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

Background Checks?????

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

  • Background Checks?????

    You've got to be kidding me!!!!!

    Players have background checks performed when they are drafted, by the teams that have thoughts of drafting per said player. Tinsley dropped to the end of the first round because of his background check, yet the Pacers took a chance on him anyway. Up until last year at club Rio, Jammal was barely a blip on the heart meter when it came to high profile players on this Pacer team or guys getting into trouble. Now he is the poster boy for thuggish behavior in grater Indianapolis.

    Marquis Daniels was undrafted bythe Mavericks and played their for two years without incident. He comes to Inday and suddenly hes involved with not one,but two investigations by the same prosecutor.

    Why would you have a private investagator follow these guys around day in and day out? Reporting their every move to the team top brass. Thats just ignorant and to think that a professional team would do that is more ignorant.

    People like Jim Rome who has a snied opinion about everything that he doesn't agree with says what he says for RATINGS and for his less cerebral fans that watch his show, or listen to his rantings on radio. I find him entertaining, but not very believeable.

    After reading Jon Murrays article this morning in the Star. The only thing that can be said to all those who have convicted Tinsley and Daniels in the court of public opinion is you really need to up your IQ's because you all sound really, really STUPID, right now. I don't even like Tinsley as a player, or as an Indiana Pacer, but I do believe in his right of innocent until proven guilty....He wasn't even charged with anything at the Club Rio incident, yet the court of public opinion had him tried and sentenced. Hope that makes most of you feel like proud Americans, because most of your statement on this messsage board make you look far from being one.

  • #2
    Re: Background Checks?????

    Oh tell me wonderful knower of all, if this was just something made up, for whatever reason, then why wasn't JO's named first involved?

    This is the first time it's been let known that he was even at the party, let alone a witness to the events.

    The first excuse flying around was the bar manager was just trying to get a piece of someone famous. Now it comes out he doesn't even want charges to be pressed. So obviously he's not wanting anything.

    Now it's because Brizzi wants to prosecute high profile people to make a name for himself.

    There's just some of us, like me, that are sick and tired of hearing about another Pacer is named in some kind of incident, and not as a victim or witness.

    If JO managed to stay clear of everything, and not have his name brought up, then why in the hell can't Jamaal and Quis? I would expect that those two would literally RUN away from any trouble considering they were just involved in a bar fight at Club Rio.

    You should step down off your soap box because you have just as much information as everyone else, which you formed your OPINION with. You don't have any more right than I do to call your opinion stupid.

    When everyone agrees on something, come find me. Until then you can keep personal remarks towards people to yourself.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Background Checks?????

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      There's just some of us, like me, that are sick and tired of hearing about another Pacer is named in some kind of incident, and not as a victim or witness.
      You realize ANYBODY can become a suspect of just about anything, all it takes is an accusation. I can go and accuse you of murdering Hoffa, won't hold up in court, only difference is you are not a professional athlete and the general public could give a less about what I accuse you of or what is written in the papers.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Background Checks?????

        Since86

        Not a soapbox, just the facts that are now starting to come out. But again people like yourself have convicted these guys in the court of public opinion.

        Do your homework on theses guys like Brizzi....he has his own webpage, filled with all his triumphs and cases....the perfect polictical tool to get elected to the next office he runs for....mayor of Indy?, No, maybe he wants to be govenor!

        *snip*

        Flames removed - Shade

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Background Checks?????

          It's a freaking soapbox when you start calling people stupid, peabrains, and that crap. There's no place for it.

          You can disagree with my OPINION just as much as I can disagree with your OPINION.

          These are the facts I care about, and the only facts at this point. Jamaal Tinsley and Quis Daniels have been named in TWO bar/club incidents in less than six months. Both incidents are a black eye for the franchise locally and nationally.

          I only care about those two facts, because perception is reality. Not everyone cares enough to keep reading story updates. Do you think Joe Smith in Chicago keeps checking for updates on this story? No, he heard the first report that two pacers were involved in a second bar fight this season and he formed his OPINION based on them, and I doubt it's a positive one.

          I don't want to be looked at like a fool when I say that I'm a Pacer fan, or when I wear Pacer gear. I don't want to go home and have my parents rib me about the players, especially when they're freaking Bengals fans.

          Wrap your head around that idea. It's not what did happen, it's what other people outside this place THINKS happened. People aren't going to the games anymore. Why is that? The team isn't performing on or off the court at the level that fans expect.

          THAT'S what upsets me. Not the fact that they may or may not have been directly involved. At this point, it doesn't matter. They have been convicted in the court of public opinion as a whole, and it only hurts this franchise.

