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

Kstat, question for you.

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

  • Kstat, question for you.

    Prepare to have "but Artest is on your team" thrown in your face a lot.

    We'll see how Kstat feels when Sheed returns to the person we all know he really is. And Brown is just the coach to get under his skin.

  • #2
    Re: Kstat, question for you.

    To be fair, at lthe very least, announcers DID say things about Ron's antics a couple of season's ago.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kstat, question for you.

      To be fair, at lthe very least, announcers DID say things about Ron's antics a couple of season's ago.
      We're not in this thread to be fair though. We're here to bag on the horrible, dispicible criminal mastermind known as Rasheed Wallace

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kstat, question for you.

        We're not in this thread to be fair though. We're here to bag on the horrible, dispicible criminal mastermind known as Rasheed Wallace
        Dude, you totally know that spot on his head is the mark of the beast right?
        Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kstat, question for you.

          To be fair, at lthe very least, announcers DID say things about Ron's antics a couple of season's ago.
          We're not in this thread to be fair though. We're here to bag on the horrible, dispicible criminal mastermind known as Rasheed Wallace
          But the thing is, we acknowledge Ron's problems. You do nothing but praise Sheed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kstat, question for you.

            Why would you post a quote by Rasheed Wallace? I understand that he made a statement that most Piston fans like to hear from their players, but this is Rasheed Wallace. Not Joe Namath or even Ben Wallce. Not to mention that “Promises” and “Guarantees” are a dime a dozen in professional sports. Eveyone makes them, and if they don’t back them up, who cares.
            Simply because everyone here was ripping on him for the guarentee. And if we had LOST id have put that into m sig too.

            Rasheed's never made such a guarentee in his career. I would have lost a lot of respect for him if we'd lost, but he gutted it out on that leg and really hounded JO all over the court. He also gave his teamates confidence that they really COULD beat the Pacers Rasheed is a fierce compeditor and his prediction exemlified that.

            R. Wallace is not someone to look up to or be proud that he is on your team. R. Wallace is a thug player who has made mistakes his entire career and NEVER learned from any of them. R. Wallce has never been, nor will he ever be, an example to kids of a good citizen. Even if you don’t thinks drugs should be illegal, maybe discretion is the better part of valor. Can’t he just keep his personal life at home and not take his drugs out into public where he is sure to be scrutinized by police. That does seem to happen when you have a prior ARREST record.
            Since coming to Detroit, Rasheed has been REMARKABLE. He has this public image of being a bad person and teamate, its really the opposite. He's the first guy off the bench to congradulate his teamates, he cheers louder than half the FANS in the building, and he's the guy that checks with EVERYONE to make sure they're in the right spot defensively. Ask the entire team. Ben Wants him back. Chauncey wants him back. Rip REALLY wants him back.

            And by the way, i could care less if the guy smokes weed. %90 of this forum probably smokes it too. Am I supposed to think worse of him because he got caught with it?

            f Ben Wallace wants to guarantee things and you feel the need to quote him I would understand. But Rasheed Wallace? How can one have any respect for a man with so much talent but so little self control AND he’s a poor role model and an extremely poor example of a good citizen?
            I respect the one guy on the Pistons that had the balls to step up and tell everybody that they pistons not only COULD win in Indiana, but they WOULD win in Indiana. Without his confidence, I don't think wed have made it out of round two. He brings a mental edge that has rubbed off on the team, ESPECIALLY Rip hamilton. When a guy is taking heat for his team, you can't help but feel the pressure's off you to perform, and play a little looser.

            Because I respect your basketball knowledge and your ability to debate without name calling or being a complete homer (you do overestimate your team on occasion, but we ALL do) I ask you to think about your loyalty to or admiration of a man like R. Wallace.
            If Rasheed continues to by the incredible team player he has been, I will stay loyal to him. I don't care WHAT hes done in his past, as long as he stays the consummate teamate he has been in Detroit, I will continue to support him. I think the fact the entire TEAM made up of mostly nice guys is lobbying Joe D to sign him, not to mention LARRY BROWN, who had to deal with ALLEN IVERSON for 7 years, speaks VOLUMES about what kind of a teamate he is.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kstat, question for you.

              And by the way, i could care less if the guy smokes weed. %90 of this forum probably smokes it too.
              I'm not really trying to sidetrack this discussion, but I'm curious. This is at least the 2nd time I've read you make the statement that "90% of this forum probably smokes weed too". Now, obviously you're within your rights to care or not to care if Sheed smokes marijuana, but why do you keep repeating the assertion that the vast majority of this forum smokes it too? Is there some secret internet drug test that you've been clandestinely administering to the members here?


              I now return you to your regularly scheduled Sheed debate, already in progress...
              Your horse is dead, get off it already...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kstat, question for you.

