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

Why make this statement???

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Why make this statement???

    A thought just hit me. For most of the people in this forum this is by far the worst season you have lived through as a Pacers fan.

    Really you have to go back to 1989 when they were 28-54 to get anything close to this. That was 21 years ago, so unless you are at least 30 years old now, this is the "worst season ever"

    Maybe I need to be more understanding.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-04-2010, 11:12 AM.


    • Re: Why make this statement???

      We can't all be over reacting, Buck...95% of us feel that Obie's act is wearing thin...


      • Re: Why make this statement???

        Originally posted by AlexAustin View Post
        He damn near still finished that dunk, which would have been the facial of the year.
        Hahahaha I just saw this post. Awesome.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson


        • Re: Why make this statement???

          Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
          So, heres the elephant in the room.

          If Josh consistently plays well for the rest of the season, what about Tyler?
          I think you could play Josh as a Center and not resign Salamon Jones. Maybe ask him to put on more weight.

          My only concern is if we draft a pf, Mcbob will never have a real shot at proving himself in the NBA. At least not as a Pacer.

          Unclebuck, I honestly don't know this but what happen to the coach?
          When you go through your worst season in 21 years shouldn't you be angry or at least frustrated?
          Last edited by Gamble1; 03-04-2010, 12:13 PM.


          • Re: Why make this statement???

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Actually... the question of Tyler vs McRoberts is an important one. Considering the problems Tyler is still having it's now no longer a foregone conclusion that he will ever be back or not suffer recurrences so getting a good luck at McRoberts and some real gametime evaluation is probably more important than ever.
            This was my point all last year, prior to drafting Tyler. They drafted a PF for a reason, yet never bothered to look at or work with the PF prospect they already had.

            Dumb. Wasteful. This is the kind of stuff a team loaded with talent and winning can afford to do. Teams scraping by need "wins" anywhere they can find it. If that is finding a capable backup PF in your throw-in pile of a trade, then take it and smile a little.

            If you work with Josh last year and he's just a mess, then you can still draft Tyler. No harm done at all. If Josh comes along nicely last year then you don't draft Tyler, and instead feel safe using the pick for one of those PGs you wanted.

            Just by working with a prospect, sitting vets in a meaningless season more than normal, you get a FREE chance to solve TWO issues - PG prospect and backup PF.

            I mean Price as a 2nd round pick was smart, low risk chance to maybe solve the PG prospect thing. But imagine you had Holliday AND Price and McBob was playing at the Tyler level we saw, which he basically does when he is on the floor (I've said he's a bit better, but I won't fight hard on that one).


            • Re: Why make this statement???

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              A thought just hit me. For most of the people in this forum this is by far the worst season you have lived through as a Pacers fan.

              Really you have to go back to 1989 when they were 28-54 to get anything close to this. That was 21 years ago, so unless you are at least 30 years old now, this is the "worst season ever"

              Maybe I need to be more understanding.

              I think I'm older than you. It's close for sure. You are grasping at straws with this angle.

              Bob Hill was a better coach than JOB. JOB is in Versace land or George Irvine land, and you are defending him.

              I'd love to hear you explain how those 2 got the short end of it and should have been kept around too.

              At least back then when Stipo got hurt, SMITS PLAYED. We didn't hear "well let's just go small ball because Rik is no good".

              Not only that, but Rik even said in a recent article that he feels that being thrown to the wolves HELPED HIM learn the game quicker and improve sooner.

              JOB's response to that was to play Rasho 1200 minutes and Roy 1000. Do you want to make the case that Roy would be equal or worse now if he'd played 1700 minutes last year and Rasho played 500?


              • Re: Why make this statement???

                I tend to agree, stats in a blowout loss are irrelevant. I mean what good are stats if your team loses.
                So can we go ahead and pull Danny's point and FGM from last night out of his season total.

                From now on I only want to see stats from games they win or barely lose. I don't care if a guy has a great first half when it's still close, that effort becomes instantly meaningless in the mid-3rd when the doors get blown off.

                Danny sucked last night because they got killed. There we go, good sound logic.

                What makes all this even more dumb, if you go look at the "in wins" or "in losses" split, the main point is to get a sense of what causes teams to win or lose. So if Dunleavy has better stats in wins than losses, then Dun's BAD NIGHT is why they lost. His stats are the key.

                So it's not that Josh had a bad game, but rather that his good game isn't a critical piece at this point.

