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

RealGM: Pacers talking points

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RealGM: Pacers talking points

    With another season in the books, Chris Reina sat down with Andrew Perna for a Pacers edition of 'Talking Points'.

    CR: Will Danny Granger ever be good enough to be the best player on a team that gets out of the first round or is he in that third tier behind someone like Joe Johnson?

    Granger can be the best player on a playoff contender, but he’d need a solid supporting cast that includes two or three players that are just a touch behind him. All and all, the example of Joe Johnson and the Hawks is as close to perfect as you’ll get. I’d take Johnson over Granger, but having players that resembled Josh Smith, Al Horford, Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford would do wonders for Granger’s stock.

    If you look at Indiana’s roster, you’d have to compare Johnson’s supporting cast to a group that includes Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert. That’s not a fair comparison for either side at this point.

    CR: Why have the Pacers dropped from 18th in offensive efficiency in 08-09 to 26th this season?

    There are a few reasons for the drop, one being the play of Granger. His numbers dropped across the board, including his Offensive Rating (from 114 to 108) and his True Shooting % (from 51.8 to 49.8) and he missed 20 games.
    Indiana started to play better when Granger got healthy down the stretch and the effectiveness trickled down, but overall the offense wasn’t nearly as potent, which is unfortunate because they did get a touch better defensively. They resembled a stick in the mud over the last four seasons. They move a little bit here and there, but the current roster isn’t going to free itself from the sludge.

    The variance in their win total is just four over the last four seasons and they’ve finished ninth (three times) and tenth in the conference since making their last playoff appearance in 2006.

    It’s also worth noting that coach Jim O’Brien, who is bulletproof for whatever reason, doesn’t have a history of leading a young center like Roy Hibbert. Perhaps he isn’t using the Georgetown big man effectively, which is hurting the team’s overall output. These are the centers O’Brien coached prior landing in Indiana: Tony Battie, Mark Blount, Vitaly Potapenko, Mark Bryant, Mikki Moore, Bruno Sundov, Raef LaFrentz, Chris Mihm, Kendrick Perkins, Samuel Dalembert and Marc Jackson.

    Remember, both Perkins and Dalembert weren’t established yet and they grew when O’Brien left.

    CR: Which point guard that got away would you rather still have, Jerryd Bayless or Jarrett Jack?

    This one is very tough, but Jerryd Bayless is the right answer. For one, I wanted them to take Bayless back in 2008 and wasn’t thrilled when they dealt him to Portland on Draft Night. In addition, the Pacers are clearly focusing on the future and having a young point guard like Bayless is a greater asset than a veteran like Jack.

    With that said, I think the Pacers would have easily won a handful more games with Jack this season. He isn’t a long-term solution as a starter for any team, but he’s a stable presence and you’re never going to dip too high or too low with him.

    The Pacers haven’t been stable at point guard since the first couple seasons of Jamaal Tinsley’s career, which means the position has been in flux for around six years.

    CR: Are there any players in the upcoming draft that you specifically would not want the Pacers to target?

    At this point in the process there isn’t any one player that I’d like the Pacers to target or not target, but I think they should focus on the paint and point guard and avoid taking a wing. They have Rush, Granger, Dahntay Jones and Dunleavy currently, which is an above-average quartet when everyone is healthy.

    It might sound like beating a dead horse, but I’m glad Kyle Singler decided to return to Duke. He just seemed like a guy Larry Bird might target, whether or not that’s buying too much into unfounded stereotypes.

    CR: What are the single biggest positive and negative takeaways from the 09-10 season?

    Let’s start with the biggest negative and work towards a brighter outlook.

    The team has to be disappointed that no real growth was made as a team. Sometimes you have to take a few steps back to make a huge step forward and the Pacers remain marred in the same category. I am by no means saying the Indiana shouldn’t have played out the schedule strongly (they won 10 of their final 14 games), but in today’s NBA you often need to be absolutely horrible for a season or two to complete the rebuilding process. Four consecutive seasons of 33 or so wins isn’t good, but it isn’t horrible either.