          We can discuss this further, if you'd like, but leave your personal comments behind. I expect your posts to either be edited by admins or either deleted. If you don't know why, I suggest you read the rules of this forum, something you were supposed to do before you ever posted.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Background Checks?????

            People arn't going to games becasue the Pacers are inconsistant! Not because of the incidents they have been allegedly accused of...remember that word ALLEGEDLY.

            Why spend your Dollar on a team that wins 3 then loses 3, not because what people percive of the team. If the Pacers finish with a flourish and are in the top four seed in the conference, Conseco will fill up, but not because of any off the court issues.

            By the way The Bengal players that were ARRESTED and did do the crimes that they were convicted of, and didn't need the county prosecutor to take weak evidence to a grand jury just to see if their cases had any merit. Much like the Dominic Rhodes situation.

            If it bothers you what others think of you being a PAcer fan, then thats your problem. I have been a Pacer fan since the teams inception and I refuse to let one or two bad apples ruin something that I cherrish. Especially if their evidence is weak and the victem didn't want to press charges in the first place.

            Your right, I could have used more suttle words as to describe what I am seeing form supposed Paer Fans, but after a while it really gets frustrating to see just how many people share the same wrong opinion, and won't even consider that they could be wrong...

            But I guess its all about joe fan and not the truth.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Background Checks?????

              I thought you were up to date on all the reading about the incident?

              Either way, you must not believe the freaking owner of the Pacers.

              Pacers owner Herb Simon said Thursday that several incidents have hurt the team.
              "Attendance is down," he said. "We have a team that plays together, so we're getting to the point we're getting excited about the team.
              "But we're losing the fans."
              http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...OCAL/702230457

              What were you saying?
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Background Checks?????

                Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                You've got to be kidding me!!!!!

                Players have background checks performed when they are drafted, by the teams that have thoughts of drafting per said player. Tinsley dropped to the end of the first round because of his background check, yet the Pacers took a chance on him anyway. Up until last year at club Rio, Jammal was barely a blip on the heart meter when it came to high profile players on this Pacer team or guys getting into trouble. Now he is the poster boy for thuggish behavior in grater Indianapolis.

                Marquis Daniels was undrafted bythe Mavericks and played their for two years without incident. He comes to Inday and suddenly hes involved with not one,but two investigations by the same prosecutor.

                Why would you have a private investagator follow these guys around day in and day out? Reporting their every move to the team top brass. Thats just ignorant and to think that a professional team would do that is more ignorant.

                People like Jim Rome who has a snied opinion about everything that he doesn't agree with says what he says for RATINGS and for his less cerebral fans that watch his show, or listen to his rantings on radio. I find him entertaining, but not very believeable.

                After reading Jon Murrays article this morning in the Star. The only thing that can be said to all those who have convicted Tinsley and Daniels in the court of public opinion is you really need to up your IQ's because you all sound really, really STUPID, right now. I don't even like Tinsley as a player, or as an Indiana Pacer, but I do believe in his right of innocent until proven guilty....He wasn't even charged with anything at the Club Rio incident, yet the court of public opinion had him tried and sentenced. Hope that makes most of you feel like proud Americans, because most of your statement on this messsage board make you look far from being one.
                The first sign of a losing argument is when the ignorant and stupid comments get thrown around. It only amplies that arrogance when the validity of your citizenship is called into question.

                Having worked in professional sports allow me to let you in on a little secret. Not only do teams have PI's watch players but so does the league. They are called security.
                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Background Checks?????

                  The first excuse flying around was the bar manager was just trying to get a piece of someone famous. Now it comes out he doesn't even want charges to be pressed. So obviously he's not wanting anything.
                  Or got what he wanted as some would suggest regarding his stance of not wanting charges pressed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Background Checks?????

                    Which would mean they actually did do something wrong.

                    Why would he have gotten anything, if they weren't involved?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Background Checks?????

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      The first excuse flying around was the bar manager was just trying to get a piece of someone famous. Now it comes out he doesn't even want charges to be pressed. So obviously he's not wanting anything.
                      Are the owner and manager the same person? I didn't think they were.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Background Checks?????

                        The article is about the manager not wanting to press charges.

                        The 8 Seconds Saloon and (bar manager) Mark Nicholson did not seek to press charges," said Too Keller, an attorney for the bar's owners, who include Nicholson's brother, Brad. "Once police are involved, it's up to the prosecutor."

                        But Keller declined to comment on whether the bar's owners supported the charges being filed.
                        http://thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS06/70223002

                        I know it's muncie's paper, but it's directly from the Indy Star.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X