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

sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

    30. Larry Bird, Indiana Pacers

  • #2
    Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

    Bird at 30 is about right but he should atleast be 29 over kahn
    2012: Pacers return to glory

    Paul George All Day


    • #3
      Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

      Bird is getting the blame for everything in this thread since 2003?

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


      • #4
        Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

        I didn't read the article since I know Bird's not the Pacers' GM. So it's plain and simple, whoever wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about.


        • #5
          Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

          WTF is up with this lame article? So any other GM should have been able to turn post-brawl Stephen Jackson into a bunch of cap relief? Why not just throw in some draft picks and an All-Star as well? Bird had a massively difficult cleanup job to carry out, and he's turned a team of personality disorders into a team that features Granger and Hibbert, players any team would love to acquire and enjoy having as teammates and citizens, and some very intriguing young players, including some recent second round steals. No way is he the worst GM. Replace O'Brien with a real coach and play your cards right with that cap space and things are going to look much better for this team. I certainly haven't liked everything Bird has done, but we need to wait until next year before judging Bird's plan. I hate the current coach, but I actually really like the young core of players for the future he has acquired.


          • #6
            Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

            The guy apparently doesn't know that Bird wasn't the GM for about half of the time frame he's putting him in. Where does he think Donnie Walsh came from in '08?

            His list sucks. Not even considering Bird, who certainly isn't last...but probably struggles to hit the top half of the GMs in the list, his list flat out blows.

            First off, Kahn may be alright where he is, but the reasoning that Kahn has a "plan" where the guys worse on the list do not? He's building around Rubio. Yeah, he drafts Flynn, signs Sessions for 4 years, the next year signs Ridnour for 4 years, and stacks his hopes on Darko. Pekovic was a good signing but I don't see the reasoning for ANYTHING else that he has done.

            Dumars is too low. Sure, his current performance looks.....horrible...but he's done enough in his tenure to be ranked a bit higher than he is here.

            Colangelo MIGHT be the worse GM on this list.

            Scratch that. Hello Larry Riley

            Charlotte's done a very "middle of the pack" job, but don't forget that they made the Play-Offs last year despite "flubbing draft picks and making pointless trades"

            Sund has spent too much money hoping that internal improvement will lift his team to the finals. Sorry. Joe Johnson is in no way worth a max contract. Also, Woodson didn't deserve to get the boot.

            He uses Heisley as an excuse for Wallace. Okay, over half of the other GMs could use THE SAME EXCUSE!

            Bower deserves to be ranked with Ferry, in whatever place they should be on this list. They didn't do that well with the resources they had. I'll tell you that.

            Forman/Paxson - whoever controls that has done a solid job. Top half of the league easy. On paper all of their signings fit extremely well and they've done a very good job in the draft.

            Grunfield - No, he hasn't done bad. There are two things you look at as "WTF" moments for this guy. Arenas getting near max and Jamieson's contract. The Arenas thing is difficult. It's pretty much Joe Johnson level pointless, attatched to a guy that obviously did something stupid last year....but is a bettery player.

            Otis Smith has been putrid. He has a "vision" in building around Dwight you basically need 4 shooters on the floor. Sure, it makes sense. The problem is that he signed Rashaad Lewis to a max deal and pointlessly tied up cap room in Vince Carter. Also he didn't work out a sign and trade or just give up on players like Gortat, while signing little used Brandon Bass to a fairly large deal for a bench guy. Let's not even think about signing Quentin Richardson to a 2 year deal while matching Reddick's offer sheet.

            Steve Kerr fits under the Chris Wallace section, minus the Pau Gasol trade. Not to mention signing a 1 year flop of a head coach. (Maybe I need to dock Dumars for the same thing...)

            Donnie Walsh - Oh Donnie, it's good to see you haven't become a worse GM since leaving the Pacers. No, unfortunately you bottomed out somewhere around '03. So you opened up cap space, trading away most of your talent in the process. Sold a city on Lebron James and ended up overpaying for Amare. The only saving grace is that you followed Thomas' tenure with New York. Can't polish a turd. Donnie should be no higher than 22nd.

            Kupchak - I don't see how anyone can rank this guy. He was gifted Pau from Memphis, got talent out of an aging but still capable Shaq, and ....not much else. Letting Ariza walk seems to have worked out as they won a championship with Artest. Let me remind you however that they traded Caron Butler for Kwame Brown. Disgustingly bad. He hasn't drafted well either, though it is hard to hold that against him being that most of his picks were late.

            Rod Thorn's number 12. This is a current ranking correct? So what he's done beginning in 2000 and focusing on 2010? Wow. He's drafted well recently but has inked some HORRIBLE contracts. Luckily he's been able to dump them off on GMs worse than he.

