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

Bias Article Discussion

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

  • #46
    Re: Vescey on the bomb at the Palace

    Originally posted by Unclebuck

    By Chris McCosky / The Detroit News






    True, the Pistons did not suffer as much as the Pacers. But guess what? The Pistons didn't go into the stands and attack fans. You can point out all the other incidents that led up to it -- Artest's hard foul on Ben Wallace, Wallace's shoving Ron Artest, Artest's lying on the scorer's table, the fan's throwing the cup -- but there was no brawl until Artest ran into the stands.

    Everything that happened afterward -- as sickening and inexcusable as it might have been -- was sparked by Artest's action.

    Artest, Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O'Neal pummeled paying customers. Thus, their penalties were stiffer than those imposed on the Pistons players.

    Sorry, Reggie, you do not get to play the victim card here. You and your team are paying the consequences of your own actions.

    As for the security at The Palace, it was far from lax. That building was sealed tightly enough for a presidential visit. Bomb-sniffing dogs swept the entire building twice, as a matter of course, before some fool called in the bogus threat. Security personnel were posted in front of both locker rooms all day long -- before there was a bomb threat.

    They repeated the drill after the threat was made.

    There was no bomb, no threat. Nobody, except the Pacers briefly, was evacuated.

    Yet, it took an intervention from the league office to get the Pacers onto the court.

    Had they come back immediately after police sounded the all-clear, this would have been a five-paragraph, one-day story. Now it's national news.

    And guess what the news is -- Detroit is a dangerous city and The Palace is an unruly venue.

    That is utter garbage, of course.



    http://www.detnews.com/2005/pistons/...D04-130270.htm

    Well of course the Pistons did not go into the stands and attack their own fans. Thgat is just a stupid remark by Chris.


    But the point I really want to make is this. If the security was so good, if the locker room was searched so well and if their was never any threat what-so-ever, then why in the hell did the police order the Pacers out of the locker room. If they had secured the locker room so well then why even tell the Pacers , if they were as sure as Chris Mc was that there was never a threat, then don't order the pacers out of the locker room.

    If there was no bomb, no threat then why did the police take it seriously.




    Final comment. Security was a major problem in 11/19, if there were a few police officer near the Pacers bench on 11/19, the cup never would have been thrown. Let me ask a dumb question where is security most needed at NBA arenas behind the visitors bench. There should have been security , several uniform officers between the scorers table and the crowd on 11/19 and there simply weren't.

    I fell like Mr. Obvious.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Vescey on the bomb at the Palace

      Originally posted by Unclebuck
      Well of course the Pistons did not go into the stands and attack their own fans. Thgat is just a stupid remark by Chris.


      But the point I really want to make is this. If the security was so good, if the locker room was searched so well and if their was never any threat what-so-ever, then why in the hell did the police order the Pacers out of the locker room. If they had secured the locker room so well then why even tell the Pacers , if they were as sure as Chris Mc was that there was never a threat, then don't order the pacers out of the locker room.

      If there was no bomb, no threat then why did the police take it seriously.
      Because GOD KNOWS what reggie would have said if word came that there was a bomb threat and they DIDNT clear the pacers out of the locker room.....

      If 11/19 never happened, I doubt much would have been made about this. The pistons got a bomb threat 2 weeks ago in boston, and there wasn't much of a delay, and I didnt hear anything about boston's secutiry afterwords.

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

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

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Bias Article Discussion

        Originally posted by Kstat
        Actually, the Palace went without incident. Some joker called from OUTSIDE the Palace, which nobody has ANY control over.

        Nothing was thrown at the pacers. Nobody was allowed to charge the court. There was security everywhere. In the end,there WAS no threat, and their locker room was TOTALLY inaccessable the whole day to anyone but the bomb squad, so there was no reason to THINK there was a threat. Bottom line, reggie was out of line in saying palace security was bad friday.
        He wasn't talking only about tonight. He's talking in broader terms, and he's correct. Secondly, his main point wasn't focused on this issue, but it's being overlooked now in this thread.



        Had reggie not opened his mouth, this article would not have been written in response. It was just someone finally giving reggie a taste of their own medicine, thats all.
        The response was written out of oversensitive defensiveness moreso than any 'point' he might have had.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Bias Article Discussion

          Originally posted by Kstat
          I don't think anybody would be dumb enough to call in a bomb threat from INSIDE the Palace, but no, i dont have proof or anything.

          Not that you couldnt call in a bomb threat from almost ANYWHERE if you really wanted to, so that really doesnt matter.
          Plus, were there not 4 threats called in?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Bias Article Discussion

            Originally posted by Kstat
            I don't think anybody would be dumb enough to call in a bomb threat from INSIDE the Palace, but no, i dont have proof or anything.

