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

Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

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

  • Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

    Many of you have grown tired of the immature actions of our key people. Tinsley, Jermaine, Ron, Jack. They've all done some stupid things, some worse than others, but none of it good. God knows I've grown sick of it.

    However there's one glimmer of hope I try to keep in mind. Remember how Reggie talked when he was a young guy here? Remember later, in 1994, when he started getting into it with Spike Lee? He said and did some pretty rude things that day.

    Reggie himself alludes to his immaturity in his farewell speech last month.

    So here's where the hope part comes in. In 1994, when Reggie was still immature and doing some of these poor things, he was *drumroll*

    28 years old. That's right. 2 years shy from 30.

    During most of this past 2004-05 season:

    Jermaine O'Neal was 26 (will be 27 in October)
    Ron Artest was 25 (Will be 26 in November)
    Stephen Jackson was 26 (Turned 27 in April)
    Jamaal Tinsley was 26 (Turned 27 on the 28th of Feb.)

    These numbers give me just a little hope that things can work out. Now let's be honest with ourselves, some of the problems these guys have are worse than anything Reggie had. They may never get it. Nonetheless, most of their problems aren't too far from Reggie's, and look how he turned in the end.

    Meanwhile, note that at age 28, Reggie had his first big playoff performance. At least that I'm aware of; Pacers history before then is shaky at best for me so I'll let someone else fill in the gaps.

  • #2
    Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

    I wouldn't use Reggie as a yardstick for maturity. 28 is pretty old to be doing the stuff he was doing, and as I recall it didn't win him any championships.

    IndyToad
    Lock your doors ladies

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

      Originally posted by indytoad
      I wouldn't use Reggie as a yardstick for maturity. 28 is pretty old to be doing the stuff he was doing, and as I recall it didn't win him any championships.

      IndyToad
      Lock your doors ladies
      Your fingers. Typing. See someone about that.

      But if you can't, then at least stop spinning to spew your completely fake, and utterly annoying venom. Maturity doesn't win championships; but immaturity can prevent them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

        Originally posted by Hicks
        Maturity doesn't win championships; but immaturity can prevent them.
        Exactly.

        IndyToad
        Pump up the water pressure

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

          Not that it matters, but Artest was actually born on November 13, 1979, so he'll be 26 this season.

          Right now, I would put Jermaine in kind of the same category with a young Reggie Miller. Reggie was immature, Jermaine is immature. I hope that Jermaine turns out good in the end.

          Ron though.....Ron's case is way out there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

            Originally posted by Hicks
            Meanwhile, note that at age 28, Reggie had his first big playoff performance. At least that I'm aware of; Pacers history before then is shaky at best for me so I'll let someone else fill in the gaps.
            Heh, that actually made me feel better/younger, since I turn 27 in two weeks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

              How long had Reggie been in the league in '94?
              How long has JO et al been in the league?

              -Bball "Not sure what any of this means"
              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


              • #8
                Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                Originally posted by Bball
                How long had Reggie been in the league in '94?
                How long has JO et al been in the league?

                -Bball "Not sure what any of this means"
                Reggie was drafted in 1987, so 93-94 would have been his 7th season with the Pacers.

                Jermaine was drafted in 1996, so 04-05 was his 9th season in the NBA.(5th with the Pacers)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                  I put more stock in actual age than years in the league in terms of players' maturity. Not that that's the only factor. But when I look at where Reggie was then, and where he was in his later years, I realize these new guys aren't as old as I sometimes think they are. Things can still change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                    There is one big differance though between now & then. Well actually there are two.

                    1. Reggies antics were always spewed at the enemy & at the refs.. He never once pouted or had a fit about lack of offense or respect from his coach's. He never had disputes with his team mates.

                    2. Even in 94 there was a core of veteran leaders in the locker room that firmly had control over the younger guys. In other words there was a very good mixture of youth & age (just like there would have been in 00-01 if we hadn't busted up the team but that is a differant story). They even had T-shirts made up identifying the young (Dawg pound) & the vet (I can't remember what they called themselves). Reggie should have been with the vets. but chose to stay with the young guys & took on more of a role in public. Sam Mitchell was clearly the vet. leader of that team with LaSalle Thompson & Byron Scott being there as well. The young guys respected them & there were no problems.

                    Of course one of the big advantages was that nobody on that team was told from day one that they were the franchise so nobody thought they were exempt from being part of a unit.

                    Ok, here is where I am going to sound crazy to some of you & I know that there are going to be responses of "so what, it's not important" but just hear me out.

                    One of the signs to me a few years back that he wasn't really going to be the leader I had hoped for was when Jermaine O'Neal refused to shave his head for the playoffs.

                    Reggie had everybody going to do it but when WTHR intervied him in the locker room before the playoffs after a practice he just laughed & said "no way".

                    Yea I know it's petty on my part, but to me it was a sign that he was not going to join the team. He was going to maintain his own identity. Thus ceased the honored tradition of shaved heads for the playoffs except for rookies. I'm sure some of you are saying good because you remember Smits & Croshere bald (Ok with Cro you still see that today) but what that was was a sign of team unity & commitment. If your leader won't commit then why should you?

                    Like I said, I know there are going to be people who think I'm just full of B.S. for that but it's just the way I feel.


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                      I think it's a good observation, actually.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                        I think it just means Jermaine is too concerned with his appearance to look all goofy on national TV. We all know Jermaine takes his time to look nice, I don't find the fact he didn't want to shave his head surprising.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                          I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to respond to this thread.

                          Maybe we should put a list together of really mature good players.

                          The Spurs are mature, but Manu and Parker drive Popovich crazy at times.

                          Most would say the Pistons are really mature, but let's look at it a little closer. Sheed isn't, Ben didn't show any maturity on 11/19. The Pistons as a team have let the officating in this series bother them.

                          Wade is mature, but there are times when he gets out of control and tries to do too much.

                          I don't know what my overall point is, except to say that every player does some things they shouldn't some things many of us don't like. We don't know about things non-Pacer players do because we don't watch them play every game or listen or read their quotes every day.

                          The first thing I look for in a player is competetiveness, and I think Tinsley, J.O , Jax, and Ron all have that. The maturity thing will come and go, but overall I think it will improve.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                            screw jermaine, I didn't know that...and now I dislike him more.

                            I'd trade Jermaine for Pierce, thats how much I dont like him.
                            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Flicker of hope about this team's maturity.

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to respond to this thread.

                              Maybe we should put a list together of really mature good players.

                              The Spurs are mature, but Manu and Parker drive Popovich crazy at times.

                              Most would say the Pistons are really mature, but let's look at it a little closer. Sheed isn't, Ben didn't show any maturity on 11/19. The Pistons as a team have let the officating in this series bother them.

                              Wade is mature, but there are times when he gets out of control and tries to do too much.

                              I don't know what my overall point is, except to say that every player does some things they shouldn't some things many of us don't like. We don't know about things non-Pacer players do because we don't watch them play every game or listen or read their quotes every day.

                              The first thing I look for in a player is competetiveness, and I think Tinsley, J.O , Jax, and Ron all have that. The maturity thing will come and go, but overall I think it will improve.
                              I think every team has some immature players, but the best teams have mature players to stabilize the immature ones. Detroit has Hamilton and Billips, San Antonio has Duncan, and so on. The problem is that all of the Pacers' best players are the most immature.

                              IndyToad
                              Sometimes more is less...in dumb commercials

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X