            Hammond seems to have done a solid job in making the Bucks a play off team. Unfortunately he takes a step back in my eyes by desperately reaching this offseason to try to fill holes in his team. He's in the better half.

            Donnie Nelson probably belongs in the better half of GMs, but he's done some horrible things. Namely Raef and Erick....and to be determined Marion and Haywood. He has the green light to spend however, and he had excellent forsight in inking Dampier to a partially unguarantee'd final year. He gets points taken off for the Kidd trade. Sorry.

            Petrie gets many a gold star on his kindergarten chart of draft success. He belongs in the top 10 on this list.

            Ainge is another that is difficult to grade. He's turned that team into a contender top 10 is fine. He has drafted well in the last 5-6 years but it's looking like he has set himself up for a downslide in the immediate future.

            Screw it I'm done with my review. Let me just say that these are my best 5 and "worse than larry" GMs.....

            Worst than Larry:

            /takes a break
            /comes back

            Top 5:
            1. Morey: revolutionizing the job
            2. Presti
            3. Buford
            4. Paxson
            5. O'Connor
            (6.) Petrie

            And finally....calling Riley a genious for getting James and Bosh to sign with Miami....yeah I'm not giving him the credit for that. He has the benefit of South Beach, Dwayne Wade, and cap room.
            "man, PG has been really good."


            • #7
              Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              I didn't read the article since I know Bird's not the Pacers' GM. So it's plain and simple, whoever wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about.
              Heh, good point.
              "man, PG has been really good."


              • #8
                Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                I agree that Bird, and the organization as a whole, was put in an extremely difficult situation after the brawl and Ron-Ron's request to be traded the following year. Hard to blame him for anything really. His draft picks seem to be about 50/50, which is probably the norm if you look at the league as a whole, and I think he absolutely killed it in this year's draft.

                Honestly I'm surprised that Bird has stuck around as long as he has here. I for one am hoping that he stays, I think better days are ahead.


                • #9
                  Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                  Pacers can never catch a break from the media.


                  • #10
                    Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                    The ranking is warranted. Bird has done a horrible job imho. The negatives far outway the positives during Bird's reign. You can't dismiss the disaster that was the 06 draft. The 09 offseason might have been just as poor. The drafting of Hanbrough over several quality PG's, as well as signing two bust FA's in Dahntay Jones and Solomon Jones. I wouldn't be surprised if all three of these players ride the bench this season. Larry also signed Sarunaus and Diener. Poor evaluating of talent.

                    Sure he drafted Granger and Roy Hibbert, but Bird hasn't done enough to get this team to the playoffs.
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel


                    • #11
                      Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                      Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
                      The ranking is warranted. Bird has done a horrible job imho. The negatives far outway the positives during Bird's reign. You can't dismiss the disaster that was the 06 draft. The 09 offseason might have been just as poor. The drafting of Hanbrough over several quality PG's, as well as signing two bust FA's in Dahntay Jones and Solomon Jones. I wouldn't be surprised if all three of these players ride the bench this season. Larry also signed Sarunaus and Diener. Poor evaluating of talent.

                      Sure he drafted Granger and Roy Hibbert, but Bird hasn't done enough to get this team to the playoffs.
                      Partly this, but the bigger problem is having players that do match the coaching style and then sticking with the coach...


                      • #12
                        Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                        As I have said for awhile now, get back with me in 15 months, and I'll be able to judge Bird.


                        • #13
                          Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                          Not even I can rate Bird "30TH"! Is he in the last 25% of "GM/FO/PBO? Yes, BUT not dead last. In Bird's defense it was never mentioned, he wasn't in control until Walsh left. As a matter of fact, the author didn't even mention Walsh was with the Pacers during Bird's first years in the FO. I guess he must have thought Bird was running the Pacers from day 1 after his hire, and from Europe scouting the 1st year and a half. Where did he come up with Bird gave JO and Tinsley their contracts? That was Walsh's signature move of overpaying and has his fingerprints all over them.

                          Pat Riley as #1? Please! It's nice to have one of the top players recruit James and Bosh for you while you get 100% credit for them coming.

                          I'm not going to waste my time reviewing his rankings, but Bird shouldn't be last anymore than Riley #1.


                          • #14
                            Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Bird is getting the blame for everything in this thread since 2003?
                            Tell me something in that guy's list that Bird didn't do or didn't endorse? People love using Donnie as a scapegoat, believing that Larry sat in the corner with his strings cut, dreaming that one day he'll be a real boy. Do you really think Larry screamed and yelled and threw things when we traded for Murphleavy or re-signed Jamaal?

                            The draft was all his. The coaches were all his. Would he have made different moves than Donnie on the trade front? Possibly, but I'd remind you this is the man who appeared on the cover of SI with Ron post-brawl. I have a hard time believing things would be that different.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                            • #15
                              Re: sbnation: Ranking all 30 GM's

                              30th should be about right.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!