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

Who is not the answer?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who is not the answer?

    As we go into the offseason with an unprecedented amount of cap room, we're all thinking about potential free agents and trades we can make to better our roster. Meanwhile, we have a group of young players in our starting lineup that continue to develop. The question is, in the next year or two as we begin to position ourselves to be a contender, which of these young players do you think is the answer as the starter and main option at their given position? It seems that Hibbert/Hansbrough/Granger/George/Collison have begun to set themselves apart from their backups as our future. Who should management be looking to replace the most? Or maybe we should be building on all 5 and putting in solid pieces behind them? You can pick multiple players in this case.
    We should build around these 5.
    Last edited by ndcoltsnpacers; 04-23-2011, 02:39 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Who is not the answer?

    As I have been saying all year, I like this team the way it is. I think the key target in free agency this off season is to acquire role players.

    Some people on the board have been talking about J. Crawford and Jason Richardson at SG. I would like to sign one of these guys if they don't want too much.

    I also think we take the chance with Greg Oden if Foster decides to leave. This is a high risk/high reward opportunity that I would be willing to take.

    If we are willing to spend the money this year, I would like to see Carl Landry on the team. I think a Landry/Hansbrough combination would be pretty brutal.

    And of course, if we have the money in 2012, we should go after Eric Gordon to compliment Danny Granger.


    • #3
      Re: Who is not the answer?

      too early to say. my first instinct was to click everyone save george because he's too too new.
      "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman


      • #4
        Re: Who is not the answer?

        Confident: Paul George - I've been watching him since June and he's done absolutely nothing to make me think he won't be the best all-around player on this team in a few years. He might be the best defender already.

        Optimistic: Roy and Darren - If I only had tape of their 15 best games from this year I'd say they were future all-stars. If I only saw their 15 worst games I'd wonder why they're in the league. Hopefully next season we'll see a lot more games like the former than the latter.

        Skeptical: Tyler - I still believe his best role is as a 6th/7th man. If we plan to move on with Roy as our starting C, I think we need a better rebounder next to him. I don't just gets so...I mean people say it all the ti-- okay, a Dale Davis type.

        ???: Granger - Even though we know what Danny's game is by now, I still think it's an impossible question to answer because it depends largely on PG. If PG can develop fully as a 2-guard and co-exist with Danny for 25+ minutes/game, I think Danny should stay. His game will age well and once there's less pressure on him to carry the scoring load he'll be even more effective. If Danny's presence doesn't allow Paul to flourish, I'd trade him for pieces to make our team Thunder-young. But ultimately I hope it works out with Granger and George. Unless we have an unforeseen superstar fall into our laps, we're going to need all the fringe-all-star talent we can get to compete with Miami, Chicago, and NYK over the next 5 years.


        • #5
          Re: Who is not the answer?

          Everyone except Allen Iverson?
          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731


          • #6
            Re: Who is not the answer?

            Tell me who else will be on the Pacers' roster in the 'long run' and
            I'll give you an answer.

            Without that info, if I had to name one guy, I'd say Collison.
            He seems like a good kid and I'm sure he'll improve some. But,
            to a certain extent, PGs are 'born, not made'. He simply lacks
            innate instincts at the PG spot.

            Can an NBA team win big with a scoring PG ? Sure, if he has an
            'elite' scoring, skill-set ala an Iverson in his prime or a Rose.

            Unfortunately, Collison is a scoring PG who is a pretty average


            • #7
              Re: Who is not the answer?

              Confident: Danny Granger - He's good enough to be the long-term answer at the SF position, just not the Alpha Dog position.

              Optimistic: Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough - I love the mental vibe I get from these two guys. Their heads are in the right place and I feel pretty confident that they'll work to get their games there also.

              Skeptical: Collison - He'll always be too small and I don't think he'll ever be a consistently deadly jumpshooter or an adequate defender. At times he overcomes those deficiencies nicely, but I don't think he's ever going to be an above average starting PG.

              Very Skeptical: Hibbert - The clock's running as far as extending Roy goes, and if I had to pull the trigger now I wouldn't do it unless he signed very cheaply. I don't think he's mentally tough enough. I don't think he ever will be.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie


              • #8
                Re: Who is not the answer?

                Some of these guys would probably better be served as back-ups, but I would like to keep all 5.


                • #9
                  Re: Who is not the answer?

