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

Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

    I know that this team s**** (I can't say that word anymore)and that is the one reason people expect Rush to be the answer, they guy is the best defender on the team he does all the small things you need from a player to win the game but people keeps giving him crap, his number are not that bad for a second player either, Rush at worst could be a nice young rotational player for years to come, why that is so bad?
    Last edited by vnzla81; 02-20-2010, 11:11 AM.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


    • #17
      Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      (and I was a guy happy about the upgrade from Rush to Henderson even)
      Upgrade? Yeah right. That's debateable. I think Rush is better than that. Defensively they may be in the same class, but I don't think Henderson is much more than Dahntay offensively.
      "man, PG has been really good."


      • #18
        Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        The putting of Rush in a trade says:

        A) Bird missed judged Rush's talent when he went for a "NBA ready" pick.

        B) TPTB have come to the conclusion Rush is never going to be the starting SG they wanted for the future.

        C) That Rush is not Jimmy's type player.

        D) That Jimmy will be the coach most of next season if not all of the season.

        E) It shows another failed pick by Bird. Lets hope Tyler isn't ANOTHER one.
        C & D
        I'm not perfect and neither are you.

        Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
        Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.


        • #19
          Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

          I don't think they misjudged his talent, but maybe his phychie.

          Pacers hoped for a Type A personality & got a Type B.

          Thing is, I'm not sure Rush won't change some (as he did at Kansas) as he becomes a "vet" he will become more "Type A". IMO he just needs a leader to mentor him. We do not have that locker room gut. Maybe Foster was for Hibby, but Danny is not that for Brandon.
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)


          • #20
            Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            As to Ford my guess is he was probably ready to get out of this nuthouse and away from this coach.

            Well that is until he realized that Larry Brown would have been his next coach. That would have been fun to see.

            However again I want to actually in all honesty show some admiration for the way that Ford has handled everything this year. He is not really a good point guard at all but to go from starter to 12th man would take its toll on anyone and I can tell you from sitting near the bench and watching him that the guy never once pouted or stood away from the team. He usually was the first person to greet the players coming off of the floor and he was always telling Price things whenever he would go by him.

            Think what you will of him as a player but as a team mate I would have to say that at least in public view you could not ask for much better than that.
            I agree, as much as I don't like him as a point guard, he seems like a pretty nice guy, and a pretty good teammate. He seems to make an effort to talk to and encourage the younger guys. Wasn't it TJ that took Hans out for "soul food" earlier this year?

            And although JOB has a preference for TJ, and TJ hasn't performed well, he has been in Jim's bipolar system (now you're playing, now you aren't) shuffle too. And that's hard on any player.


            • #21
              Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

              I think Rush could thrive as a complimentary player after Indiana adds some talent. He's never going to be "the man" on a team as far as scoring loads of points every game. He's the guy that makes the other team pay when he gets an opening from the team focusing on options 1 and 2. He's the guy that plays tough defense every game. He was never known for gunning a bunch of shots and being your primary scoring option. I personally really like Rush and think it would be a mistake to get rid of him right now. He could be a terrific asset down the road. If we rated defensive effort and skill, where would he rate among players on this team? There's more to basketball than scoring points. If you can prevent the other team from scoring, that's just as important.


              • #22
                Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                By Mike Wells
                Posted: February 20, 2010

                Thursday's proposed deal shows that the Pacers aren't sure if Rush, one of the most talented players on the roster, fits into their future plans. Rush has had an up-and-down first two seasons. His inconsistent play has frustrated many in the organization.
                REALLY.....ONE OF THE MOST TALENTED PLAYERS ON THE ROSTER????? ummmm.......maybe Mike Wells has been hanging out with JOB...
                I CANT SPELL!



                • #23
                  Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                  So I guess if you look at the trade that almost was it's basically trade TJ's contract and Rush for one unproven physical specimen and two decent backups. Or, taking out financials all together, Rush for the other three.

                  My guess is that Rush will ultimately be better than all three of them. We have a lot of good role players and backups around as is. From that standpoint I'm glad we skipped it. I just can't forsee Augustin as anything more than a career backup.

