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???

    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
    No, I believe you're momma.
    Maybe the shoes were stolen from my shelf for Josh to wear.

    That's how I'd be momma.


    • Re: Why make this statement???

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Don't feel bad, he's gonna be here for another season.


      • Re: Why make this statement???

        Originally posted by IU_sears View Post
        I think Uncle Buck's account has been hacked by Jim Obrien!!!! This explains everything!!!
        Nah. UB's posts reflect a well thought out and vehemently held position that just happens to run counter to many others here. He is a better man than I to be able to withstand the constant negativity that his expression of his position elicits here, and I respect the heck out of that.

        O'B is more likely to have been O'/Bird when he used to come here. I do find it odd that it has been so long since he has posted, BTW. He was a quality poster despite his positions being counter to many here because his posts were generally well thought out and coherently expressed.


        • Re: Why make this statement???

          I hope McRoberts has a better handle on his mouth than I do, because I would be the next one in line for a suspension. I would let Jim know bluntly what I thought of him and his stupid decisions.

          I watched the entire game last night. That's the first game I've done that in probably a year. Most of the time I would switch back and forth between the game and another channel, due to my temper rising and needing to cool off for a little bit then turn it back on. I've had such low expectations, and thought I finally came to a sense of peace with the situation. I met horrible plays with sarcastic remarks, instead of frustrations. I met JOb putting AJ scrub time with a chuckle. After the game was over, I calmly switched channels and started getting ready for bed, and didn't give the game a second thought. It was okay for me.

          Then I log on here and see this thread, and I think I'm more pissed now than I have been at any point in time with Jim. I've refrained from calling him names. I've said I thought the decisions he's made were stupid, illogical, etc, but came short of calling him stupid, illogical, etc.

          That time has passed. I've been firmly in the camp that he's just backwards in his basketball philosophy, and that doesn't reflect on him as a person. Not anymore.

          Just an absolute *******. There's no other way I can describe it. *******.

          UB made the comment that he thinks he didn't reflect those feelings in the lockerroom, and was more upbeat towards Josh face-to-face.

          Well if that's true, he's not only an *******, he's two-faced. But I don't think that's the case. A coach should be more PC in his remarks to the media. I firmly believe you don't tear a person down in the public eye. Not that I would tear them down privately, but you should be a more open with your criticism privately.

          This has been the longest season I can remember. I pray JOb isn't here next season, I don't know how I'll react with another season under this *******.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


          • Re: Why make this statement???

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            You know what's ironic.

            Larry basically said he gave JOB that extension so that JOB would feel free to develope the younger guys, without fear of being fired......

            Yeah, so Jimmy wouldn't be that proverbial "lame duck" coach. We see how well that has worked out. Lost the team after the beginning of the season with that extra year. 104 more games of his coaching is just a sickening thought. 22 I could handle, but another 82 is absolutely disheartening to the most dieheart Pacer fans.

            It has to be part of Bird's 3 year plan to faulter so badly with Jimmy coaching that the Pacers can get a high lottery pick this draft and next. All I can say is that whoever they draft better not get in Jimmy's doghouse, or development be darn.


            • Re: Why make this statement???

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              Going into this season I can see how it was a good idea. Walking into camp and the pre-season you have it instilled into the players' minds that this is who you are going with. (Egos and ideologies aside in this argument, please.) It was a safe way to go. Now it didn't necessarily backfire on anyone, regardless the outcome in the W/L columns. All it did was give a different reason to the players, fans, etc. to tune Jim out.
              Yes, I know that at my jobs people often work much better when they know they have no chance at being fired. And their co-workers LOVE knowing that no matter how poorly they perform that they will be forced to deal with them indefinitely.

              JOB was not going to be a lame duck, he was going to be ACCOUNTABLE. Win and stay, lose and go. Or develop youth and stay.

              This angle that the only reason JOB wouldn't lose the team was because they knew he was coming back next year doesn't make any sense. Think about those words - I won't listen to Einstein or Lincoln if I know they won't be here next week. Does that make sense to you at all? Of course not.

              The respect is NOT DRIVEN BY HIS CONTRACT EXTENSION. All that can do is drive resentment. Players will respect him by results and his interaction with them, just like all workers and bosses.

