Don’t trade for Ayton or OG. I’d consider trading Nembhard, 26, and either 29 or 32 for Kuminga. Not sure what GS would think of that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        You use the pick and see what team you have. The idea that you should keep trading away veterans and trying to lose then doing the same again and again means at some point Hali and Nesmith and Benn and Nembhard are the players taking court time away from the young guys so rinse and repeat.

                        So many people climbed into conversations to tell me that missing the #1 pick wouldn't necessarily mean tanking again and yet here we are, same discussion, same justifications, same disdain for those who don't think the goal is to keep losing until you draft the generational player.
                        How do you keep doing something you've never done? Which trend of veterans traded away are you talking about here?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Joe Lyon of 8 Points, 9 Seconds grades with an A a proposed trade in which we give away #7, another '23 1st, Theis and TJ for Anunoby.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I would keep 7 and draft one of the PFs that are still available then. I would package a combination of 26 29 32 and whatever young assets who aren't Hali, Mathurin, and Nembhard for the best possible (not too old) wing. If it's OG, cool. If it's not OG, cool. I would trade TJ to a contender, because I want him to contend. I get whatever I can for Buddy, and thank him for his services.
                            Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Dece View Post

                              How do you keep doing something you've never done? Which trend of veterans traded away are you talking about here?
                              February 7, 2022:

                              Caris LeVert, a 2022 2nd round pick (MIA own) and a TPE were acquired by the Cleveland Cavaliers from the Indiana Pacers in exchange for: Ricky Rubio, a 2022 2nd round pick (HOU own), a conditional 2022 1st round pick (CLE own) and a 2027 2nd round pick (UTH own).

                              Trading LeVert, a player who started every game for us and was 27 years old at the time, for what turned out to be the #26 and the #32 pick in this draft is trading away veterans to get future assets.

                              February 8, 2022:

                              Tyrese Haliburton, Buddy Hield, Tristan Thompson and a TPE were acquired by the Indiana Pacers from the Sacramento Kings in exchange for: Justin Holiday, Jeremy Lamb, Domantas Sabonis, a conditional 2023 2nd round pick (IND own) and a TPE.

                              We traded Sabonis, our best player and a guy who had made two straight All-Star games with us, for a player 4 years younger than him and who was on his second year in the league at the time. So, we traded a more established player for a younger one in a trade that clearly looked towards the future.

                              February 10, 2022:

                              Jalen Smith, a 2022 2nd round pick (PHX own) and a TPE were acquired by the Indiana Pacers from the Phoenix Suns in exchange for: Torrey Craig and cash.

                              Torrey Craig was 31 at the time. Jalen Smith was 10 years younger. Regardless of how Jalen Smith pans out, we clearly traded away a veteran player for a young player.

                              July 9, 2022:

                              Malcolm Brogdon was acquired by the Boston Celtics from the Indiana Pacers in exchange for: Malik Fitts, Juwan Morgan, Aaron Nesmith, Nik Stauskas, Daniel Theis, a conditional 2023 1st round pick (BOS own) and a TPE.

                              We traded Brogdon, an integral part of the previous core, for Aaron Nesmith, a 23 year old player who was a lottery pick in 2020 but hadn't quite panned out for the Celtics, a late 1st (which ended up being #29) and a bunch of filler. We, once again, traded an older player who was a significant part of the old core for a young player and future assets.

                              In general, if you look at every trade we've done in the past 15 months, you'll see a pretty clear pattern. We are trading away players who were an established part of the team for younger players and future assets. In other words, we are rebuilding. I don't think that this can be seriously denied.

                              Now, one can definitely argue that we should have traded away even more vets. One can definitely argue that Myles, Buddy and TJM should have been traded as well. That is a legitimate argument to make. But to claim that there isn't a clear trend of trading away veteran players for younger players or future assets is to simply deny the reality of what has been happening for more than a year now.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tony Valente View Post
                                Joe Lyon of 8 Points, 9 Seconds grades with an A a proposed trade in which we give away #7, another '23 1st, Theis and TJ for Anunoby.
                                The Pacers have a fascination with local players.
                                They think it will draw in more fans.
                                Skill and health are secondary issues
                                Hill-Hayward-Anunoby….
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X