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

Great Article out of Boston

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

  • Great Article out of Boston

    This pretty much sums up all my feelings towards Stern

    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb..._holds_ground/

    ON BASKETBALL
    Face to face with Pacers, Stern holds ground
    By Peter May, Globe Staff | April 26, 2005

    The commissioner of the NBA, the man who last November summarily destroyed the very legitimate NBA aspirations of the Indiana Pacers, got a first-hand look at his fin de saison handiwork last night.

    Not surprisingly, David Stern chose to see the Pacers in Boston. Not surprisingly, the Pacers say he has not been to Conseco Fieldhouse since he suspended Ron Artest for the season, while also whacking Jermaine O'Neal (25 games) and Stephen Jackson (30 games) for their roles in the hideous Nov. 19 brawl in Auburn Hills, Mich. O'Neal's suspension was reduced to 15 games by an arbitrator, not by Stern.

    "I don't think he wants to come to Indiana," Jackson said before last night's game. "He's here to see some good basketball, to see two teams at the top of their game. He's not going to see anything crazy. We all regret what happened. But he's the boss. He has to do what he has to do."

    Before the game, Stern had a long and very public chat with O'Neal on the floor. The subject of a minimum age for NBA players -- which O'Neal has objected to -- came up. Asked later if he could have sent a better message by attending Game 3 or 4 in Indianapolis, Stern said, "It never came up one way or the other. I had a nice visit with Jermaine, but I haven't looked at the schedule that closely."

    This is a man who misses nothing. Jackson is right; Stern isn't wanted in Indiana, except, perhaps, for franchise-cide.

    "I'd like to think of a better legal term for it, but that's basically what it probably was," Pacers president Donnie Walsh said last night. "But it was a difficult decision for David to get out of."

    Stern recently acknowledged that his relationship with Pacers owners Herb and Mel Simon was not as close as it once was, although he backtracked on that last night, saying that he met with Herb Simon at last week's Board of Governors meeting in New York and "I think he understands a little better."

    Sure he does.

    The commissioner continued, "It's painful to do something that hurts an asset that an old friend and a loyal league supporter has. If you're not prepared to do what's right, then you've got a problem holding this job. You don't expect that everyone will think it's right. This is something that reasonable people can disagree about. But you've got do what you've got do."

    Stern didn't hurt the Pacers -- he eviscerated them. And he gave them no chance to win a championship this season. This wasn't the Hawks or the Hornets he was dealing with. This was a team that could have won it all -- and now has what Reggie Miller correctly calls a "puncher's chance" to merely get out of the first round.

    Walsh said he made two trips to New York in an effort to get the suspensions reduced. Basketball boss Larry Bird accompanied Walsh, but not even his luminary presence -- as in, he helped save Stern's league 20 years ago -- made any impact.

    While no one condones what Artest, Jackson, and O'Neal did on that night, as Bird put it recently, "It was like we took the brunt of everything that happened. Our players went into the stands. They should never do that. [But it] seems like everything was thrown on us. It's hurt our franchise. It's something that's going to be hard to overcome."

    In immediate basketball terms, it's impossible. The Pacers began the season as a very serious title threat. The suspensions basically ended their season of high expectations, if not their season altogether. Jackson is back. O'Neal is back, although he's hurt and reluctant to practice until he feels 100 percent. Artest is, well, who knows where Artest is? He is allowed to travel and practice with the team, but he can't go to games. (The league graciously granted him a reprieve to attend last Wednesday's regular-season finale in Indiana honoring Reggie Miller.)

    "He does help us during practice," said Walsh. "He's in great shape."

    No one can say what a healthy, contributing Artest would mean to the Pacers (although do you think he would have helped hold Paul Pierce to fewer than 33 points last night?). Chances are they still wouldn't have enough to beat the Pistons or Heat (or maybe even the Celtics), especially with O'Neal's sore right shoulder and Jamaal Tinsley's left foot. The fans in Indiana aren't convinced, but Stern had nothing to do with those.

    Stern also had nothing to do with Miller's decision to call it a career. It's just a shame that after so many great seasons, Miller is leaving with no real chance to win his first title when, on Nov. 18, he had an excellent chance. Stern made his decision. He had to do something and he had to do it in a forceful way.

    But the message still could have been delivered had he reinstated Artest after the All-Star Game. Or after the trading deadline. Or for the postseason.

