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

Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

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

  • #46
    Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

    Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
    Unclebuck- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

    Now you're just trying to derail the thread. Suggest you start a new topic on the main page. Otherwise, this one might go to .... in a handbasket.
    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


    • #47
      Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Here is my problem. Just because they can jump high, run fast and catch a ball, why are they considered role models? What are they doing for the greater good of the planet?

      Athletes shouldn't be put to that type of standard. Just because you're good at a sport and people post your face on shoe and cereal boxes doesn't mean they should be a role model.

      This goes for actors and musicians, too.

      People that make a real difference in lives, Nobel Peace Prize winners, esteemed authors... examples like that.
      I agree. But, thats just not, "real world".

      I'm not going to ask anything unreasonable out of expectations. But many athletes use their fame and money to do amazing things... They should also be celebrated.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        Here is my problem. Just because they can jump high, run fast and catch a ball, why are they considered role models? What are they doing for the greater good of the planet?

        Athletes shouldn't be put to that type of standard. Just because you're good at a sport and people post your face on shoe and cereal boxes doesn't mean they should be a role model.

        This goes for actors and musicians, too.

        People that make a real difference in lives, Nobel Peace Prize winners, esteemed authors... examples like that.
        Those people aren't in the media spotlight to be seen by kids. The media throws images of athletes, musicians, and actors at kids all day. Kids see that and make them their role model. No one really wants their kids to think of Paris Hilton as a role model, but I remember when I was a senior in high school, one of the freshman classes did something where the students wrote down their role models. The number one role model for the girls was Paris Hilton. There really isn't much you can do about it unless you censor everything your child does, and prohibit them from having friends. The best you can do is steer them towards the good role models that are in the public eye.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          Now you're just trying to derail the thread. Suggest you start a new topic on the main page. Otherwise, this one might go to .... in a handbasket.
          There should be a poll. just how self-riteous and self-absorbed is UB. A ton, a lot, too much or who is UB, I must have him on ignore.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

            Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
            I agree. But, thats just not, "real world".

            I'm not going to ask anything unreasonable out of expectations. But many athletes use their fame and money to do amazing things... They should also be celebrated.
            Why? When you have normal people volunteering at soup kitchens every Wednesday. Where is their celebration?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

              I think anyone with media exposure is what you might call a passive role model, versus an active role model.

              To me, a passive role model can be anyone with media exposure (TV, radio, Internet, whatever), where in any case that person has an audience observing or listening to them. They may not be out there because the are actively trying to be mimicked in some way, but nonetheless they do have ears and/or eyeballs on them, and at least some people (probably mostly some children) are prone to taking something from their behavior and then mimicking it themselves. The whole monkey-see-monkey-do concept I used to hear as a kid. That's not their fault, and they didn't do it for that reason, and I don't feel they carry a high degree of responsibility for it, but I think it does exist.

              Then you have active role models, the people who deliberately want people to follow their example. Being a big fan of the character and those films, I immediately think of the fictitious example of what Bruce Wayne was trying to do by being Batman in the Nolan films; he wanted to inspire people to resist the state of things in Gotham (the corruption, the crime). He was an active role model who was deliberately theatrical to gain attention and to hopefully inspire good. He was an active role model. His actions would carry a much higher responsibility with regards to being a role model because he's actively bringing it upon himself on purpose.

              Something like that, anyway.

              Getting back to passive role models, I think they have some degree of responsibility in so much as they have to know that impressionable people (again, mostly some children) are observing them, and that if they act a fool, that might have a negative impact on someone like that (although I can't imagine it ever being very serious), but I think that only goes so far before you have to give them a pass. They are, ultimately, out there to earn money playing a sport, not because they deliberately wanted to be an active role model or were trying to inspire people, and I don't feel they're strictly obligated to do anything in that regard, though it's certainly good if they do and probably a good idea.

              /ramble

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                There should be a poll. just how self-riteous and self-absorbed is UB. A ton, a lot, too much or who is UB, I must have him on ignore.
                This could be as epic as the Best Kegboy poll.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                  I'm sure its been said, but you probably caught him on a bad day. Sometimes people just aren't in the mood to mingle and joke around.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                    You want self-righteous, self-absorbed...

                    Here is the worst fan of player-player interaction I've ever heard...

