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

Pacers not as unified as I thought

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Pacers not as unified as I thought

    This article planted a seed of doubt in my mind. I had no idea there was bickering between our own players. Especially not as lately as a week ago.


    So far, Pacers refuse to unravel
    Indiana will go after 60th win but still must prove it won't come apart like last season.

    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com
    April 11, 2004


    Last season, after the Indiana Pacers improved to 9-1 with a Nov. 21 win at Toronto, Jermaine O'Neal boldly voiced a prediction in the locker room.

    Sixty wins.

    That lofty objective seemed reasonable through mid-February, before a succession of injuries and personal issues of a variety O'Neal couldn't have imagined conspired to transform the Pacers from beauty to beast. Winning just 11 of their final 30 games, they finished with 48 victories and lost to Boston in the first round of the playoffs.

    It turns out O'Neal's prediction was premature by a year. The Pacers return to practice today with 59 wins and two winnable games left in their regular-season schedule. They play at Philadelphia (33-46) on Monday and close at home with Chicago (22-57) on Wednesday.

    They have the opportunity to do what they hoped to do last season by not doing what they did last season: unravel.

    Most of the issues that tore at their fabric last season have not come up, to their good fortune. But to their credit, they've also managed to deal with those that have.

    "We kept the team together," O'Neal said. "That's always the most important thing, when you go through so much like we did last year."

    While free of any major problems, the Pacers have had to deal with the usual challenges all teams face in a season. Players unhappy with the system. Players unhappy with their roles. Players unhappy with their minutes. Players unhappy with one another. Players unhappy with the referees.

    Their three leading scorers -- O'Neal, Ron Artest and Al Harrington -- are capable of reacting emotionally when frustrated, occasionally making for a high-maintenance operation.

    O'Neal acknowledges as much, which is why he has offered unsolicited endorsements for Rick Carlisle as Coach of the Year.

    "This isn't the easiest team to coach," O'Neal said.

    "We have a very emotional team. We have a team that can be hard to talk to sometimes. But the best part about this year is all we want to do is win and we're willing to do whatever it takes to win."

    The Pacers remain capable of looking as if they're on the brink of a breakdown. They were bickering with one another in last Sunday's 18-point loss at Detroit, and sometimes even in victories their emotions threaten to get the best of them. They also show a tendency to stray from the offense against strong defensive pressure.

    "At times you can see it fraying a little bit," team president Larry Bird said. "You're going to have times when individuals think they have to do certain things."

    Bird told the players in his first meeting with them that they had plenty of talent. The question would be their willingness to adhere to a team approach.

    So far they have, but even Bird wonders how they'll fare amid the pressure and fatigue of a long playoff run.

    "My worry is, in the playoffs, if they get frayed a little bit and go their own ways, they can have problems," Bird said. "If they do it as a team they can go as far as they want. But they've got to stay together."

    Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh said their best hope for doing that is to keep a long memory. The first-round playoff exits the past three years, particularly last year, can serve them well if they remember why they lost.

    Walsh considers such frustrations part of an inevitable process almost all championship contenders endure.

    "Those are the steppingstones that nobody counts," he said. "When I said we were a young team and it was going to take time, everyone was thinking that I was talking about learning the game and physically maturing. But it's more than that. You have to go through certain experiences to get to the next level. That's why teams usually don't just bounce up and win the NBA championship right away.

    "I don't think they thought last year could turn out like it did. Now they know it can. And it can happen just like that."
    http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/136913-3240-039.html

    This troubles me some.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

    It's a long season Hicks. Things are bound to happen. I think the players and staff did a great job of stiffling anything that came up. Last year - we had more than our share of "problems".
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

      as long as we keep winning we shouldnt have a problem
      Uh-huh.

      But if things DO start to unravel again, it will be time for some roster changes.

      Maybe Zeke wasn't quite as bad a coach as we thought, but Carlisle is still a major upgrade.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

        Hm . . . maybe keeping you at the end of the bench isn't a bad idea after all.
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

          Hm . . . maybe keeping you at the end of the bench isn't a bad idea after all.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

            This happens to every team, ever season, for a variety of reasons. They're all human, they all have emotions. Just like here, not everybody will love everyone all of the time.

            If this is now the first time that we've even heard of a little something like this, Carlisle is doing a better job than I thought he was.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

              I wouldn't pay to much mind to that , we have alot of emotional players and I think overall things have been kept to a minium on comments on each other.
              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                [quote="Hicks"]This article planted a seed of doubt in my mind. I had no idea there was bickering between our own players. Especially not as lately as a week ago.

                [quote][i]


                I read that and figured someone would bring it up. I don't see bickering as a problem. Even family members get into it when the are competing against each other. If there was no bickering I would see it as a lack of passion for what they are doing.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                  This article planted a seed of doubt in my mind. I had no idea there was bickering between our own players. Especially not as lately as a week ago.

                  I read that and figured someone would bring it up. I don't see bickering as a problem. Even family members get into it when the are competing against each other. If there was no bickering I would see it as a lack of passion for what they are doing.
                  I suppose

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                    I read the article and to me it sounded like the writer had nothing else to write about.

                    Lets be honest, outside of actually playing basketball the Pacers are a boring team. If one of the guys got a parking ticket it would be news.

                    I bet we already know about most of the drama on the team, which just plain isn't much.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                      Over the course of a season, things are bound to happen. I fight with my siblings all the time, but at the end of the day, we still love and support one another. I think the Pacers players certainly feel like part of a family, and so I would expect a similar interpersonal dynamic.

                      I hate the title of this story. "So far, Pacers Refuse To Unravel." Oh joy. I guess we should expect the apocalypse any day now. ed:
                      Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                        I hate the title of this story. "So far, Pacers Refuse To Unravel." Oh joy. I guess we should expect the apocalypse any day now. ed:
                        I was unhappy about that too.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                          The Pacers are mostly a group of "twenty-something" highly competitive males. If everything was nice-y nice, I'd be most concerned.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                            I think that it is a little ironic that this is the reaction we when something slightly negative is written about the Pacers by the Mark "the mouthpiece"
                            Montieth. Wasn't the knock on him that he hid the inner turmoil of the team?

                            After reading the article I was expecting a thread like "the truth at last" or "Is there a rift in the Pacer's PR department?"
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers not as unified as I thought

                              I'm still not convinced we're getting "A's" in chemistry.

                              Rick took over a tough situation, and he's handled it very, very, very well. But let's not get the cart in front of the horse and assume that he's been able to implement a permanent solution this quickly.

                              The chemistry on this team is very forced, especially when one considers that the top three players are all 24-or-so year-old forwards. Something eventually may have to change, and many of us that predicted a worse regular season record expected chemistry to have played a bigger role.

                              Credit Rick, and credit JO's leadership (which Rick frequently does.)

                              Let's hope they keep winning so there's no reason for them to truly turn on each other.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X