    One of these days, Stern will make it back to Conseco and the Pacers might not have to call out the Indiana National Guard for extra security. The guess here is that the good folks of Indiana will show him a measure of forgiveness that he refused to show Artest.

  • #2
    Re: Great Article out of Boston

    "...One of these days, Stern will make it back to Conseco and the Pacers might not have to call out the Indiana National Guard for extra security. The guess here is that the good folks of Indiana will show him a measure of forgiveness that he refused to show Artest."



    And then again, maybe we won't.
    Two=the number 2
    Too=means "also"
    To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

    Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
    They're=they are
    There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

    Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Great Article out of Boston

      I didn't think Ticketmaster sold tickets to out-of-state "fans".
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Great Article out of Boston

        Those last replies just reminded me. Wasn't last year's slogan for the NBA (or maybe it was NBATV), "It's FAN-TASTIC"! Irony post 11/19. They should hire Ronnie to bring that slogan back. "The NBA brings the action to you!"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Great Article out of Boston

          Stern can **** himself.
          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Great Article out of Boston

            I know everybody is gonna fawn over this article, and on the surface, it's very good. I have one problem, though.

            WHERE WAS THIS ARTICLE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO!!!!!!

            Seriously, if more media heavy hitters like May had written stuff like this when it mattered, there'd have been more pressure on Stern to let Artest back in. But as it is, this is little more than a Kravitz article, albeit better written. It's just a pointless riff, an article that wrote itself, a shot taken at an easy target well after there's any point besides beating a column deadline. It's the equivalent of protesting the death penalty only after the injection has been given.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Great Article out of Boston

              Stern still vastly overreacted and made the wrong decision. He had plenty of time to fix that oversight and chose instead to **** us. So, Stern...**** YOU.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Great Article out of Boston

                Hey Shade, is that Diablo in your avatar? I'm talking about the computer game...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Great Article out of Boston

                  Originally posted by BigMac
                  "...One of these days, Stern will make it back to Conseco and the Pacers might not have to call out the Indiana National Guard for extra security. The guess here is that the good folks of Indiana will show him a measure of forgiveness that he refused to show Artest."
                  He can't be that stupid can he? Maybe he is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Great Article out of Boston

                    Stern doesn't know forgiveness. I hope someday the Karmic scale tips the other way and he has pay a price for his selfishness.
                    :thepacers
                    No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Great Article out of Boston

                      Originally posted by rcarey
                      Hey Shade, is that Diablo in your avatar? I'm talking about the computer game...
                      That is Venom in Shade's avatar; popular 90's Spider-Man villian.

                      Diablo is more like this:

                      http://darkantoine.free.fr/darkantoi...-II-Diablo.JPG

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Great Article out of Boston

                        I wish venom would actually be used for a Spidy movie

                        though that might have some unhappy people....

                        Venom was sooo awesome
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Great Article out of Boston

                          The guess here is that the good folks of Indiana will show him a measure of forgiveness that he refused to show Artest.
                          My guess is the Commish will not show up at a Pacers game in the next five years. If he does, the reception he gets from partisans will be more negative than was the draft selection of Reggie Miller over Steve Alford.

                          Only this time the fans will have gotten it right.

                          I don't think I could make myself clap politely for Stern, a man otherwise I actually respect. Stern penalized Artest and the Pacers too harshly; he knows it; and the only reason he didn't change the penalty was because it would have caused him and the league a considerable amount of discomfort.

                          I believe Stern stuck with an unnecessarily harsh and needlessly hasty decision out of expediency and it is my duty to let him know how I feel any chance I get.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Great Article out of Boston

                            Originally posted by Suaveness
                            I wish venom would actually be used for a Spidy movie

                            though that might have some unhappy people....

                            Venom was sooo awesome
                            Many fans have wanted that, and from what I'm hearing it might be true (though I've also heard something completely different; last I read both rumors seemed equally believed). I liked Venom, but for a live-action movie they'd either have to really change his look, or else he'd look stupid as some all-CGI thing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Great Article out of Boston

                              Originally posted by Hicks
                              Many fans have wanted that, and from what I'm hearing it might be true (though I've also heard something completely different; last I read both rumors seemed equally believed). I liked Venom, but for a live-action movie they'd either have to really change his look, or else he'd look stupid as some all-CGI thing.
                              The problem is, oh, what's his name, the guy who's making the movies, has repeatedly stated that he hates Venom and won't do it.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X