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

2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

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

  • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    How Foster's extra million a year becomes the scapegoat here I have no idea.
    This thread gives me a headache - but I do agree with Seth on this.

    Comment


    • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

      Originally posted by bulldog View Post
      I think of this stuff as the price we have to pay in order to allow a team like Indiana to be competitive. In a world with no salary cap, no luxury cap, no complicated and prohibitive rules, teams like the Indiana Pacers are second class citizens. We would basically be renting Granger until the Knicks put together a 9 year, $140 million contract.

      Not to mention, I actually do find it interesting.

      This summer in European football Real Madrid alone spent nearly 250,000,000 Euros just to release four players from their teams. That sum doesn't even include the amount they paid for their contracts (one of those players receives roughly 280,000 Euros a week). And that comes from a Spanish team a country with app. 20% unemployment rate...

      That's the great thing about the NBA- every team has some chance to win it all.

      Comment


      • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

        I have come to the grips of reality that Jack's offer from Toronto isn't going to be matched. I am a Jack fan, and wanted him 2 years prior to when Bird traded for him. I just feel it shouldn't have had to come down to having had Jack become a FA. There was more than an ample opportunity for Bird to re-sign Jack b4 he came a RFA... more than enough. What bothers me is Bird signed Foster b4 he became a FA, but wouldn't Jack. There is no doubt in my mind the Pacers could have gotten Jack re-signed for 3.5-4 mil if if Bird had. Jack had a nice season, and it shot up his salary price.

        Just think if Bird hadn't signed Granger early, the Pacers might not have been able to re-sign Granger after his Allstar year. What is so concerning is Granger wants Jack back, and has stated so. That says something to me about the value of Jack. Let's face it, as fans, we aren't privy to what goes on in the locker room or at practices. What I see in Jack is the type player Bird wants for the Pacers... a young tough gutty determined quality skilled player with no baggage. Those type players aren't that ez to find, and then to let one slip through your fingers due to poor decision making is a travesty.

        I'm in the camp that you match Toronto's offer, and not worry about the LT by trading Ford, Foster, or Murphy taking on an expiring or a contract or two for less money. Or betting on the arbitrator ruling in the favor of the Pacers against Tinsley saving the Pacers salary thus staying out of future LT Land. I highly doubt the Simons' accountants look at it that way, nor is it going to happen. If it doesn't, then my thanks and gratitude to Jarrett Jack for year he was a Pacer, and what he brought to the Pacers.
        Last edited by Justin Tyme; 07-13-2009, 09:29 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          What is so concerning is Granger wants Jack back, and has stated so. ...................... not worry about the LT by trading Ford, Foster, or Murphy taking on an expiring or a contract or two for less money.
          First, you can't let the inmates run the asylum.

          And in theory, trading one of those guys works, but easier said than done.

          There's a plan working here. We may not understand it all because we're not privvy to all the numbers and other stuff. If Larry is under direct orders from Herb & Mel to stay under the tax - you can't put yourself in a position where the tax comes into play if something else doesn't work out.

          Comment


          • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
            There's a plan working here. We may not understand it all because we're not privvy to all the numbers and other stuff.
            Hey, now, don't go gettin' all religious on us.

            What I find most curious is the timing of the Jones signing. Why do so before finding out whether we sign Jack? Was Larry worried that "Inferno" was soon to be scooped up by someone else? Does the timing accurately indicate the superseding importance to the team of DJ over JJ? If not, then it seems that TPTB are basically saying, "We don't value Jack beyond x amount [say, $4 mil]," which in turns clearly indicates that they either expect Ford to reclaim the starting role or acquire a new starting PG in the not-too-distant future. Hmmm.


            "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

            - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

            Comment


            • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
              Hey, now, don't go gettin' all religious on us.

              What I find most curious is the timing of the Jones signing. Why do so before finding out whether we sign Jack? Was Larry worried that "Inferno" was soon to be scooped up by someone else? Does the timing accurately indicate the superseding importance to the team of DJ over JJ? If not, then it seems that TPTB are basically saying, "We don't value Jack beyond x amount [say, $4 mil]," which in turns clearly indicates that they either expect Ford to reclaim the starting role or acquire a new starting PG in the not-too-distant future. Hmmm.
              I remember Obie saying at seasons end how TJ would basically be much improved in his system after being in it for a year. Hearing him talk about it at the time was confusing because my impression was he was talking in terms of TJ starting next year, so it seemed out of place. Now it seems to make sense.