    While I’m still not confident in O’Brien’s abilities to maximize Hibbert’s talents, the center made a pretty significant jump in his second professional season. He finished among the league leaders in total blocks, remained durable and showed flashes of improvement on both ends of the floor. He’s also gotten better at using both hands.
    His footwork and overall agility need improvement, something that’s been said for several years, but he’s going to be at the very least a valuable commodity in the NBA as the traditional center continues to inch closer to extinction.

  • #2
    Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

    I give most of our posters on this board more credibility then Andrew Perna...
    ...Still "flying casual"


    • #3
      Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

      I actually like Andrew Perna. Probably because before I found this site, I posted on RealGM with him before he became a writer. He was just a regular mod who posted a lot over there.

      I really don't see much of a difference between him and any other Pacers writer. He may not have as many connections, but when it all comes down to it, its just opinion anyway. I actually agree with most the things in this article.


      • #4
        Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        I really don't see much of a difference between him and any other Pacers writer. He may not have as many connections, but when it all comes down to it, its just opinion anyway. I actually agree with most the things in this article.
        Last edited by Mourning; 04-22-2010, 10:59 AM. Reason: grammar correction
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion,

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion,

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up,


        • #5
          Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          I give most of our posters on this board more credibility then Andrew Perna...

          Is there anything in this column that you disagree with, Gnome? I feel the same about Perna as you, generally, but this one seems pretty decent to me.

          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)


          • #6
            Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

            I actually thought the analysis was frighteningly dead on. A lot of writers tend to throw out some conjecture that's a little too subjective, but man, he hit on a LOT of stuff we have all been griping about: Not developing Hibbert, O'Brien's invulnerability, just playing well enough to stay stuck in nuetral and the need for a low post guy (I'm sorry, but I see Psycho-T as more of a complimentary, utility guy in the mold of a Scalabrine/Bonner type) and i thought the Hawks compasision was pretty insightful.
            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?


            • #7
              Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

              As Perna pieces go, this one is probably his best in recent memory. Ordinarily, though, Perna would do well to just put links in his articles to various posts here that pertain to the various sides of his topic du jour, and then do his own work with that as a basis, or at the very least come here more often than he does, or at least had in the past, and review what has been posted prior to his "coverage" being published to RealGM.

              Alternately, he could hire various individuals here who have various analytical strong points or unique abilities to express their passion with respect to various topics to act as ghost writers for him.

              If he has any special access as a journalist to make direct contact with the team, he could combine what he would have with the varied expertise of those here with his access and perhaps add more value to his RealGM site because of it.


              • #8
                Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

                While I agree a bit with Gnome that I've never been impressed with Perna, he is dead on here. When less-than-average national writers nail exactly what is wrong with your team, that's a problem.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                • #9
                  Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

                  You could pretty much say Johnson has been playing along side better players his whole career except maybe one season. Which was the season he first arrived in Atlanta.

                  He played with Nash in Phoenix.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                  • #10
                    Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    Is there anything in this column that you disagree with, Gnome?
                    Even though this Perna piece feels like it has been regurgitated from another source, I find it hard to disagree with most of what is in this effort. This was probably not the most appropriate place to lob the hatchet that I did. I should have just waited for an example of why I really don't care for his work.
                    ...Still "flying casual"


                    • #11
                      Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

                      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                      Even though this Perna piece feels like it has been regurgitated from another source, I find it hard to disagree with most of what is in this effort. This was probably not the most appropriate place to lob the hatchet that I did. I should have just waited for an example of why I really don't care for his work.
                      Wow, love the new look! So, the future's so bright you gotta wear shades, huh?


                      • #12
                        Re: RealGM: Pacers talking points

                        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                        Wow, love the new look! So, the future's so bright you gotta wear shades, huh?
                        Haha, hadn't noticed the avi change of Roaming Gnome! Good for you, RG!
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion,

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion,

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up,