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/Knicks Postgame Thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Yeah, I mean I understand that it's not fun to listen to someone complain about every call when most of them seem to be legitimate calls, some fans are just like that. But at the same time... there are still bad calls. I don't feel remotely bad about complaining when I legitimately feel they got something wrong at my team's expense, and I can acknowledge when they screw the other team over as well.
    I'm not specifically targeting you, just an example, but when is the last time you said Refs made the wrong call, that should have benefited the other team. I can admit that last night, the Pacers got the benefit of the doubt on the whistle down the stretch. I do think they made the right call on the PG 3 FT's though. Maybe not in the past, but this team will get the benefit of the doubt more than not because they are now recognized as one of the best teams in the NBA. It's dumb, but thats just how it works.
    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

      Also, this is somewhat unrelated, but when I'm watching other games, I'm amazed how much refs ignore the verticality rule and call the foul anyway. Just annoying.
      There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

        I personally don't care about the complaining of the officiating as it is obviously far from a perfect science.

        I do hate it when fans comment and make it seem like the refs are out to "screw over" a specific team. Bad calls are going to be called on teams throughout each game, but referees aren't going out of their way to make sure they make bad calls against one team while ignoring the calls for the other team.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Why is there always this plea to leave the officials alone in our criticisms. We are only commenting on what we see during the game. Officiating is part of the game. Its okay to vent about it after the game. Joey Crawford is wild card, and the only thing consistent about him is that he will call what ever he pleases at any moment in the game.
          Because 98% of the time it is the same thing. yes there were bad calls both ways. what else is there to say, I mean if you enjoy the technical aspects of officiating I can understand that, but otherwise isn't it just not very beneficial. I suppose we can discuss every bad call throughout every game, I just don't know what that accomplishes

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            I personally don't care about the complaining of the officiating as it is obviously far from a perfect science.

            I do hate it when fans comment and make it seem like the refs are out to "screw over" a specific team. Bad calls are going to be called on teams throughout each game, but referees aren't going out of their way to make sure they make bad calls against one team while ignoring the calls for the other team.
            Tim Donaghy did it, and no one had the slightest clue. What changes were made to ensure it couldn't or wouldn't happen again? The NBA pretends that their officiating is above reproach, and when they employed a confessed cheater, it's hard for me to really put a whole lot of faith in their ability to sniff it out.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

              I really don't want to make this another officiating argument, but it really grinds my gears that when you question the sancity of NBA officiating, you're branded a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, even though we already know it can and did happen. Tim Donaghy happened, whether it's acknowledge or not. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                I can handle the occassional bad call. After all, it is possible for two different people to view the same thing and to interpret it differently. When multiple bad calls against your team occur during a critical stretch of a game it sucks... But it does happen very infrequently.

                The call that actually makes me irate is when you have seen a replay from multiple views, then come to realize that not only did you get a bad call, but that the referee that made the call, could not possibly have seen the foul that was allegedly committed from where he was positioned.. And, I have to say that Joey Crawford is guilty of this. Overall, I'd bet that we do pretty good when Crawford refs our games. But this one thing makes me dread seeing him at the tipoff of our games.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                  I agree Refs making calls when out of position is undoubtedly infuriating.
                  There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I really don't want to make this another officiating argument, but it really grinds my gears that when you question the sancity of NBA officiating, you're branded a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, even though we already know it can and did happen. Tim Donaghy happened, whether it's acknowledge or not. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
                    The problem is that it becomes "fool me once, shame on you. From then on, EVERYTHING is an attempt to fool me..." which isn't so much vigilance as paranoia.

                    Yes, it could happen, but if every fan complaining about the refs was right that it was part of the conspiracy, even the most Keystone Kops law enforcement would have run it down by now.

                    Someone, somewhere, got hit with a meteorite. Proves that it can happen, doesn't mean you have to wear full armor plate every time you go outside.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                      I already ripped that game to DVD. I was lucky I had my capture card running for some odd reason. That was ugly, but such a great back and fourth game. I am going to enjoy having that in my collection.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        The problem is that it becomes "fool me once, shame on you. From then on, EVERYTHING is an attempt to fool me..." which isn't so much vigilance as paranoia.

                        Yes, it could happen, but if every fan complaining about the refs was right that it was part of the conspiracy, even the most Keystone Kops law enforcement would have run it down by now.

                        Someone, somewhere, got hit with a meteorite. Proves that it can happen, doesn't mean you have to wear full armor plate every time you go outside.
                        I get all that. But when bad calls are highlighted, questioning why they were made gets you labeled a conspiracy theorist. It's uncalled for. I get not agreeing with it, I don't get the extreme labeling of the disagreement, just because.

                        It's not just Tim Donaghy though. All you've got to do is watch Joey Crawford try and take over pretty much every game he officiates. When it becomes a pattern, that the NBA doesn't do anything to address but rather touts him as one of their best, it really makes you wonder how much they even care. My feelings on this aren't attached to the Pacers, at all. I get good laughs at his officiating, and pure dickheadedness, watching a Bucks-Kings game.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                          And am I just misremembering or just making it up, but I thought the NBA changed the way they were going to call fouls on elbows a couple seasons ago? I thought sticking them up, and using them to intimidate defenders even without necessarily swinging them, was supposed to be an offensive foul.

                          The play where Melo shoved Lance's arm/shoulder, then sticking his elbows up, with Lance getting the foul and then technical is, obviously, what I'm thinking of. If Joey would have just called the first foul, you wouldn't need the subsequent foul and technical to get things back under control.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                            I wasn't trying to say that in general, calling out a blatantly bad call is a bad thing. I mean, I do it all the time myself.

                            I think ACE said it a lot better than I coudl. It's the ones who always think the refs have a specific agenda against a team, and they see it that way no matter what. My example was the Knicks fans this past game. Their absurd bias made them somehow see past the fact that Shump CLEARLY fouled PG, and 'Melo threw his shoulder into PG the next play. No way in hell could you have called that differently.

                            So I guess more or less, I was calling out the huge homers among us, because it's annoying if you think every call is going against you when it's not.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Because 98% of the time it is the same thing. yes there were bad calls both ways. what else is there to say, I mean if you enjoy the technical aspects of officiating I can understand that, but otherwise isn't it just not very beneficial. I suppose we can discuss every bad call throughout every game, I just don't know what that accomplishes
                              Who is to say its not beneficial? I enjoy ripping the officials for terrible calls. Its fun. Its not about discussing the bad call, its more about just pointing it out that it was a bad call. Nothing actually has to come from it. I can't wait until I get to sit down close to the court again. I've got entire list of Official heckling that I've been collecting over time.

                              "I'm Blind, Can't see...might as well be a Referee!"
                              "Hey Joey! Do need to go check your voicemail? Cause you been missing alot of calls!"
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                                But I don't think people are conspiracy theorists when they see Crawford asserting his theory when he decides to stop, make a call that is opposite of the other officials, and grandstand like a ****ing idiot.

                                I get it. It sucks watching all the bad officials etc. Just the homerism is all I'm talking about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X