Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

State of the state

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

  • Re: State of the state

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    I define a freak injury as one that is out of the norm in which case I remember the doctors saying that they have never seen it in a basketball player before. I don't care enough to look up the exact quote but it defiantly was a freak injury. How many guys in the NBA have knee problems at one point in time in their career? Probably nearly half but how many of them have what Dun had?
    Whatever he has is related to what he's had since his rookie season. It's actually an issue related to a growth spurt he had his sophomore year at Duke (similar to Bender). My point is that his knee problems have been a known issue. They simply got more severe as he piled on the minutes.

    Comment


    • Re: State of the state

      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
      So again because it is in the paper it makes it 100 true? They are merley reporting what they are told

      My belief is Bird did have a say in the decision.

      You feel, based on your information that he did not

      no worries, we will agree to disagree
      So you're going to go on record as saying Walsh and Mullin are both publicly covering for Larry? If so, why do you think they're doing this?

      Comment


      • Re: State of the state

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        So you're going to go on record as saying Walsh and Mullin are both publicly covering for Larry? If so, why do you think they're doing this?
        If Mullen said he did not speak to Larry that is very likely true and would not be considered covering. Why would Mullen speak to anyone other than the top guy who was Walsh and why would Mullen be privy to the inner discussions of the pacer PTB? He probably had no idea what individual pacer FO people were thinking.I'm sure Mullen didn't speak to the Simons either but that doesn't mean the Simons did not have an opinion or approve the trade.
        I also can't believe that Larry wasn't part of the process. A big trade like that involved lots of input but that is not to say anyone other than Walsh and the Simons made the final decision.

        Comment


        • Re: State of the state

          Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
          I don't think saying Bird likes white players is calling Bird a racist. San Antonio seems to prefer foreign players, are they racist?
          No. What's the opposite of xenophobic?

          The Spurs are xenophiliasts. Dirty, dirty xenophiliasts.




          BTW, on the Golden St deal, I think it probably wasn't a Bird thing at all. I'm sure Walsh was a major player there. But the team was getting big outside financial pressure to make a move.

          To me the failure was not standing up to that pressure and insisting on making the smartest, most patient move available from a basketball standpoint.

          Few deals work out where you go into them with a "we must get something done right away no matter what" mentality.



          But since then I think Bird has become more and more of a "too safe" GM, or perhaps too stubborn. To me Williams/White was probably the last straw for him, which is now working against him.

          I wasn't the only one saying "trade high" on Dunleavy pre-injury, so it was there for a smart GM to see as a serious option. Many have had it with JOB and his refusal to run the show like its trying to build for the future rather than flail around in desperation trying to make the playoffs for 3 years in a row. And we even had the Tinsley thing where Bird took the "no buyout" stance only to be forced into a buyout after a season of paying out full salary.

          Also it would appear that Bird was the person that fired Rick after the GSW trade flopped, only to have the Pacers continue on at the exact same level for 3 more seasons while nationally Carlisle receives praise as a coach.


          At first some of the stuff seemed standard hits and misses, but over the last year or so we've had so many moves that seem like duds to me. The last really great moves to me were the Jack/Rush deal and the JO for Hibbert/Rasho deal.

          Even then I think you buy out Rasho, give 700 more minutes to Hibbert or hire a coach who will. I don't jock up Diener and KRush and artificially raise expectations. I don't let Jack go. If Quis for Walker was anywhere close to on the table I make that happen (maybe this was just out of reach).

          I don't talk up "getting into the draft" to sell a 2nd round Stanko pick to everyone. I sure as heck don't spend money I don't have to bring in Luther Head right before the season starts, money wasted on his limited minutes (I like LH, but what was the point if things are being run JOB's way).

          And as everyone knows I don't draft Hans. I take the Bulls deal even if I have to sweeten it a bit after Henderson is drafted, assuming their rumored interest in Hans was real.

          This stuff was discussed before the outcomes, not after. This isn't Monday morning QBing. I'm actually still waiting to eat crow on just about every issue I ranted about at the time, and I don't like that. Better to be wrong and admiring Bird's savvy than not.


          There is just a long list of questionable choices and strange, mixed messages. It feels like there is either a lack of direction or interest or a hidden agenda like reducing payroll in preparation for a sale.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-12-2010, 01:59 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: State of the state

            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
            So again because it is in the paper it makes it 100 true? They are merley reporting what they are told

            My belief is Bird did have a say in the decision.

            You feel, based on your information that he did not

            no worries, we will agree to disagree
            EDIT - nevermind.

            The difference between Peck's position and yours is that he has information from multiple sources and you don't have one scratch of evidence from any source outside of your head. So he's on the side of truth and reason and you are on the side of crackpot theory.

            This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact, and continuing this conversation is like continuing to argue with someone who is convinced the moon landing was fake.
            Last edited by Los Angeles; 06-12-2010, 04:09 PM.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment


            • Re: State of the state

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              EDIT - nevermind.

              The difference between Peck's position and yours is that he has information from multiple sources and you don't have one scratch of evidence from any source outside of your head. So he's on the side of truth and reason and you are on the side of crackpot theory.

              This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact, and continuing this conversation is like continuing to argue with someone who is convinced the moon landing was fake.
              There is no proof whatsoever that the moon ever landed in Roswell, NM. All you with conspiracy theories...







              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: State of the state

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                I suppose someone could argue it's because the team knew it was a bad deal (or very potentially a bad deal) and so wanted to insulate Bird from that fallout when he would soon be taking the reins from Walsh. But if they were that sure it was a bad deal, why do it?