                    A guy I know was a HUGE Marshall Faulk fan when he was a kid... After a colts practice he found Marshall's car and waited for him bright-eyed and adoringly... Marshall came out... Told the kid to get the f... away from his car... Got in... Drove off... I can't imagine how tore up he was as a kid meeting his "idol"...
                    Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                      While I completely see what astrick is saying, I think MunciePacerBabe hit it on the head. He does seem different to me, but it seems like it's a way for him to cope with the environment. Plus I think it is really hard to hear her in a loud arena. Almost every time Paul George gets interviewed he has to ask her to repeat herself. If he's like me, it will take him some time to process what she just said, and that's when people start "falling back" into their comfort zone conversations like canned, "we gotta step it up" statements or, in Roy's case, some goofy, off-the-top-of-his-head ramblings. Did you also notice he said "I think I'm repeating myself"? He was just trying to come up with something to say to fill the void.
                      BTW, I think Roy was also a LOT more comfortable being interviewed by Stacy Paetz. She was always able to get the best out of him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                        Originally posted by J7F View Post
                        You want self-righteous, self-absorbed...

                        Here is the worst fan of player-player interaction I've ever heard...

                        A guy I know was a HUGE Marshall Faulk fan when he was a kid... After a colts practice he found Marshall's car and waited for him bright-eyed and adoringly... Marshall came out... Told the kid to get the f... away from his car... Got in... Drove off... I can't imagine how tore up he was as a kid meeting his "idol"...
                        Ouch! That's pretty rough. But finding a dudes car and waiting for him there is pretty creepy. How did he know it was his car? How old was he? Was he alone? I was a huge Faulk fan as a kid too, and I hate to think he did this.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                          One thing left out of this conversation I've seen with some of the horseshoes. Sounds silly but... these guys have wives/girlfriends who have no problem letting a player know not to get too friendly with females in general and this can include lady journalists or hosts. I'm not kidding when I say a player may be famous enough to have many lady friends but if he is hitched his partner can and will make things difficult if she thinks the conversation had too much spark.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                            Originally posted by J7F View Post
                            You want self-righteous, self-absorbed...

                            Here is the worst fan of player-player interaction I've ever heard...

                            A guy I know was a HUGE Marshall Faulk fan when he was a kid... After a colts practice he found Marshall's car and waited for him bright-eyed and adoringly... Marshall came out... Told the kid to get the f... away from his car... Got in... Drove off... I can't imagine how tore up he was as a kid meeting his "idol"...
                            Honestly. When I read that I think it is rude for someone to wait for an athlete at their car. Does seem a little creepy.

                            If I leave work here and see anyone, some kid or a grown man waiting by my car, I might say something like Marshall did or call the police.

                            I blame the kid's parents.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                              Athlete-fan interactions have to toe such a careful line. I generally try to treat them like anyone else (which is AS CREEPY AS POSSIBLE), I hang at Mo's a lot before and after games as people on here know, so I bump into the players there after the game. Generally unless it happens naturally like I would with any other human being, I don't really interact with them too much. I don't like it too much when random people I don't know come up and try strike a convo with me, and I especially don't like it when I feel like it is forced up on me by the situation.


                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed?

                                Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                                You summed up my thoughts and emotions on the OP perfectly.

                                Also, since everyone else seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room (Thread) - the word is righteous not riteous. Before you call someone out or imply that they are something so spurious, please at least do a quick spell-check.

                                This encounter where Roy Hibbert allegedly blew you and your kids off reminds me of my only real world encounter with Reggie Miller.

                                Reggie Miller once straight up ignored me when he came to the movie theater I worked at. Of course I did yell, "Hey, Reggie!" at the top of my lungs in a crowded theater lobby. He hurriedly walked to his movie without even turning his head. My best friend at the time who was working with me had a field day with that. He laughed so hard he nearly pee'd himself. This was the day after game 3 in that incredible Playoffs series against the Knicks in 1994. I was a huge Reggie Miller fan. I remember going to see his first home preseason game and he became an instant favorite. I was embarrased when he ignored but but it never changed my view of Reggie Miller. The man was trying to get to the movie before being mobbed by fans for autographs.

                                Reggie wasn't there to see me just like Roy wasn't there to see you. We might know a lot about these players but they don't know us. If they have time on their hands and are prepared to welcome fans they are usually very friendly and accomodating. If they have something else on their mind or their agenda they might brush past us to do what they need to do. No one should begrudge them for that. Just be happy you got to see him live and in the flesh. That's something the majority of Pacers fans never will get to experience.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X