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

West declines his player option

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

  • Re: West declines his player option

    Originally posted by RWB View Post
    Watching those guys do their job in my opinion has fun moments with lots of crap thrown in as well. They get to deal with the media handlers from the teams and its not always pleasant. Rules change day to day and hour to hour sometimes. Watched some camera men get yelled at for pointing their camera supposedly in the wrong direction (recording secret plays), do what they're asked and point/shoot a different direction, and then a few minutes later someone else from the organization comes up and jumps their *** for taping from the direction they were told to shoot from. Of course this came during the Bill Polian regime so people seemed to be on edge most of the time any way.

    Good luck if you go for it.
    All of this is fine to me. Sports journalism is nice but political journalism is utter ****.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: West declines his player option

      The recent critical report of LeBron's disrespect towards Blatt is an example of a journalist's dilemma. On one hand, he wants to report what he sees but on the other, doesn't want to be blacklisted by the player and possibly his team. I was thinking that Stein has to be senior enough and probably have a fallback option of writing about non-NBA stuff. Even then he had to frame it as the best player, possibly ever, in the league shouldn't resort to such antics rather than say it is simply unacceptable.

      Comment


      • Re: West declines his player option

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        West has made his decision, the proper way forward would've been for him to be a pro and keep his mouth shut. He didn't really need to sit down and do a gripe session about his ex-employer to a reporter.
        In general, yeah. But when he's getting static about leaving Indy for New York and not giving the Pacers any info, then it's not wrong for him to set the record straight.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: West declines his player option

          Originally posted by LG33 View Post
          Okay, I realize that people are going to be skeptical of my account, but I do have some proof, however limited. Whilst trying to separate Rudez and Stuckey, Roy Hibbert accidentally fell on top of Shayne Whittington. Then, while getting back up, he went farder and took another inadvertent spill onto Luis Scola.....
          The version I heard was a little different....see above.

          Comment


          • Re: West declines his player option

            My question is, what does PG think of all of this? Is this eventually going to impact his decision to re-sign? How does he feel about West and/or Hibbert? Didn't he have a beef with Hibbert a couple of years ago?

            West always seemed like a stand-up guy, so him bagging the organization concerns me...

            Comment


            • Re: West declines his player option

              It is concerning (in a makes me curious sense) that the guy who opted out was West and not Hibbert. But I don't think either figured too prominently in the Pacers' plans moving forward longer term. West probably did short term because they figured they had a role they could carve out for him for one more season (and consider his future after the season based on his play this season and $$$ and options. And even then, the long view wasn't going to be very long)). Hibbert OTOH probably figured short term only because they figured they were stuck with him (and they'd be glad to be rid of him sooner rather than later). But I doubt either figured past this season except for the default position of "likely moving on".

              Too bad these opt out clauses weren't last year at this time...
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: West declines his player option

                Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                Okay, I realize that people are going to be skeptical of my account, but I do have some proof, however limited. Whilst trying to separate Rudez and Stuckey, Roy Hibbert accidentally fell on top of Luis Scola. Then, while getting back up, he took another inadvertent spill onto Shayne Whittington. And a little later he slipped again and landed right on Donald Sloan's head, smashing it into the tiled floor. The training staff feared that Sloan might have internal bleeding, but they couldn't administer the proper tests without word of this incident leaking to the press, so they sent him home. There was a decent chance that he would go to sleep and not wake up, which would have been really bad because we weren't very deep at the point guard position, and also Sloan would be dead. I believe that was when Bird told Donald to report every morning through social media that he was still alive.

                Do you know just how badly laughing so hard that Coca-Cola coming out your nose sucks?

                I hope you're happy.
                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                Comment


                • Re: West declines his player option

                  If my post has been covered during the (one more Roy sucks, no he don't) argument, feel free to delete it.
                  However, IIRC, David West came here for a chance to play on a contender and rehab his bad knee. He had Tyler playing in front of and then backing him up while he got back to top shape. West was ring hunting then and he's still ring hunting now. I'm not saying that's a bad thing and I don't blame him at all for trying to put the Cherry on top of his career Sundae.
                  Using an exit interview with Kravitz was kinda out of character for him, but maybe he did the same before he left NO and I just don't remember.
                  Is there a chance that Bird in his now infamous season ending press conference, was telling other teams to not try to trade for Roy because Roy sucks and we can't get the kind of trade we want at the money we want to spend?
                  Maybe that was his way of telling Roy,"We're not going to make any effort to trade you to somewhere you want to play, because we want to clear your salary and Cap Hold by having you pout and leave?"
                  Bird was always considered a cold blooded killer as a player and a Coach. Did you really expect him to be any different as a FO exec? Larry cares very little for opinions about what he does and the way he does it. He just does his job the best way he thinks it should be done. I wouldn't have said the things he did about Roy at the press conference, but then I'm not the PBO of the Pacers. Oh, and I'm not in the Hall of Fame either.
                  Last edited by Cousy47; 07-02-2015, 04:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...-under-the-bus

                    That's one thing where I wish they would have handled better was the situation with Roy. I'll be honest with you, that bothered me a little bit, and I told Roy that. I'm the type of guy who feels like we're all in this fight together and I'm not designed in that way to put it all on one guy. That did rub me the wrong way. That threw me off. I started some of that stuff, I started thinking "Whoaa." I just didn't feel good about that. I told Roy that it bothered me, that he's still my teammate.

                    You know, obviously Roy wants to play, he knows he's unpopular right now, but we talked and he's going to be a professional. He's always been a professional.... He's going to fight. He's not going to be one of those guys who's going to become a locker room issue.
                    You gotta wonder the kinda impact it has on the rest of the team when you see one of your own turned on so quickly. I kinda fear stuff like this will make us a less desirable organization for players to want to come to.

                    Comment


                    • Re: David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                      Wasn't Larry asked specifically about Roy's performance this year in the end of season presser? And his response was - "Roy didn't have the season that we would've liked him to have, and he would probably say the same thing." It wasn't like Larry went out of the way to point to Hibbert as the hole in the bucket. So did Larry really throw Roy under the bus? Other than George Hill, Roy was in probably the best position to step up and help fill the gap until Paul returned, and he didn't really do that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                        Sounds to me like West told Hibbert to shape up and be professional in the future.
                        Go Pacers!

                        Comment


                        • Re: David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                          This same conversation already took place in the West declines option thread, no?
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Re: David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                            You guys forget how Roy was coddled season before last. Taken to dinner by the organization during the Atlanta series, when he had that 0 point game people stood behind him and told him just take your time it'll be ok? Then when the off season came the story was "Lance ruined chemistry and probably affected Hibbert." Then the following season came. Lance left for Charlotte, Paul got injured, we started the season with other players injured. If there was ever a time for Roy to step up and prove himself? There couldn't have been a more golden opportunity. He failed, Larry could've said/done worse. But he didn't.

                            Comment


                            • Re: David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                              Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                              Sounds to me like West told Hibbert to shape up and be professional in the future.
                              I don't read it that way.

                              Comment


                              • Re: David West: Pacers Threw Hibbert Under the Bus

                                It's a concern, but didn't we just sign Ellis? It didn't deter him from coming here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X