                  I guess that means I'm okay that it didn't transpire. Sort of.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata


                  • #24
                    Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                    Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                    I am actually VERY surprised that Rush was going to be a part of a trade such as was proposed.. I mean I could halfway see it , if we offered him in a trade with tj or murph only IF it netted us a VERY good young player who is already on his way to borderline starter/all-star.. But COME ON!!..
                    I just do not understand the logic.. Hell Rush is already ON HIS WAY to one day making the All Defensive Squad... Seriously if he keeps it up I can envision it one day...
                    His defense is damn good for only being a 2nd year player.. Not to mention he is already probably our top on-man defender..

                    I really think it was a "vote of no confidence" by the Pacer's Front Office in Rush...
                    And quite frankly, I don't think Rush deserves it.. and the flak that JOB talks out the side of his mouth about him..

                    Sure he may have been overly passive the 1st half of the season.. but COME ON!!! this is only his 2nd year !! (restating AGAIN!)

                    I really hope that this doesn't affect Brandon's fragile personality

                    I was half being sarcastic/ half serious on that last line.. cause if I were him, I would be kinda hurt that my team has no confidence in me and wants to trade me after
                    only 1 and 1/2 season from being drafted by them...

                    I think for a 2nd year player he is coming along just fine.. I mean sure I wish he had become more assertive/consistant sooner and earlier on the offensive end.. but you couldn't ask more from him on defense as a 1 and 1/2 year player..

                    I really think Bird and co. fumbled the ball with Rush on this one.. Let's hope not...

                    Why does everyone assume that because some guy is mentioned in trade discussion that it means that "we" or "TPTB" don't think he's good enough?
                    Want something of value? You usually have to give up something of value.
                    Apparently many here think other teams should send us quality for our scrap.


                    • #25
                      Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                      Originally posted by MLB007 View Post

                      Want something of value? You usually have to give up something of value.
                      Apparently many here think other teams should send us quality for our scrap.

                      This great "something of value" you are talking about that Charlotte has is a seldom used rookie and a 2nd year PG of which neither is getting much PT. To me that says a lot about how they feel about Rush and his future with the Pacers!

                      JMO, but I'd say Rush's days are #ed as a Pacer. He's trade filler to make a future trade happen.
                      Last edited by Justin Tyme; 02-20-2010, 01:05 PM.


                      • #26
                        Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        The putting of Rush in a trade says:

                        A) Bird missed judged Rush's talent when he went for a "NBA ready" pick.

                        B) TPTB have come to the conclusion Rush is never going to be the starting SG they wanted for the future.

                        E) It shows another failed pick by Bird. Lets hope Tyler isn't ANOTHER one.

                        How do you figure any of this?

                        Including a player in a trade -- especially having him on a short side of a 2-for-3 deal -- suggests his value is recognized by both his own team and the other one.

                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)


                        • #27
                          Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                          I spite of how well Brandon's done lately, plus being a very good defender, for the balance of the year he was a shooting guard that didn't shoot. Hopefully, he can use this as some motivation to prove that he belongs instead of going back into the shell...
                          "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."


                          • #28
                            Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                            I really get tired of comments like this.... How naive do you have to be.
                            "I was definitely more shocked than anything," Rush said. "I didn't see it coming. Nobody told me anything about being on the trade block. It was more of a shock."
                            To me this trade was all about Fords contract than Rush's inability to play for the Pacers.


                            • #29
                              Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                              I'm glad this trade did not go down. I would be very disappointed with the direction of the franchise if we got rid of a promising player like Rush just to save some money.

                              Rush will be gone, eventually. It will be kind of a shame because I am a fan of Brandon, but I won't judge until I see what we get back.

                              DJ Augustin is a career backup, undersized PG. Gerald Henderson doesn't even look big enough to be an NBA player. People love to crow about how these guys are "prospects" but they're lipstick on a pig when it comes to the attractiveness of this trade.
                              Last edited by idioteque; 02-20-2010, 03:09 PM.


                              • #30
                                Re: Well's> Ford, Rush taken aback by Pacers' trade talk

                                I don't see how this could be a shock for anyone. TPTB have been sending out signals on this for the past month.
                                This space for rent.