                Instead of dismissing good stats in a bad night, let's focus on the BAD STATS in a bad night. Wow, accountability, what a concept. I concede that Josh isn't enough to make or break the team, now you must own up that Danny, Watson, TJ, Dun and Troy ARE the guys making or breaking the team.

                I want you and JOB to start calling them out. And on top of that, if they are 20-40 and those guys are the difference makers, THEN STOP PLAYING THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE KILLING THE TEAM.

                Josh plays because his output doesn't impact how the game goes one way or the other. Troy sits because his play does hold them back, and he plays poorly more often than he plays well. Problem solved.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-04-2010, 12:21 PM.


                • Re: Why make this statement???

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  Mike Wells with another home run:

                  March 4, 2010
                  That was not an irrelevant loss
                  Posted by Mike Wells

                  PORTLAND, Ore. - Hate to disappoint some of you, but Jim O'Brien didn't use the word "irrelevant" when talking about Danny Granger's 30-point performance in their blowout loss to Portland.

                  In fact, O'Brien liked how Granger played.

                  "Danny had a good game," O'Brien said.

                  He liked the way Granger played when the Pacers got smacked around by 23 points for the second straight game, but he didn't like it when Josh McRoberts not only scored a career-high 15 points, he was also active in other areas of the game?

                  Nothing should surprise you when it comes to the Pacers these days.

                  Granger was the only player that showed up offensively for the Pacers.

                  Earl Watson, who is not a shooting guard, scored nine points, which was the next highest total for the Pacers.

                  The Pacers have no chance of winning when only one player is scoring.

                  Speaking of McRoberts, he didn't get off the bench until there was less than five minutes left in the game and the Pacers were down by 25 points.

                  The Pacers should be happy if they stay within 15 points in any of their games on this trip.


                  To say Solomon Jones is in O'Brien's doghouse would be an understatement.

                  Jones returned from his one-game suspension, which centered around his displeasure over being fined for missing a lifting session, but he was the only Pacer not to play in the blowout.

                  Surprised no one has commented on this.

                  Wells is taking off the gloves when it comes to O'Brien. It looks like JOB is stiffening up. It's hard to win a battle against the media.

                  There's more to this Solomon Jones thing. I wonder if other players missed lifting sessions but were not penalized?

                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


                  • Re: Why make this statement???

                    It takes a lot for me to jump but if JOB wants to keep saying stupid things then he finally pushed me to ...........

                    JOB is a silly man


                    • Re: Why make this statement???

                      BTW guys my man Uncle Buck has been taking a beating on here (deservedly so ) but let's not lose sight of one thing.

                      U.B. is not a JOB supporter, although he has made the mistake of allowing himself to look like one.

                      He is opposed to the over the top reactions to every loss from early in the season.

                      If you actually listen or read what he is saying you will see he does not think O'Brien should be here.

                      He is just trying to be a couple of things

                      1. Devils advocate.

                      2. Keep the level of respect for the position. In other words you may not like the office holder but you should respect the office.

                      Besides what would the day be without Uncle Buck making BrushwithDeath lose his mind. Before that it was WetBob who absolutely hated U.B.

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


                      • Re: Why make this statement???

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post

                        Besides what would the day be without Uncle Buck making BrushwithDeath lose his mind. Before that it was WetBob who absolutely hated U.B.
                        I wish WetBob could come back so I didn't look like the bad guy.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson


                        • Re: Why make this statement???

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post

                          2. Keep the level of respect for the position. In other words you may not like the office holder but you should respect the office.
                          I've heard this applied to the president (in fact, the only office I've heard this in connection with), but is this seriously supposed to apply to NBA coaches? We should "respect the office?"


                          • Re: Why make this statement???

                            Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                            I've heard this applied to the president (in fact, the only office I've heard this in connection with), but is this seriously supposed to apply to NBA coaches? We should "respect the office?"
                            I'm not saying it should, but I think U.B. feels that as a coach he deserves a certain amount of respect.

                            While there have been plenty of times I've called him an idiot from my seat at home or at the games I do have to admit that to get to this level you really can't be an idiot.

                            That doesn't mean you have to be great or even good. But a total idiot would be wrong to say.

                            I don't agree with his coaching style and I think right now he is in defiant mode with the fans, believe me I think he knows what most people think but just doesn't care.

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


                            • Re: Why make this statement???

                              Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                              We can't all be over reacting, Buck...95% of us feel that Obie's act is wearing thin...
                              That is not my point and never has been.


                              • Re: Why make this statement???

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                                not resign Salamon Jones.

                                He's under contract for next year/season.