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

A question for Skaut_Ech...

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

  • A question for Skaut_Ech...

    Skaut, you wrote the following in the Artest for Dampier thread:

    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
    Ya know, for the longest time, I've been maintaining that I want Ron to stay, but I'm starting to change my mind about it.
    Seeing as you are one of the only people here who's "starting to change their mind about Ron," I'm curious as to what brought this change about?

  • #2
    Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

    Originally posted by Harmonica
    Skaut, you wrote the following in the Artest for Dampier thread:



    Seeing as you are one of the only people here who's "starting to change their mind about Ron," I'm curious as to what brought this change about?
    I wanted to allow myself the end of the season and a little perspective before I started thinking really hard about keeping him. >>

    There’s something that keeps nagging at me. >>

    Ron has always had emotional problems. His coach in college said he had a “dark side.” I talked to someone in his family, who views him as emotionally and intellectually stunted. If I remember right, when he had that camera destruction incident, he was going through anger management. I think about him going after Pat Riley, various times where he tore up Bulls equipment in anger. There’s the string of suspensions and fines. The fact that the Bulls got tired of dealing with him. >>

    I just don’t see Ron changing. >>

    Sure he will to an extent, but he is who he is. :1ouch: >>

    I admit, I still hold a huge grudge against him for derailing our season the way he did. (And please, I don’t want a breakdown of the minutae of who did what, folks. Bottom line, Ron doesn’t go into the stands, nothing happens, we come off looking good and the Pistons end up looking like jerks.) >>

    That being said, I think it’s too dangerous to keep him. I honestly think he’ll have another incident in the future and it’ll be something big. Not like this past one by any means, but none-the-less, I think it’ll happen. >>

    I think about guys he’s compared against: Sprewell had a big history of on and off court incidents. Violent incidents. He cleaned up his act for a while, but now is a major disruptive influence for the Wolves. Rodman was a freak, but he had a HUGE factor in controlling him. Jordan. We don’t have a strong charismatic leader like Jordan who can wither ANY teammate with just a look. Vernon Maxwell had the strong spiritual influence of Hakeem. I just don’t if we have an on-court guy to corral him. >>

    If anyone can try and keep Ron in check, I think Carlisle and Bird can do it. They both appear no-nonsense about things. >>

    But I just have this nagging suspension about Ron. Something is going to happen and it’s going to further tarnish our franchise and/or affect the outcome of something important, whether it’s immediately, or has an affect down the road for playoff positioning. >>

    I know Ron has turned down being medicated in the past. That’s understandable, given his upbringing, but he’s had years and years of “anger management” and it doesn’t seem to affect him. >>

    I’m sure a lot of folks are saying, he’s finally decided to change, so if he puts his mind to it, maybe it’ll happen. It’s just that I have this nagging feeling that somewhere down the road is lurking another bad incident for the Pacers and Ron is going to be at the center of it. >>

    I just don’t know if I want to feel that dread for the next few years.
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

      Thanks for the reply, Skaut. A couple of more questions. When exactly did this change come about? Was it more gradual or sudden? And was there ever a time when you liked having Ron on the team or felt comfortable with him here? I guess what I'm trying to get at is how predisposed you were to changing your feelings about Ron.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

        Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
        But I just have this nagging suspension about Ron.....
        Very clever, Skaut!.........
        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

          Originally posted by MagicRat
          Very clever, Skaut!.........
          Freudian to say the least.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

            Ack!! Am I nuts or what...Skaut your reply shows up as having all thes < and ! and Empty Paras in it....was that intentional or is my system not interpreting symbols????
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

              Originally posted by indygeezer
              Ack!! Am I nuts or what...Skaut your reply shows up as having all thes < and ! and Empty Paras in it....was that intentional or is my system not interpreting symbols????
              Time to replace that Commodore computer Geezer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                Originally posted by Harmonica
                Time to replace that Commodore computer Geezer.

                hmmm I don't think "The Colonel" is going to spring for a new 'puter for me...not for awhile yet. Comapaq Deskpro with a Pentium III....better'n my old IBM XT tho.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                  Skaut, what an avatar - is that you?
                  "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                    Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                    Skaut, what an avatar - is that you?
                    Uh........