              Think of it another way - let's say he's great, players love him and Bird doesn't give him the extension. In that case players not only don't tune him out, they start speaking out to management to keep him, showing solidarity behind him.


              • Re: Why make this statement???

                Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                I've been a Bird supporter since the summer of 08 as I think he has made some pretty good moves, but if O'Brien is here next year it will be impossible for me to defend him.

                Get prepared to not be able to defend Bird, b/c Jimmy ain't go'n nowhere.... unless JOS decides the heat in the kitchen is to hot to stay. To be honest for the franchise, this would be the best thing. It would allow Bird and ownership to be able to save face. It would be a graceful way for all to move on.


                • Re: Why make this statement???

                  Here is something I'm thinking about. Do you think Bird said to Obie, look play the players we need to develop and Obie just refused? I don't think that is happening. So my question is why isn't Bird demanding that he develop the youngsters?


                  • Re: Why make this statement???

                    As much as I really hate Jim's coaching, I don't see what the big deal is with the comments. I would've said the same damn thing and walked away in disgust just like he did.

                    The Pacers were within 1 point of the Lakers before the Lakers went on a 40-10 run... it was nice Josh had a good game but WTF... the last thing I would want to talk about is how we had some kind of moral victory with our last guy on the bench in that pathetic game.


                    • Re: Why make this statement???

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      so you think stats in a blowout loss are important?
                      No, not really. I will agree with you and maybe even JOB on this.

                      However effort should never be irrelevant and to me that is what he is dispairaging.

                      Josh not only had stat's, he had effort, he gave the old proverbial 110% on the floor and then to have it called irrelevant is just insulting.

                      So he would have been ok if Josh had just gone out and dogged it on the floor? Actually you don't need to answer that because I think we both know the answer is yes because that would have gone a long way in justifying how he doles out playing time.

                      If Josh had come in at the end of the 4th and got all of this then maybe, maybe this statement wouldn't be so bad. Well no that's not true either because to me you don't put down somebody who is trying.

                      But his STATS came in the 1st quarter when the game was still in play, actually the Pacers ended the 1st with a lead if I remember correctly.

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


                      • Re: Why make this statement???

                        Originally posted by Trophy View Post

                        Don't feel bad, he's gonna be here for another season.


                        • Re: Why make this statement???

                          the game was still in play all the way up till the 8 minute mark of the 3rd when the Lakers went on a 40-10 run...

                          Just awful to the nth degree


                          • Re: Why make this statement???

                            Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                            the game was still in play all the way up till the 8 minute mark of the 3rd
                            Thanks largely in part to the effort of McRoberts. Not in spite of that, as JOB's comments seem to indicate.


                            • Re: Why make this statement???

                              Let's try to be objective a minute.

                              You are the coach. Your team was competing with the best team in the league then got destroyed by a 40-10 run... I would be absolutely disgusted and singing the praises of my bench players and McBob (who was also part of that 40-10 run) would be the last thing I would want to do. I could just see Phil Jackson smirking in the back of the room, making a snide remark about he is glad they feel like they accomplished something. Enough with the coddleing. These guys are men and shouldn't need the coach to sing their praises to the media. What Jim should do is play McBob more minutes, not talk out of his *** about good play in a horrible game.


                              • Re: Why make this statement???

                                Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                                Let's try to be objective a minute.

                                You are the coach. Your team was competing with the best team in the league then got destroyed by a 40-10 run... I would be absolutely disgusted and singing the praises of my bench players and McBob (who was also part of that 40-10 run) would be the last thing I would want to do. I could just see Phil Jackson smirking in the back of the room, making a snide remark about he is glad they feel like they accomplished something. Enough with the coddleing. These guys are men and shouldn't need the coach to sing their praises to the media. What Jim should do is play McBob more minutes, not talk out of his *** about good play in a horrible game.
                                There is a huge differance between singing the praises of the players in a loss and taking the time to single out one player to disparaige his effort.

                                This statement would have been fine.

                                "Our team just took a severe loss, I am not happy with anyone's stats after such a game".

                                Or even

                                "while I appreciate the effort Josh put forth as a team we just did not do enough"

                                But no, he chose to take the one guy who actually had a good game and send it off into the catagory of non importance.

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