                  Originally posted by KingGeorge View Post
                  Some people on the board have been talking about J. Crawford and Jason Richardson at SG. I would like to sign one of these guys if they don't want too much.
                  Yea, Richardson might be able to help as long as he didn't knock up any of the married players wives.


                  • #10
                    Re: Who is not the answer?

                    I'll go through about everyone in our future.

                    Very confident:

                    Danny Granger- He is an above average starting SF, and if we become a playoff contender he's going to turn more into a Paul Pierce than a Abdur-Rahim/Gerald Wallace. He's a very good player who is attracting ridiculous attention from Chicago. He's going to keep improving too.

                    Paul George- Already one of the best perimeter defenders in the league, and once he gets his jumper/handles down he'll be our best scorer at either the 2 or 3. He's going to add muscle and work on his jumpshot all summer.


                    Tyler Hansbrough- I have great faith in him as a 6th/7th man, which can be a very good thing. Years down the road he's going to win us games off the bench by himself when others aren't bringing energy. He can THRIVE off the bench.

                    Roy Hibbert- He'll probably always be inconsistent, but if we can get a very good backup 5 to play 20-24 minutes off the bench, than Roy will be great for us in the starting lineup. He's our anchor for us, and when he's on he's winning us games.

                    Dahntay Jones as our Tony Allen type guy- This dude can be the best fourth wing in the league come playoff time. He can guard 1s, 2s, and 3s, plays with great intensity, will sacrifice his PT for the good of the team, he is a vet and a leader, and he deserves a good 10-15 minutes off the bench in almost every playoff game as he just brings it. He's going to be here for a while fellas so I included him.


                    Darren Collison- He has greatly improved in this series alone, and he is just a second year guy which is very easy to forget. He can break down a defense and he will continue to get better over the next three years which is something to look forward to.


                    Josh McRoberts- I don't really want him back because I want Tyler to be our third big. He never ever boxes out and he's a poor rebounder. He is very creative on offense though which is good. If he leaves, I'll miss him a lot because he is a very good bench guy who can pass and brings energy.

                    Lance Stephenson- I still can't get over the talent and I want him to figure things out. Not going to comment more because I'm still pissed at him.

                    Too skeptical

                    Brandon Rush- Didn't change or improve and his defense isn't as good as before. He just doesn't bring it. I don't want his option picked up for next season.

                    AJ Price- Worst FG% in the league and seems to care about his numbers more than the team. I want a veteran backup point similar to Earl Watson next season. A guy who does what it takes to win and plays defense while distributing the ball to George and Hansbrough. I would actually LOVE Watson back for next year.

                    So that means we still have holes at starting 2 and 4 as well as backup 1, backup 3, and maybe backup 5 depending on Fosters health. We need a pure scoring four and a defensive four who brings energy and can score.

                    We are in good hands though, and it feels good to say that. Hopefully next year Roy and DC can emerge as above average starters with some upgrades at 2 and 4, and one of the best benches in the league to top it all off. The Goon Squad can return with George and Hansbrough and hopefully we can pick up a backup point to share the ball with them and a backup 3 who can glue it all together.
                    Last edited by BringJackBack; 04-23-2011, 11:07 AM.


                    • #11
                      Re: Who is not the answer?

                      I'd say Tyler as the starting PF, but I wouldn't trade him.

                      He's best suited having a 6th man role.


                      • #12
                        Re: Who is not the answer?

                        Fully confident as starters: George, Granger

                        Confident-ish as a starter / Resigned to not getting an upgrade: Collison, Hibbert

                        Not confident as a starter: Hansbrough. But I love him as the first big off the bench.


                        • #13
                          Re: Who is not the answer?

                          I love Hibbert, just don't like his mental makeup if things are going bad for him.


                          • #14
                            Re: Who is not the answer?

                            Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                            I'd say Tyler as the starting PF, but I wouldn't trade him.

                            He's best suited having a 6th man role.

                            Oh, and :booprivatepoll:
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                            • #15
                              Re: Who is not the answer?

                              Keep: Collison, George, Granger
                              Possible sixth man of the year in a couple of years: Hansbrough
                              Trade: Hibbert

                              I really like Hibbert, he's a great guy and has embraced this city for which I will forever be grateful, but I don't think he's the longterm answer. Smits was similarly soft, but Smits kept his emotions in check and was usually fairly clutch when it mattered. I also think Hibbert's value around the league right now is ridiculously inflated. You could probably trade him with our first round pick and get something really, really good back.

                              The only thing is Hibbert is the hardest of these players to replace. So they may hold onto him and try to improve at other positions.