Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

front office speculation

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

  • #16
    Re: front office speculation

    I think he is fine based on the condition he appeared to be in in this ad. On the same note how come Danny can't play but he looks fine on the jumbotron when he does gangam style dances for Dannyoke?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: front office speculation

      Originally posted by kielbeze View Post
      I think he is fine based on the condition he appeared to be in in this ad. On the same note how come Danny can't play but he looks fine on the jumbotron when he does gangam style dances for Dannyoke?
      Danny is also in an NBA commercial for some cause.... and he isn't playing?!
      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: front office speculation

        You guys are completely ignoring the main reason for this thread. He's asking if anyone's heard anything new about Bird. I'd like to know also.

        You take one line out of his whole post and blow it up. Welcome to the internet I guess.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: front office speculation

          Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
          I played a round of golf last week, Larry was in the group in front of us, his back looked "ok" on the course.
          despite some of the wisecrack remarks. one aspect of the disccussion is in regard to Legend potentialyy having undergone back surgery. my guess then is he has not undergone that procedure.

          cant say i blame him. if indeed he resigned due to health concerns i wish him the best. if the Owner is not willing to allow Bird his say in things then thats a discussion worth delving into.

          Bird looks fine in the sense he does not appear to be in a recovery mode. otherwise i wouldnt have expected him to be on commericals or Dave Letterman.

          at this point im hoping he simply is taking a sabbatical. if Legend is not too return. KP needs to given the role of guiding this Franchise. i dont like the dual basketball operations role the Pacers FO is administering.

          with taht said. im confident KP can do a good job for this Franchise.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: front office speculation

            This thread is one of the reasons I like PD. Not the only reason. I also enjoy the meaningful threads grounded in reality.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: front office speculation

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              This thread is one of the reasons I like PD. Not the only reason. I also enjoy the meaningful threads grounded in reality.
              if this thread is not too your standards then dont post.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: front office speculation

                Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                I can pretty much guarantee that Bird would not be part of an ownership group whose intentions were to re-locate the Pacers.
                The comma followed by the "or" in my sentence was intended to seperate two differing portions of a somewhat poorly constructed compound sentence.

                1. "will they simply buy the Pacers and keep them here,"

                2. "or will they buy another struggling franchise (from an attendance standpoint) and head to Seattle?"

                I hope this helps.

                I cannot imagine any realistic scenario where Bird is part of an ownership group that would move the Pacers and villify him nearly instantaneously in the eyes of many in this state.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: front office speculation

                  guess Bird has already had surgery on his back. at this point in time i will speculate Bird left because Simon was not willing to let him do it his way.

                  congrats Simon... we got DJ, GG, Mahinmi (excluding Mahinmi the offseason was terrible). Again... great move Simon letting the EOY walk.

                  If Iain does not improve his post D and quick im gonna calling for Plumlee sooner than expected and our offseason was a complete disaster for a team contending for a championship. simply terrible move by Simon.

                  http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...7&slug=1689309

                  Larry Bird Resting After Five-Hour Surgery On Back
                  AP

                  BOSTON - Former Boston Celtics star Larry Bird was resting comfortably yesterday after undergoing five hours of back fusion surgery.

                  Officials at New England Baptist Hospital said Bird was expected to make a full recovery in six to eight months.

                  Bird's bad back forced him to retire in August after 13 years in the NBA. He missed 37 games last season with back problems.

                  Bird, 36, has a history of back troubles, including sciatica, a nerve pain connected with disk problems. In 1990, he broke a small bone in his back in a fall during training camp.

                  The operation was performed Friday by Dr. Alexander Wright, chief of spinal surgery at the hospital, who operated on Bird in June 1991 to correct a disk problem in his lower back.

                  The fusion surgery involved shaving strips from Bird's pelvic bone and placing them vertically alongside his vertebrae to strengthen the damaged area and ease the pain.

                  Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.



                  *please carry on with the doosh comments now.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: front office speculation

                    You do realize back problems don't just completely go away after a single surgery, right? Or that they often come back after, oh, say, 20 years?

                    Whatever. We're back to Herb Simon being at fault for everything bad that has happened to this franchise since 1983. Funny how Kevin Pritchard was supposed to be this savior as a Front Office executive but now he is horrible because of this summer's moves - or is it that Donnie Walsh overpowered him and keeps him tied up in the closet at BLF that used to be his smoking room, only letting KP out with a shock collar to make sure he only says things that support the FO moves?
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: front office speculation

                      If anything, I thought once you start getting surgery/surgeries on your back, it's usually a downhill scenario...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: front office speculation

                        First of all don't assume you know anything just cause he looks fine now. It has been how many months since he departed? 8? 9? Is it that far fetched that his back might have improved to the point where he can do commercials, and play a little golf? Why do we always have to assume public figures are lying?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: front office speculation

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Why do we always have to assume public figures are lying?
                          Well, to be fair, it's only that people assume that PS&E is always lying. All other teams tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: front office speculation

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            You do realize back problems don't just completely go away after a single surgery, right? Or that they often come back after, oh, say, 20 years?

                            Whatever. We're back to Herb Simon being at fault for everything bad that has happened to this franchise since 1983. Funny how Kevin Pritchard was supposed to be this savior as a Front Office executive but now he is horrible because of this summer's moves - or is it that Donnie Walsh overpowered him and keeps him tied up in the closet at BLF that used to be his smoking room, only letting KP out with a shock collar to make sure he only says things that support the FO moves?

                            Personally, I don't feel KP makes the decisions under Walsh. Walsh is PBO which means to me Walsh is in control and makes the decisions. That's not saying Walsh doesn't take KP's input into consideration, just that Walsh makes the decisions since he's in charge. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as you might have info to the contrary.

                            I just don't see another 2 headed monster running the Pacers again as that was a disaster.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: front office speculation

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              First of all don't assume you know anything just cause he looks fine now. It has been how many months since he departed? 8? 9? Is it that far fetched that his back might have improved to the point where he can do commercials, and play a little golf? Why do we always have to assume public figures are lying?

                              My understanding is Bird likes to fish, so I'll venture a guess that if he can play golf he's also doing some fishing.
                              Last edited by Justin Tyme; 04-03-2013, 12:09 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: front office speculation

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                Why do we always have to assume public figures are lying?
                                It has been our Al Gore-given right ever since he invented the innerwebs to not only assume that public figures always lie when what they say does not match all of our own individual reality systems, but to also vehemently express these assumptions as fact regardless of how many supporting facts are presented by others with viewpoints which align more closely to that of those public figures.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X