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

Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

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

  • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    I think you misinterpreted my statement. I meant that they didn't seem to know any more than if someone from PD had been the source of what we believe, not the source of the reporter.

    Probably should have worded it better.
    Even still, why would they attribute it to a source inside the organization when they could simply say that it was their impression? It serves zero purpose.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Even still, why would they attribute it to a source inside the organization when they could simply say that it was their impression? It serves zero purpose.
      No, no, no. I'm still not being clear.

      I meant PD is believing sources (tweets and articles) that might as well have been written by guys on PD who have been saying these things forever.

      As far as reporters using sources, a source can be anyone in the organization willing to talk. The problem with anonymous sources is that they can be expanded or contracted to whomever the listener wants them to be, and reporters kind of count on that. For example, the "Pacers are fighting with each other" could come from Ball Boy Fred who saw them get into it once on the court after a tense moment or it could come from Trainer Joe who has seen it every day. Depending on who that "Pacer source" is the story is more or less credible, but the writer gets clicks or attention for reporting it either way.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

        None of this makes any sense unless you're working under the assumption that they're purposefully trying to mislead their readers. And I have no clue why they would have the motivation to do so.

        The starting point is that they're lying, in order to believe they're lying. You can literally say this stuff about any and every reporter on any and every topic. It's not based on any rationalized thought, it's having the end point (not credible) be your starting point just because.

        What do these reporters get out of doing this? An ego boost, which isn't much of a boost when it turns out to be completely wrong. An elevated sense of self worth? That also makes no sense when you figure out they ended up being dead wrong. If there was some type of understandable motivation, I could agree that it was a possibility. But there's nothing. It's just putting finger in your ears and playing with the "well you don't know so it's possible" wiggle room. This is Grimp level.

        Not to mention the same reporting, but citing different sources (like rival GMs) was also reported by national outlets. Unless it's one giant conspiracy, it makes absolutely zero sense.
        Last edited by Since86; 02-24-2017, 03:43 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Some of the tweets








          Similar message Boggies agent was putting out there








          Those are all interesting I suppose. But you said that Simon told Bird to open the phone lines and that directive was a direct result of PG's meeting with Simon. None of those tweets address that , nor does the USA today article.

          Comment


          • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

            Indiana would trade anyone not named Paul George, said one general manager.
            http://hoopshype.com/2017/02/14/nba-...rade-deadline/

            Why would Alex Kennedy also make this up? Or why would said GM have this impression, and talk about it, if they weren't given that indication by the Pacers? What purpose does all this deliberate lying serve?

            If we want to get in a generalized discussion about the media being used or creating propaganda, then I can agree it happens. But there's no end game here. Saying this stuff doesn't make anyone look good, it doesn't do anything other than give readers information. I see no reason why any reporter, whether they're a Indystar stooge or a national beat writer or a rival GM would say that without it being true or at the least being what they were told.
            Last edited by Since86; 02-24-2017, 03:48 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

              You guys know that 99% of these "rumors" are BS right?

              Comment


              • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                All of these journalists just trying to build drama. FOH

                Comment


                • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                  I get a little agitated when some of you take a tweet or an article or a media person's comments either out of context, or apply what they said to fit your own narrative, when in fact the media person said nothing that you are indicating they said and yet you still use what they said as if it makes your narrative 100% truth

                  Comment


                  • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                    Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                    All of these journalists just trying to build drama. FOH
                    Why? Do you really think the Indystar/National beat writers get their rocks off on creating drama for absolutely zero reason? Are we really going to argue that sports journalism is worse than a jr. high girls lockerroom, just because you don't like what has been reported?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                      Hasn't Paul been saying since he was a rookie that he grew up a Clippers fan? So all this Lakers stuff is based on someone besides him saying he was a life-long Lakers fan?

                      Also all these tweets are coming from the same jackasses that said for Boogie it was LA or bust. Or Demar was LA or bust. or Lebron was going to LA after Miami.
                      All with the same certain tone.
                      Last edited by TinManJoshua; 02-24-2017, 04:05 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                        Hasn't Paul been saying since he was a rookie that he grew up a Clippers fan? So all this Lakers stuff is based on someone besides him saying he was a life-long Lakers fan?

                        Also all these tweets are coming from the same jackasses that said for Boogie it was LA or bust. Or Demar was LA or bust. or Lebron was going to LA after Miami.
                        All with the same certain tone.
                        From what I gathered it was his agent who basically said that its LA or the Pacers.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                          Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                          Hasn't Paul been saying since he was a rookie that he grew up a Clippers fan? So all this Lakers stuff is based on someone besides him saying he was a life-long Lakers fan?