              Numbers wise, TJ had a great year, second leading scorer (not counting 18 games for Dun), leader in assists, played an acceptable number of games, was crunch time option. His defense was not good, but he stepped it up at the end of the year imo. He's not a make everyone around you better true point guard, but frankly neither is Jack.

              My issues with TJ are the spat with Jack and that he's not a pass first point guard, he isn't a true point guard, he can dominate the ball, and he waivers defensively. Now that sounds like alot, but he's capable of cleaning up most of those things (defense and ball domination) and he's super valuable as a closer.

              If I could wish one thing on TJ this next year is that he get smarter and sacrifice for the greater good of the team. Part of me hopes that a light bulb goes on, the other part knows it's not likely.

              Another words he has every tool to be a starting caliber point guard and a force, he needs to mentally put it together. He's still relatively young and honestly it's still possible.

              If not, he's an inconsistent player who some games will win and some games he'll disappear. If that happens they'll miss Jack's warm and fuzzy Jeff Foster like consistently.

              If TJ owns the PG position and gives himself for the greater good, I think we will be wondering why they ever even considered keeping Jack.

              If I was Obie I call TJ right now and say I want you to try to average 10 assists and under 2 turnovers a game next year, period. thats it.
              Last edited by Speed; 07-13-2009, 11:04 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                Hey, now, don't go gettin' all religious on us. ............. acquire a new starting PG in the not-too-distant future. Hmmm.
                Amen brotha .............. I don't think we've seen the last of the roster changes going into this season. It's the plan man .........

                Comment


                • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                  Does anyone think that Keyon Dooling would make a good starting PG for us?
                  Last edited by Trophy; 07-13-2009, 11:02 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                    No.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                      Originally posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
                      Does anyone think that Keyon Dooling would make a goos starting PG for us?
                      Uh, no.

                      Not even a good one.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                        A couple things I've been thinking about in relation to all this.

                        1. TJ has a team-first game and a me-first attitude. Jack has a me-first game and a team-first attitude.

                        2. Jarrett Jack is a better basketball player than Charlie Villanueva.

                        Oh, and Keyon Dooling would make a decent backup for TJ, but he's not a good starting PG for anyone.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                          A couple things I've been thinking about in relation to all this.

                          1. TJ has a team-first game and a me-first attitude. Jack has a me-first game and a team-first attitude.
                          Huh?

                          Originally posted by melli
                          2. Jarrett Jack is a better basketball player than Charlie Villanueva.
                          Yup

                          Originally posted by melli
                          Oh, and Keyon Dooling would make a decent backup for TJ, but he's not a good starting PG for anyone.
                          Holy ****, he's owed $7.3mm over the next two years.

                          What I've been thinking about is...

                          The #1 isn't great for longevity with the Pacers.

                          Roger Brown 1975-1975
                          Bo Lamar 1976-1976
                          Freddie Lewis 1977-1977
                          Ron Behagen 1978-1978
                          Stephen Jackson 2005-2007
                          Ike Diogu 2007-2008
                          Jarrett Jack 2009-2009


                          (Rajah and Freddie using it on their farewell tours with the team.)

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            1. TJ has a team-first game and a me-first attitude. Jack has a me-first game and a team-first attitude.
                            Please explain - I am curious. I understand what you are saying with the me-first attitude and team first attitude, but it is the first part that I don't understand - Team-first game vs Me-first game - please explain

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                              I think he's saying Jack shoots/ "calls his own number" too much. If that's the case I totally disagree - that's my #1 complaint with Ford.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                I think he's saying Jack shoots/ "calls his own number" too much. If that's the case I totally disagree - that's my #1 complaint with Ford.
                                Thats not what I think he is trying to get across. He is saying Jacks game is better suited for a sg not a pg. He is better suited as a scoring pg which I agree with. I would say the same thing for Ford though.

                                The attitude thing is hard to judge. Certianly Ford hates being the second fiddle but I don't get the impression that he's only out to get his.

                                I think he really believes that by taken advantage of scoring opportunities he is helping the team. The problem lies in the fact that he over does it, IMO.
                                Last edited by Gamble1; 07-13-2009, 11:58 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X