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

2015 Offseason Thread

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

  • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Irsay talks too much.
    He is the boss man. He can do whatever he want. He isn't the one playing on the field so it really don't matter what he say or do.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
      Who cares? He got asked a question and he answered. And he's right.
      The ****ing dude owns the team and gets checks for every ticket sold in the stadium. Every single syllable he says matters.

      Comment


      • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        The ****ing dude owns the team and gets checks for every ticket sold in the stadium. Every single syllable he says matters.
        What did he say that got you so upset?

        Comment


        • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          I agree. And there's zero reason to say it publicly. Imagine Herb Simon saying that stuff about the Pistons back in the day, or Lebron & SuperFriends in this era. I think Irsay talks too much, but it's his team, whatever, he can do that. But he hired people to manage his team, let them do it.

          I'm admittedly biased though, I just flat out don't like Jim Irsay.

          I wish Herb Simon was that invested in the Pacers!

          Nothing wrong with what Irsay said. It just means TPTB are all on the same page. He's also right, so there's that. And there's no "woe is me, small market just trying to compete" Pacers BS either. The Colts carry themselves and present themselves as a 1st tier pro franchise with every intention of getting a SB ring. Actually, I should say another SB ring.

          I'm still yet to be convinced Herb has the same drive as Irsay to see a championship for Indy. Or any drive really. The Colts should be a model franchise for the Pacers but the Pacers are still seemingly stuck in the Telethon era the way they think about themselves and the city.... IMHO...

          Herb is a GREAT owner for wanting to save the team and keep them in Indy all these years. But I don't see him with the fire and passion to want a championship that you see in other owners both in actions and words. The Colts eat the Pacers' lunch and there's a reason for it. I know I will be shot for saying this.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

            I'm not sure that we need to pit Jim Irsay against Herb Simon. They have different backgrounds and different talents to offer. They're both great owners in their own way.

            Herb isn't a basketball guy, he's a money guy. He hires basketball people to run things. You won't hear him talking a lot because he doesn't have much expertise. The last time I remember him talking publicly about the Pacers was when the Hornets were trying to trade Lance. He made that awkward statement about "I'll trust Larry to get it done." (paraphrase from memory)

            Jim Irsay is the opposite. He was groomed from a young age to run the team. He even had an unsuccessful stint as the GM. Jim has the knowledge and experience to run the team and understands how championships are won. He's done it before as an owner, so he's already proven himself. I think his statements about the run defense give us great insight to what Grigson and Pagano considered to be our greatest weakness. Now we can analyze the moves they make over the summer to see how they're addressing it.

            Comment


            • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I wish Herb Simon was that invested in the Pacers!

              Nothing wrong with what Irsay said. It just means TPTB are all on the same page. He's also right, so there's that. And there's no "woe is me, small market just trying to compete" Pacers BS either. The Colts carry themselves and present themselves as a 1st tier pro franchise with every intention of getting a SB ring. Actually, I should say another SB ring.

              I'm still yet to be convinced Herb has the same drive as Irsay to see a championship for Indy. Or any drive really. The Colts should be a model franchise for the Pacers but the Pacers are still seemingly stuck in the Telethon era the way they think about themselves and the city.... IMHO...

              Herb is a GREAT owner for wanting to save the team and keep them in Indy all these years. But I don't see him with the fire and passion to want a championship that you see in other owners both in actions and words. The Colts eat the Pacers' lunch and there's a reason for it. I know I will be shot for saying this.
              I agree with what you said in you first paragraph. However, I also think we are seeing two distinctly different styles of ownership here.

              Irsay is a very vocal, forward and public type of owner. Simon prefers a more private style. I also think Simon has his fingers in more pies (business wise) than does Irsay, so his time and attention is more divided. That increases the need for him to more greatly rely on his management team. I don't think that is the case with Irsay. I don't even know if he continues his father's construction interests or not.

              Comment


              • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Herb is a GREAT owner for wanting to save the team and keep them in Indy all these years. But I don't see him with the fire and passion to want a championship that you see in other owners both in actions and words. The Colts eat the Pacers' lunch and there's a reason for it. I know I will be shot for saying this.
                Because the NFL is swimming in money? Pretty easy to be aggressive in team management, when you don't have to worry about payroll.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  Irsay talks too much.
                  He didn't say anything outrageous. Just some basic football insight that everyone under the sun knows is true. The current Colts have had a ton of success, but they have certainly been massacred every time they've played the Pats, with their inability to stop the run being a major factor. I'm glad that Irsay cares about football and doesn't just count his dollar signs.

                  Irsay is one of the best owners in the NFL and the Colts eye-popping success over the last 15 years is a reflection of him.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                    No one takes anything Irsay says too seriously. He appears to be decent but troubled man who spouts off and twitters too much. He has taken the hit for letting Peyton leave and now Reggie. Give him credit for that

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                      He's a good dude. He's also allowed to talk about the team that he owns. Wasting your time getting upset about that.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                        Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                        Any defense is better when they force a teams offense to be one dimensional. But that still doesn't show that a high powered offense with an overall mediocre defense can win.

                        The exceptions are the Colts. And Saints. The Colts as we know we're able to win because their D started playing like a top 10 and got to play one of the worst super bowl teams ever. And the saints were playing dirty and ran into another mediocre D in the Colts.
                        No one said anything about a mediocre defense but rather a good defense. Any top 15 defense would be sufficient. I believe we have a top 15 defense here.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          He's a good dude. He's also allowed to talk about the team that he owns. Wasting your time getting upset about that.
                          Yeah, when the team you own transforms from an afterthought that plays in a tenement stadium to one of the most elite franchises in the NFL that plays in an absolute palace, you've earned the right to talk a bit.

                          I mean I get the controversy about the Manning era comments last year, but all he did this time was state the obvious. This is a very good team that is the second best AFC team going into the season, but we still have an absolutely massive hump to get over with NE.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread




                            Comment


                            • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                              Personally, I think the idea of not extending a coach unless he's a remarkable success is a good one. Let the players show whether they really want to keep him and will work hard for him instead of force them to deal with him with an extension.

                              Of course the other side of the coin is they should always play hard and within the system anyway... that's what they are paid to do. But I realize they are also human. But at a certain point, some things need to be cleaned up and like Pagano said, if not by him then by the next guy. I kinda like that acknowledgment and honesty. ...Unless he didn't mean himself and instead meant Grigson!
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2015 Offseason Thread

                                Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                                No one said anything about a mediocre defense but rather a good defense. Any top 15 defense would be sufficient. I believe we have a top 15 defense here.
                                Except History doesn't support that. 13 of the last 15 superbowl winners had a Top 10 defense. Most of those being Top 5. So no a top 15 defense isn't enough. Playoff defenses will slow down any offense. You have to have a defense that can stop opposing teams.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X