                          Also all these tweets are coming from the same jackasses that said for Boogie it was LA or bust. Or Demar was LA or bust. or Lebron was going to LA after Miami.
                          All with the same certain tone.
                          I was JUST going to post this and then I saw your post at the end of the thread. Paul's favorite player growing up was Kobe, but he has always said he grew up being a big Clippers fan. So all this stuff about him being hell-bent on going to the Lakers because he just loves the team so much and blah blah blah... I don't believe any of that for a single second as being an accurate assessment of the situation.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            From what I gathered it was his agent who basically said that its LA or the Pacers.
                            Said by a guy that claims direct sources tell him every single major NBA star is headed to LA when their contract is up.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              None of this makes any sense unless you're working under the assumption that they're purposefully trying to mislead their readers. And I have no clue why they would have the motivation to do so.

                              The starting point is that they're lying, in order to believe they're lying. You can literally say this stuff about any and every reporter on any and every topic. It's not based on any rationalized thought, it's having the end point (not credible) be your starting point just because.

                              What do these reporters get out of doing this? An ego boost, which isn't much of a boost when it turns out to be completely wrong. An elevated sense of self worth? That also makes no sense when you figure out they ended up being dead wrong. If there was some type of understandable motivation, I could agree that it was a possibility. But there's nothing. It's just putting finger in your ears and playing with the "well you don't know so it's possible" wiggle room. This is Grimp level.

                              Not to mention the same reporting, but citing different sources (like rival GMs) was also reported by national outlets. Unless it's one giant conspiracy, it makes absolutely zero sense.
                              It gets them the almighty click, the almighty click gets them advertisers, and the advertisers pay them money. In today's media accuracy is no longer of the utmost importance. Being first is of utmost importance, because being first drives far more traffic to your site than being right. Granted you do eventually have to be right about something, but as long as you are right 15% of the time most people won't remember the 75% of the time you are wrong.

                              The big reporters won't just make stuff up, but they will run with any story they can get their hands on no matter how credible the source is or how much it might be exaggerated. In fact the more exaggerated the better because the more exaggerated something is the more people will want to click on it, and the more exaggerated something is the more likely it will force the team/player/whatever to respond creating even more clicks. The main goal of all of these news outlets is not to properly inform you of what is happening, it is to get you to watch them. They have about as much ethics and morality as a politician. Yet we trust t...yeah nvm I shouldn't go there.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Woj: Pacers assessing trade market for Paul George

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                None of this makes any sense unless you're working under the assumption that they're purposefully trying to mislead their readers. And I have no clue why they would have the motivation to do so.

                                The starting point is that they're lying, in order to believe they're lying. You can literally say this stuff about any and every reporter on any and every topic. It's not based on any rationalized thought, it's having the end point (not credible) be your starting point just because.

                                What do these reporters get out of doing this? An ego boost, which isn't much of a boost when it turns out to be completely wrong. An elevated sense of self worth? That also makes no sense when you figure out they ended up being dead wrong. If there was some type of understandable motivation, I could agree that it was a possibility. But there's nothing. It's just putting finger in your ears and playing with the "well you don't know so it's possible" wiggle room. This is Grimp level.

                                Not to mention the same reporting, but citing different sources (like rival GMs) was also reported by national outlets. Unless it's one giant conspiracy, it makes absolutely zero sense.
                                You have this black-and-white view about something that is coated in shades of gray.

                                If a reporter gets a story from the ball boy he has two things he can do.

                                He can tweet it right away, saying he got it from a source - all of which is absolutely true - and then go try to follow it up, or

                                He can try to follow it up before saying anything and risk getting scooped (and losing eyeballs/attention and thus losing prestige which is money in this business) if someone else does the other thing and turns out to be right.

                                Nowadays, most reporters using twitter are doing that first thing. They are doing it because their business is based on being FIRST, not on being the most accurate. When a rumor falls through, most people dismiss it as an "oh, well, it was just a rumor" - well, except for folks on PD who never let a rumor come in that isn't pegged as the absolute truth by somebody.

                                This isn't creating false stories in order to puff themselves up. This is being the first to pass on rumors that MIGHT turn out to be true, and any source even remotely connected is good for that. And the reason that it is seen as OK is because they are just rumors and sports gossip, in the long run. The only people who might be hurt are the ones who take them 100% at face value and make decisions based on them.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                http://hoopshype.com/2017/02/14/nba-...rade-deadline/

                                Why would Alex Kennedy also make this up? Or why would said GM have this impression, and talk about it, if they weren't given that indication by the Pacers? What purpose does all this deliberate lying serve?
                                No one said it would be made up, and a non-Pacers GM might have that impression without being told because, well, PG is the current face of the franchise and that typically means the player is going nowhere UNLESS THEY ARE TOLD OTHERWISE.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X