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

ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    You know LeBron I really didn't have an issue with what you said until you made up that BS excuse of not knowing what Contraction means.

    Pretty much. As most know, I've defended Lebron quite a bit here, but when I read that my eyes nearly rolled out of my head.


    • #77
      Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

      This man needs an agent and a PR person in the worst possible way.

      Good luck, just hire me. I wont even take the 3.5%.

      Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
      Pretty much. As most know, I've defended Lebron quite a bit here, but when I read that my eyes nearly rolled out of my head.
      Pretty much


      • #78
        Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

        NBA contraction examined - ESPN

        Originally posted by John Hollinger
        Contraction is a very popular topic in NBA circles.

        Obviously, the fact the league has raised the issue has helped bring it to the forefront, but even before David Stern decided it would be a useful negotiating ploy for the collective bargaining agreement discussions, casual NBA observers talked about contracting teams in a way nobody does in other sports. I don't think you'll ever find Drew Brees discussing the merits of removing the Jacksonville Jaguars from the NFL, for instance.

        But for some reason LeBron James felt free to expound on the merits of eliminating the Timberwolves and Nets.

        "Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the '80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team," James said. "The league was great. It wasn't as watered down as it is [now]."

        Romanticizing the 1980s, in particular, has become the go-to move for anybody making the pro-contraction argument, because "everyone" had three or four All-Stars back then. And by "everyone," I mean "the Lakers and the Celtics."

        Never mind that Indiana didn't have an All-Star the entire decade, or that Sacramento had one -- the two teams we saw on TV almost every weekend had stars, and for 90 percent of fans in the 1980s, that was the league.

        This is a good starting point for the contraction debate, because the whole discussion has always been more about perception than reality and certainly more about romance than reality.

        The idea that we could recreate the Lakers-Celtics rivalry of the 1980s if we just had fewer teams is silly on multiple levels.

        For starters, please note that a pretty great Lakers-Celtics rivalry already exists. Not sure if anyone's noticed, but those two teams met in the Finals last year and in 2008, splitting two series and 13 games almost evenly and setting some pretty high marks for TV ratings and Internet traffic. Also, some might note that Boston has five starters and a reserve with All-Star appearances on their résumés, just like in the good ol' days. In fact, in terms of All-Star appearances, the current Celtics are the single most decorated team in NBA history.

        Moreover, this idea misplaces the debate entirely. What grabbed us about Lakers versus Celtics in the '80s wasn't the quality of the games but the heat of the rivalry. As humans, we actually have a very limited capacity to grasp subtle differences in quality with the naked eye, which is something that 98 percent of people don't realize or won't admit. This becomes very obvious in the rabid appreciation most show for college football and basketball -- sports, incidentally, which are vastly more driven by rivalry and intensity than quality of play per se.

        Adding to the irony is LeBron himself saying the league would be better if "it was like the '80s when three or four superstars were on one team." Dude, there are three superstars on YOUR team.

        So that's my subjective take. But there are also several important points of math and logic that illustrate the silliness of the contraction debate.

        Wins and losses are a zero-sum game.
        In other words, there are always as many losses as wins, no matter how many teams there are.

        One bizarre piece of doublethink from the pro-contraction crowd is to presume that if we got rid of the three or four worst teams, there would be no bad teams.

        Remember, the unchangeable fact of sports is that every game has one winner and one loser. You can't turn a 40-win team into a 60-win team without adding 20 losses someplace else. Removing the four worst teams would subtract seven to 10 easy wins from every other team, and the ones that would feel the most pain would be the four teams that were nearly as bad as the eliminated teams.

        There still would be teams with roughly 15 to 30 wins at the bottom of the standings. For instance, in the glorious 1986-87 season, with the Lakers beating the defending-champion Celtics in the Finals and Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and Magic Johnson leading the league in points, rebounds and assists per game, respectively, we had the Clippers at 12-70, the Knicks and Nets each at 24-58, the Spurs at 28-54, the Kings at 29-53 and the Cavaliers at 31-51. (Sound kind of familiar?)

        Even though these teams had shown previously they weren't the worst in the league, their new status at the bottom of the standings would cause us to lament their awfulness and submit them as a future contraction candidate, to follow the current contraction logic to its natural conclusion -- and this would be exacerbated by our inability to perceive such subtle distinctions in quality, as noted earlier.

        One can no more prevent a league from having a doormat (or several doormats) than from having a champion. I'm not sure why this isn't more obvious to people.

        What about other sports?
        If the NBA is watered down going from 23 teams to 30 in the past three decades, it follows that the other leagues should be, too. The NFL, for instance, has 32 teams and its rosters are more than three times the size of NBA rosters. Furthermore, it has had no surge of international players. Is anyone talking about that league being watered down?

        How about the SEC, Big 10 and Pac-10? Combined, they have more teams than the NBA, and they can't keep any of their players for more than four years. Are they watered down? I guess not, because they're all falling over themselves to expand.

        And what of college basketball, with its championship field expanded to 68 teams and apparently soon 96? There are more than 300 teams in Division I college hoops, but the loud-and-clear message from fans is, "More! More!"

        Yet while we clamor for more and more college basketball, a game of inferior quality to the pro version, we wail that the NBA is somehow degraded because it dared to expand to 30 teams?

        The league isn't watered down.
        The strongest argument against contraction is also the simplest one: The talent level is higher than ever, even accounting for expansion.

        To hear people talk about contraction, you'd think the league had tripled in size. In truth, the NBA has expanded very slowly and carefully -- from 23 teams to 30 -- over a period of 30 years. This hardly constitutes runaway growth. In fact, it's less than 1 percent growth per year. Over the course of three decades the league has expanded only 30.4 percent.

        Such growth might (or might not) be a problem if the size of the player pool were unchanged. But, of course, it has changed dramatically. Mathematically, the pool of available players for each NBA roster spot is larger than it was in those halcyon days of Bird and Magic.

        The league has become about one-fifth international -- 84 players on opening-day rosters were born on foreign soil, according to the league, whereas three decades ago there were practically none. That's out of a player pool that fluctuates around the 420 mark (about 14 per team).

        To get from 0 percent international to 20 percent while leaving the size of the American contribution unchanged requires a 25 percent increase in the size of the player pool (I know this doesn't sound right at first, but it's true). In other words, that factor alone can account for nearly the entirety of the league's 30.4 percent expansion over the past three decades.

        The rest comes from the fact the U.S. is considerably larger than it used to be, with considerably more people playing basketball. In 1980, the United States had 227 million people. Now the U.S. has 309 million. That's a 36 percent increase; while some of that growth is from older people living longer, which is useless for the purposes of a competitive basketball league, it's safe to conclude that our pool of able-bodied basketball-playing males between age 18 and 40 has, at the very least, kept pace with the expansion of the league.

        At the end of the day, it's safe to conclude that the contraction argument suffers from a lack of supporting evidence. While one can make a financial argument against continuing to operate franchises in places like New Orleans or Memphis, the basketball argument is ridiculous. Forget being watered down -- if anything, the league is a bit parched at the moment, and could use a few more teams to spread all this talent around.


        • #79
          Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

          Hollinger wants to spread the talent out more than it already is? Wow.


          • #80
            Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
            This man needs an agent and a PR person in the worst possible way.
            So you mean he SHOULD stop listening to his friends? They're his friends!