                    Originally posted by MagicRat
                    Very clever, Skaut!.........
                    Wow. I'd like to take credit, but Harmonica hit it on the head. Completely Freudian. That's funny. I proofread it twice.

                    Thanks for the reply, Skaut. A couple of more questions. When exactly did this change come about? Was it more gradual or sudden? And was there ever a time when you liked having Ron on the team or felt comfortable with him here? I guess what I'm trying to get at is how predisposed you were to changing your feelings about Ron.
                    Let me put it this way: In most of my responses to threads ab`out should Ron stay or go, I always argued that recently some of the championship teams had one certifiable wild card/loony to throw the other team off balance. I argued that Ron was essential to our success.

                    The change has been gradual, but it was sparked by something a little odd; The Tyson fight.

                    I was thinking how despite Mike making millions, getting to travel the world, have access to ways to better himself and people to emulate, he still ultimately is that same street kid with anger problems who doesn't think before he does stuff. (I'm refering to him trying to break McBride's arm and biting his nipple.)

                    All of a sudden I flashed to Ron.... a street kid with anger problems who doesn't think before he does stuff.

                    I felt myself slowly climbing onto the fence about Ron as the season progressed. THen watching the finals, I got to thinking, there but for the grace of Ron, goes us. A Spurs/Pacers finals. The thing I wanted in 1998, but where the Pacer screwed us fans hard with one of the biggest choke jobs I've ever seen a team pull in the NBA, when a title is on the line.

                    Watching the Tyson fight, coupled with watching the finals finally started pushing me to the "Ron must go" side, if that makes sense to you.
                    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                      What happened in 1988?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                        Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                        Let me put it this way: In most of my responses to threads about should Ron stay or go, I always argued that recently some of the championship teams had one certifiable wild card/loony to throw the other team off balance. I argued that Ron was essential to our success.

                        The change has been gradual, but it was sparked by something a little odd; The Tyson fight.

                        I was thinking how despite Mike making millions, getting to travel the world, have access to ways to better himself and people to emulate, he still ultimately is that same street kid with anger problems who doesn't think before he does stuff. (I'm refering to him trying to break McBride's arm and biting his nipple.)

                        All of a sudden I flashed to Ron.... a street kid with anger problems who doesn't think before he does stuff.

                        I felt myself slowly climbing onto the fence about Ron as the season progressed. THen watching the finals, I got to thinking, there but for the grace of Ron, goes us. A Spurs/Pacers finals. The thing I wanted in 1988, but where the Pacer screwed us fans hard with one of the biggest choke jobs I've ever seen a team pull in the NBA, when a title is on the line.

                        Watching the Tyson fight, coupled with watching the finals finally started pushing me to the "Ron must go" side, if that makes sense to you.
                        Makes perfect sense. I never made the connection before, but the Tyson analogy isn't a bad one, in my opinion. They're almost frighteningly similar when you think about it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                          I can't believe you're basing your decision about Ron, with Mike.

                          Ron has problems, but not even a tenth of Mike's.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            I can't believe you're basing your decision about Ron, with Mike.

                            Ron has problems, but not even a tenth of Mike's.
                            Really?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                              Originally posted by Harmonica
                              They're almost frighteningly similar when you think about it.
                              Yes.

                              Ron says no one likes him because he is a "big dumb ******."

                              Ron tells his opponents that he is going to eat their children.

                              Ron beats on people's car hoods because they were involved in an accident.

                              Ron's been convicted of raping women. EDIT: raping a woman, not women.

                              Ron robs 15y/o girls, which are the neices of his management people.

                              Need I continue?

                              EDIT: Plus Mike, purposely, drove his car head on into a tree, not to kill himself but to know what it feels like.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X