                Can't a fan just be a fan of his team? Do we really have to look at the moral implications of a signature line when it's something positive about your team. Heck, it's not even a negative comment.

                I didn't make anything out of Rasheed's comments but if people enjoy that he said it and we won, who's it hurting?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kstat, question for you.

                  Can't a fan just be a fan of his team? Do we really have to look at the moral implications of a signature line when it's something positive about your team. Heck, it's not even a negative comment.

                  I didn't make anything out of Rasheed's comments but if people enjoy that he said it and we won, who's it hurting?
                  I'm gonna have to agree with him.
                  Play Mafia!
                  Twitter

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kstat, question for you.

                    Can we skip the formalities and go ahead and award this THE MOST RIDICULOUS THREAD OF 2004.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kstat, question for you.

                      I "guarantee" that Rasheed Wallace is a good citizen...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kstat, question for you.

                        Why isn't this thread addressed to J.O who is friends with Wallace which (I would think) would be much more disturbing to someone who thinks so little of Wallace and so highly J.O. ?

                        I'm going to chime in here, I hope no one minds.

                        First off, Wallace was incredibly important in game two. Yes he shot terribly but the entire Piston team shot 35% that game. He had 5 blocks (game high) and 8 rebounds (tied for team high) and 10 pts (incredibly, 2nd most on team) in that game. No that stat line doesn't look good but thats the way the game went, stats were hard to come by, it was an ugly game but the Piston's grinded it out, in large part thanks to R.Wallace. He also held JO under 20 points (16) so to say he might as well have not played is a joke.

                        Second, even if all someone watched was highlights of his past seasons they could tell a difference between how he reacts to calls then as opposed to know. I understand he is on the team that is opposing your team and so he is arguing every call you think is fair but take a look at how he argues. Everyone here loves to talk about the time Wallace went into the crowd in frustration with a call and act like it was a crime and he should have been t'ed if not thrown out. I don't get this. To me (and apparently to the officials) its a much better reaction than yelling in their face. He didn't interact with the fans as he stormed away of cause a scene, yes he stromed off, but he wasn't jumping up and down or lashing out, he was animated but pretty controlled. he used to be demonstrative and try to show up the refs in Portland, he would jump in their faces flail around and appear to have tantrums on the court. So far all he has done here is consistently and persistantly argue with some animation. As for the swear words, no I don't like then, but he doesn't call the refs names with them (its usually just "thats b.s" "this is b.s."). Is that t'able? If so, there should be a lot more t's in the game.

                        Third, character. I agree that no one likes the guy who showed up officials every game and seemed to get arrest for weed possession every season. I'm also tired of pro athletes who can't figure out how to follow the laws everyone has to follow. But I do like this http://www.rawallacefoundation.com
                        Everyone of his former teamates speaks highly of him as a teamate. And every former coach praises his team oriented style of play, his leadership in the locker room. While in Detroit he's shown nothing but desire to compete, hard work, and commitment, and he has elevated the teams performance (come on, how many of you thought the Pistons would be a challenge to the Pacers before they got R.W?) without causing any riffs.

                        Fourth, statistics.

                        Technical Fouls:

                        2003-2004 regular season
                        R.Wallace - 18 (#2 in the NBA)
                        J.O'Neal - 16 (#3 in the NBA tied with 2 others)

                        2003-2004 postseason
                        J'Oneal - 4 (#2 in the NBA tied with 3 others including R.Hamilton)
                        R.Wallace - 1 (tied for #28 with ... well a lot of others)

                        2003-2004 total (so far)
                        J.O'Neal - 20
                        R.Wallace - 19


                        2002-2003 regular season
                        R.Wallace - 11 (#13 in the NBA tied with 4 others)
                        J.O'Neal - 17 (tied for #3 in the NBA with 2 others)

                        2002-2003 postseason
                        R.Wallace - 1
                        J'O'Neal - 3 (tied for #6 in the NBA with 6 others, though IND only played one series)

                        2002 - 2003 total
                        J.O'Neal - 20
                        R.Wallace -18


                        2001-2002 regular season
                        R.Wallace - 27 (#1 in NBA by a whopping 7 fouls)
                        J.O'Neal - 12 (#19 in the NBA tied with 7 others)

                        2001-2002 postseason
                        R.Wallace - 1
                        J.O'Neal - 2

                        2001 - 2002 totals
                        R.Wallace - 28
                        J.O'neal - 14


                        No one is calling out Pacer fans (at least not on this website) for embracing Artest after just one season of not being the "thug player" (as R.Wallace was called in this thread) that he was last year. Wallace has been much more controlled emotionally in the past few seasons, yes he is still high on the technical foul list, but so is the highly thought of J.O'Neal (as shown). Where is the outcry to label him this terrible role model for kids?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X