            Not that you couldnt call in a bomb threat from almost ANYWHERE if you really wanted to, so that really doesnt matter.
            You were the same one running around Friday saying it was one threat, by a 12 year old, not specifically targetted at the Pacers. All of which was speculative and proven wrong. So either you or your source(s) isn't exactly going to be taken seriously on any of this.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Bias Article Discussion

              retake 1: 4 bomb threats
              retake 2: sometimes they go off, not evacuating = bad security
              retake 3: fight in stands; not reallygood security
              retake 4: beer sold till "after" 3d quarter: not good security with 1.5 hours of "extra drinking time"
              retake 5: NBA did punish Pacers for everything, forced them to play now, hence: RM=right

              I can go on and on and on and on, but wil leave it at this for now, giving you a taste of your medicine.
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Bias Article Discussion

                Originally posted by rcarey
                Plus, were there not 4 threats called in?
                Which I doubt would have been called in, had the initial one not successfully delayed the game by 90 minutes.

                It was just people trying to be funny and say they cancelled an NBA game.

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

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

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Vescey on the bomb at the Palace

                  Originally posted by Kstat
                  Because GOD KNOWS what reggie would have said if word came that there was a bomb threat and they DIDNT clear the pacers out of the locker room.....
                  That is so weak. Yes, I'm sure they were fearful of Reggie's quotes in the paper the next day.

                  If 11/19 never happened, I doubt much would have been made about this.
                  Big if.

                  The pistons got a bomb threat 2 weeks ago in boston, and there wasn't much of a delay, and I didnt hear anything about boston's secutiry afterwords.
                  Detroit is a special case, and I don't have to explain why.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Bias Article Discussion

                    Originally posted by Kstat
                    Which I doubt would have been called in, had the initial one not successfully delayed the game by 90 minutes.

                    It was just people trying to be funny and say they cancelled an NBA game.
                    Speculation to pretend there's not a real problem here. The most likely cause was a idiot Piston fan thought he'd be macho and scare people.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Bias Article Discussion

                      Originally posted by Kstat
                      Which I doubt would have been called in, had the initial one not successfully delayed the game by 90 minutes.

                      It was just people trying to be funny and say they cancelled an NBA game.
                      But the point is - it might not have been. And when 4! Not one, not two, not three...BUT FOUR threats are called in, you need to take things seriously.

                      You would think it would go something like this:

                      First call = "Ugh...some prankster...(much like in your Boston game)".
                      Second call = "Hm...okay then - maybe just a couple pranksters, but still something to take into account".
                      Third call = "Okay...this is getting a little ridiculous".
                      Fourth call = "This should definitely be taken with the upmost precaution".

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Bias Article Discussion

                        Originally posted by Hicks
                        Detroit is a special case, and I don't have to explain why.
                        Bingo. If something drastic IS going to happen, like we have already seen this year - Detroit is probably the most likely place for it to occur.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Bias Article Discussion

                          Originally posted by able
                          retake 1: 4 bomb threats
                          retake 2: sometimes they go off, not evacuating = bad security
                          retake 3: fight in stands; not reallygood security
                          retake 4: beer sold till "after" 3d quarter: not good security with 1.5 hours of "extra drinking time"
                          retake 5: NBA did punish Pacers for everything, forced them to play now, hence: RM=right

                          I can go on and on and on and on, but wil leave it at this for now, giving you a taste of your medicine.
                          1. 4 people with cell phones. WOW. What awful security.

                          2. There was no reason to believe the threat was legit- bomb squad and nobody else was allowed in the locker rooms, and they went over it what, three times?

                          3. As I rcall, the fight was broken up BY security. Or do you expect them to use their super powers to suddenly jump in the middle and stop them BEFORE they decided to throw punches?

                          4. Didnt realize beer sales was bad security......that's the biggest reach you've given us so far.

                          5. Hitting fans is the cardinal sin in NBA fights. Hence the difference in suspensions. Obviously, no pistons were going to hit their own fans. So you can either go to conseco and throw crap at ben wallace in the hop that he'll retaliate, or you can get back on your cross and keep playing your violin.

                          All the piston fans who could be identified have been banned for life. Neither the Palace, nor the NBA can do ANYTHING more than that.

                          And ABSOLUTELY the NBA was right in forcing them to play, if there was no reason whatsoever to believe that the bomb threat was anything but a prank. The locker room was under armed guard the whole day. End of discussion.

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

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

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Vescey on the bomb at the Palace

                            Originally posted by Kstat
                            Because GOD KNOWS what reggie would have said if word came that there was a bomb threat and they DIDNT clear the pacers out of the locker room.....

                            If 11/19 never happened, I doubt much would have been made about this. The pistons got a bomb threat 2 weeks ago in boston, and there wasn't much of a delay, and I didnt hear anything about boston's secutiry afterwords.


                            You are making my point for me. Bomb threats are nothing new, they are made all the time. Why did the Police take it seriously this time. "because they were concerned about what reggie would say" Kstat that makes no sense. The bottom line is the police took the threat seriously.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Bias Article Discussion

                              Originally posted by Kstat
                              And ABSOLUTELY the NBA was right in forcing them to play, if there was no reason whatsoever to believe that the bomb threat was anything but a prank. The locker room was under armed guard the whole day. End of discussion.


                              Then don't order the Pacers out of the locker room

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Bias Article Discussion

                                Originally posted by Kstat
                                or you can get back on your cross and keep playing your violin.
                                Maybe I just haven't heard this saying before, but I love it.

                                Originally posted by Kstat
                                End of discussion.
                                That idiom, however, never fails to irk me. I can't stand these three words, when arranged this way.
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X