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

Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

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

  • #76
    Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

    If you guys forget, maybe YouTube search "Pacers Heat flagrants." Or YouTube Wade dislocating Rondo's elbow. Actually, just YouTube search "Wade dirty plays."

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

      Originally posted by pogi View Post
      I do. Give me for my starting lineup...

      Hakeem
      Barkley
      Pippin
      Jordan
      Gary Payton

      You can have...

      Lebron
      Durant
      And mix-and-match whomever you decide. The only person, IMO, that would give them trouble would be Lebron. Pippin would cancel out Durant, meaning...the only way Kevin scores more than 20 would be if he was on fire from 3 point land. I doubt anyone would out rebound Barkley individually. And there isn't a player today that would outwork Hakeem on offense nor defense. Gary isn't the greatest scoring Pg, but even someone like Westbrook wouldn't just be scoring at will against him. Then the bench would consist of say....

      Shaq
      Malone
      Drexler
      Grant Hill
      Penny Hardaway
      The bench alone would probably destroy any starting lineup of now.
      It's all hypothetical, based on the opinions of players skills, etc. Also, are we talking about the 2000's (where I could add guys like Kobe, KG, Duncan, and Dirk in their Prime) or are we talking about the players now.

      I get what you're saying, you believe that the players of the previous era are so much better than the players of the current era. Well the players of the 80's and their biggest fans believe they would mop the floor with the players of the 90s, and so on. There is zero factual proof to prove either way.

      With that said, i believe a team of the early 2000s (Duncan, Dirk, KG, Kobe, AI, Vince, T-Mac, J-Kidd) that would compete or a team of current stars (Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, Lebron, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Curry, the Gasols) that could compete as well.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

        Ace - 90's were better than the 80's too. Look I went to my first game in 1969 and have seen over 4 decades and the 90's had the best teams of them all.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

          Originally posted by mattie View Post
          Fights are always a bad thing- and if you're the type of player to risk your teams playoff chances by actually throwing a punch you're a dipshit. But to act like players today are just patting each other on the back during games is insanity.

          Damn I miss a healthy Danny Granger. Say what you want about his skill or anything else but the man wasn't going to back down from anything or anyone.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Ace - 90's were better than the 80's too. Look I went to my first game in 1969 and have seen over 4 decades and the 90's had the best teams of them all.
            The 90's was definitely a time that was pretty top heavy in terms of star power. But I feel that the league today has some pretty strong star power as well.

            The point I was making was that fans that identify with a specific era of basketball, tend to believe that era was the best era. It's just human nature.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

              Let's not stop at the NBA. Everything was better in the 90s. Music, TV, movies, SNL, economy, the list goes on.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                The 90's was definitely a time that was pretty top heavy in terms of star power. But I feel that the league today has some pretty strong star power as well.

                The point I was making was that fans that identify with a specific era of basketball, tend to believe that era was the best era. It's just human nature.
                The league is in pretty good shape at the moment, but does fall short of being the best time period. Let's face it, not physically, but Michael Jordan was bigger than LeBron James. He starred in movies and had a fairly popular sandwich named after himself at McDonald's. He is still a force selling shoes. He actually had to leave the league to play professional baseball because he wasn't challenged enough. Jordan was bigger than the game itself. While not a flamboyant personality like Barkley and Shaq, Jordan had charisma, competitiveness and absolute confidence...more of those elements than any other player I have seen play the game.

                LeBron also doesn't have the same resume'. Jordan won his 6 titles via two separate three-peats with an organically built team, not a cheap imitation where the best players in the league just decide to team up. That combined with the dominant centers in that era and you have the best era...IMHO of course...educated opinion I might add. I've actually seen basketball live and on TV well before and after the 1990's and it's my opinion that the 90's was the best time period for the game. Not the 70's. Not the 80's which were not bad. Not after 2000. Not since 2010 which I think has been a fairly good period. I think the NBA is better now than 10 years ago...during what I would call a drought of talent even though Kobe was prime back then.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  Let's not stop at the NBA. Everything was better in the 90s. Music, TV, movies, SNL, economy, the list goes on.
                  So if this seems like a reasonable statement to me would that rule out my objectivity.
                  Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                    By the way- if you ask most basketball historians, they'll probably refer to the 80's as the best era in basketball. Everyone continually talks about the star power in the 90's. The 80's was absolutely loaded with stars. The 90's was when the NBA in terms of popularity hit it's height. It was the glory days. But this was built on insane competition from the 80's.

                    As far as my age, most people my age look at the 90's with complete nostalgia and consider it the best era of basketball. Take a decade off my age and you'll hear guys around that generation arguing the current era is the best. I definitely look at the 90's with absolute respect, it was what I grew up watching. But, I like to be honest. This era is insane. It's a talent boom right now, and you ask any old NBA expert and they'll most likely tell you the same.

                    **** BNG made the argument that Scottie would "shut down" Durant in a hypothetical competition. That's ridiculous. Scottie made his career defending guys because he was taller and longer. He never defended anyone close to Durant. Durant is longer and Taller than Scottie.

                    We have big men today that can run to the perimeter like Gasol and move their feet, but they can defend, protect the rim, pass, shoot. While David Robinson, Hakeem and Shaq would clearly be stars today, guys like Ewing wouldn't but the studs they were in the 90's. And there is no way in hell any of them would put up the numbers they did with the advanced defenses of today. The NBA is absolutely loaded right now with talent.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                      Fun fact- 31% of bigs in NBA history, 6 foot 10 or taller, that have at one point scored 20ppg in a season, are playing in the NBA CURRENTLY.

                      31%.

                      http://bit.ly/1AEfkCc

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                        Obviously if you take the top two players from every position in every decade and had them compete the competition will always be very close. The only era that I would say would definitely be at a disadvantage would be the 00's. I do think the 80's and 90's are at the top. the 10's are only have way over, let's see how things shake out over the next 5 years.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                          Originally posted by mattie View Post
                          Fun fact- 31% of bigs in NBA history, 6 foot 10 or taller, that have at one point scored 20ppg in a season, are playing in the NBA CURRENTLY.

                          31%.

                          http://bit.ly/1AEfkCc
                          Did you count the other eras?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                            Mattie:
                            Post defenses are not more advanced today. Big men are more athletic (perhaps with the exception of Hakeem) but one thing you posted is that players are stronger, and they're not.
                            Take a look at Shaq, Malone, Barkely, DD, Robinson, Mutombo, Mourning and Oakely, even Ewing.
                            Tell me where the strongest post player stacks up against those guys?
                            The top 5 post players of the 90's would have a free for all today. Neither Gasol nor Hibbert could slow any of those guys down.

                            Now take a look at Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mourning and Smits.
                            Where do you rank the top center today in that group?
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                              Does it really matter who's stronger? The next time they give out points for bench pressing, will be the first time.

                              I've played with my fair share of meatheads, and I can say without hesitation, that strength doesn't equal basketball ability.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Sir Charles sounds completely out of touch

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                Malice at the Palace was the worst of them and it doesn't belong to the 90s.
                                it was a Pacers players-Detroit Fans brawl. on the other hand, if Ron and Ben had a couple more seconds to slug it out, Ron wouldn't have laid his *** on that damn table.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X