                I think the best answer is Walsh did it and Bird was the 3rd mascot for most of that time... Boomer, Bowser, and Bird. Now, was the one mascot already cut by then? Yes... pretty sure he was... it was at least the season prior when it was Boomer, Bowser, Bender, and Bird!
                This.

                The "covering" theory also stumbles in the fact that instead of helping Bird's perception, it makes him look weak and ineffective, which he probably was. So all of their comments would be dumb PR.

                Don't get me wrong, I love me a good conspiracy theory. But the best interpretation on this scenario: they were all just telling the truth.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • Re: State of the state

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  So you're going to go on record as saying Walsh and Mullin are both publicly covering for Larry? If so, why do you think they're doing this?
                  Not saying they are "covering" for Bird, but my only point of the whole discussion was that I can not believe Bird had no input.

                  Meaning, they completed the trade and then came back to Bird/RC and said "guess what we just traded for two of the softest players in the league"

                  again, I dont know who is responsible, but I am adamant that I believe Bird had a strong opinion in the trade.

                  An example of this is when a GM/Coach will say "I have never talked with another team about trading player "X"

                  That would be the truth, he hasnt but his assistant etc has talked to another person in the other teams organization
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment


                  • Re: State of the state

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    EDIT - nevermind.

                    The difference between Peck's position and yours is that he has information from multiple sources and you don't have one scratch of evidence from any source outside of your head. So he's on the side of truth and reason and you are on the side of crackpot theory.

                    This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact, and continuing this conversation is like continuing to argue with someone who is convinced the moon landing was fake.
                    How is it a fact?

                    Were you in the room, or on the other line when the deal was consummated?

                    Peck has multiple sources? Like Newspapers right? their job is to report what is being told to them, they were also not in the room

                    If you are a layer, not saying you are but you speak in legal terms, then I think you would understand speculation and circumstantial evidence.

                    If you think Bird arose to a phone call one morning from Donnie Walsh were he said something like "hey Larry, we just traded away S Jax and Harrington for Murph/Dun" then thats your right to believe so. I dont

                    And to call something factual because it came from "multiple sources" is not correct.

                    But I digress, its really not important now
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • Re: State of the state

                      It's a fact because multiple independent sources with no reason to lie about such a trivial thing have stated it as fact.
                      Last edited by Los Angeles; 06-14-2010, 07:27 PM.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • Re: State of the state

                        You're right, I was way out of line in my edit to that last post.

                        I've enjoyed a number of your posts and hope we can mend fences in the future.

                        I really am sorry.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • Re: State of the state

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          You're right, I was way out of line in my edit to that last post.

                          I've enjoyed a number of your posts and hope we can mend fences in the future.

                          I really am sorry.
                          likewise , my bad and feel the same

                          Group hug or as Jeremy Piven would say "Lets hug it out btch"
                          Sittin on top of the world!

                          Comment


                          • Re: State of the state

                            We have de-railed this thread bad enough already but I want to add one more thing.

                            You are now saying something differant than what I thought we were starting to talk about.

                            I am makeing the statement that Donnie Walsh made the trade. I am saying he initiated it, activated it and completed it.

                            However I am not saying that Bird may or may not have known about this trade prior to it's completion.

                            The reason I make certain to always stand up on this trade is because

                            1. I do not want anyone to let Walsh off of the hook for this and the several other Jems he left us with over the last few years.

                            2. I do not want people thinking Bird made this trade when he didn't because often times (I'm not saying you btw) there is a racial overtone that he wanted Dun & Murphy because they were white. So consequently every single time a white player is either traded for or drafted or even looked at by the Bird admin. people will always also throw in those two as well and use this to say that Bird wants an all white team.

                            But this does not mean he did not get notified or consulted prior to the trade. However he had no hand in making the trade.


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

                            Comment


                            • Re: State of the state

                              Here's a plausible scenario:

                              - Walsh thinks about the possibility of a Dun/Murph trade, or is having a conversation with Mullin where the idea of a such a trade comes up.

                              - The conversation turns serious, and they have a lengthy discussion about doing the trade.

                              - After the conversation, Donnie calls Larry and tells him about it. Asks for Larry's thoughts. They have a lengthy conversation, but Larry is still in training, not wanting to buck the system, shrugs his shoulders and tells Donnie to go ahead with his line of thinking on this trade.

                              - Donnie makes the second call. The trade is completed.

                              So, Walsh initiated and completed the trade. It only took two phone calls. Sure, Larry was involved, but you really have to pin most of the trade on Donnie Walsh.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • Re: State of the state

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                We have de-railed this thread bad enough already but I want to add one more thing.

                                You are now saying something differant than what I thought we were starting to talk about.

                                I am makeing the statement that Donnie Walsh made the trade. I am saying he initiated it, activated it and completed it.

                                However I am not saying that Bird may or may not have known about this trade prior to it's completion.

                                The reason I make certain to always stand up on this trade is because

                                1. I do not want anyone to let Walsh off of the hook for this and the several other Jems he left us with over the last few years.

                                2. I do not want people thinking Bird made this trade when he didn't because often times (I'm not saying you btw) there is a racial overtone that he wanted Dun & Murphy because they were white. So consequently every single time a white player is either traded for or drafted or even looked at by the Bird admin. people will always also throw in those two as well and use this to say that Bird wants an all white team.

                                But this does not mean he did not get notified or consulted prior to the trade. However he had no hand in making the trade.
                                Peck,

                                Good points my friend, well put
                                Sittin on top of the world!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X