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

Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

    Granger, Howard, and George would be a nightmare for other teams on both sides of the floor. Can you imagine teams trying to stay out of the middle to avoid Dwight, and their reward for doing that is Paul and Danny's length, and athleticism on the perimeter? That would be a scary team to play offense against.

    I'd love to see the Pacers get back to playing brutal, east coast, beat you up defense like most teams did in the 90s. Back when you would win a game with a final score of 78-75 and the game was still exciting for the fans to watch because each basket was a monumental battle.


    • #77
      Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

      Originally posted by Doddage View Post
      That team would be just
      Pacers would be the assassins of the NBA Although I'd decline Iggy. He'd only take minutes from PG.

      Josh Smith and Howard...yes please!!!!
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


      • #78
        Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
        We have lacked a consistent scorer to pair with Danny since , I can't even think of who was second in scoring to Danny, maybe Dunleavy the year he averaged almost 20 a game. Nene might be a better rebounder and defensive pressence, but I dont think he can be counted as a legit second option to Danny.
        This is very true. A lot of posters like Nene for obivious reasons but he is better suited for a team with 2 good scorers. He's basically a complement big much like Chandler is on defense. The probelm I have with Nene is that he seems to be ok with giving less than 100%. This was the opinion of some nuggets fans so I tend to think in Indiana he would be even more OK with that type of attitude after a big contract.

        Personally I think the money that could be saved on not signing Nene could be used to resign the Pacers own 2012 FA's. IF West is healthy he gives the Pacers a number 2 option that doesn't clog the paint for Roy to work close to the basket. He works well with Collison and he's a veteran that won't get into trouble or hurt the locker room.

        We made a defensive upgrade at the wings with Hill now we just need to add a cheap defensive upgrade at the backup Center position.

        This is one month old but I am not sure if it was posted or not.
        According to Alex Kennedy of Hoopsworld, the Indiana Pacers have free agent David West at the top of their free agent wishlist


        • #79
          Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

          He's a pretty terrible choice to pair with Roy.


          • #80
            Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            He's a pretty terrible choice to pair with Roy.
            Offensively no.. Defensively yes. Rebound wise its a wash IMO with Nene or West.


            • #81
              Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

              I wouldn't hate west for a decent contract (we may be able to get a deal on him due to the injury).

              Offensively he'd be a pretty good fit, and he'd be a real second option/ 1B kind of guy. Plus we know he's thrived beside collison before.

              Age doesn't worry me so much with David West, as his game doesn't rely on athleticism so much.

              We can still be a very, very good defensive team with west in the lineup, he's a better defender than tyler, who gets lost constantly and we looked like a pretty epic defensive team vs. chicago anyhow, I don't think we would really hurt us there anyhow.

              I'd prefer nene, and honestly wouldn't mind sitting on our money until we see what we've got/ pull off an uneven trade at the deadline, but I wouldn't be on suicide watch or anything if we got West, and still think he'd substantially improve our team for the next few years.
              Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".


              • #82
                Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

                Just as long as signing a 31 year old D.West with unproven ligaments doesn't keep us from Eric Gordon next year.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                • #83
                  Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

                  Originally posted by ballism View Post
                  I think if we got Dwight and CP3 in 2012, and then Iggy and Josh Smith in 2013, Granger would be a perfect fit for that team!
                  I know this is sarcasm by you but I think that is the type of team I would be a perfect fit for . We would be the best defensive team by far and that would be with me playing defense that makes Dunleavy look like a good defender.


                  • #84
                    Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

                    Diversion tactic?

                    This could be a feeler for what we won't do. I don't necessarily believe that, but nobody tossed that out. It could be pure speculation and we are promoting that specualtion in an attempt to go elsewhere.

                    Personally, I think that we are throwing out these kinds of feelers to make it known we are interested. The more these guys feel wanted, the more they will consider us, IMO. That is a necessary move by smaller markets to say, "you're our guy" in order to attract better free agents.

                    Also, we may be going after West, because we will get him cheaper than the other options. Coming off an ACL and being 31. He plays for a team that is owned by the NBA and got ripped for making a trade that brought in more salary obligation at the deadline. They might not be players for DWest because they are on money lock down. Would the NBA sign off on a deal that they thought was too big? West might be our best, "Cheapest" option in terms of what we get for the money.

                    West is a much better player than I think he is getting credit for. He is a very hard worker and is tough as nails. He takes care of his body, so I don't worry about him gaining a ton of weight, which is so much tougher for big guys like Shaq to overcome injury. Skinny guys like Amare do better in recovery as long as they work hard.

                    Nene and Chandler, I love. When talking about needing a bucket at the end of a game, Nene helps the team score in an efficient manner or on a putback. He won't isolate, but do we want isolation basketball when the game is on the line? H*LL no. Our best scorer is not an isolation scorer, so why would you want those possessions late in a game? You shouldn't. Nene can get you a bucket in the flow of the offense, whereas Chandler is more capable of making an athletic play to win a game. Both aren't nearly as talented offensively as West. I would say both are better defenders, but that is more a promotion of their defensive acumen and less a detraction from West's defense. West is a good rebounder, but I think his numbers would be higher if he didn't play the high post on offense so much and did not have an excellent rebounder in Okafor playing next to him. I think if we brought West in to play next to Hibbert, his rebounding numbers would get better than his already solid (but not league leading) rebounding totals. I think you see a similar trade-off with combinations like Lopez/Humphries and Nene/Martin. Both sets are good rebounders, but are more effective rebounders together than individually.

                    I think West would be a great addition if the money was right, like many people already mentioned. We might be targetting West for more PG-friendly reasons than just West though. If we lose a season, I think West would become even cheaper with the amount of teams going to throw money at higher valued players. I have no control over what we do, so I just want to see moves that make sense, i.e. adding West and a backup C or trading a guard (and Posey as an eventual amnesty casualty) for a big with a bigger contract like Kaman. JMO.
                    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."


                    • #85
                      Re: Woj: Indiana 'serious threat' to sign D. West

                      Also, I love Kirlenko's game, buthe would be a terrible fit here. Somebody complained about Nene's lack of an offensive game, yet promoted bringing Kirilenko here, who has a minimally better offensive game at best and he is a SF. We already have an efficient SF who we are paying a lot. With as much as I like Kirilenko's game, I don't see the need for us. I would rather go after Wilson Chandler in March if we go the SF/PF route.
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."