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

An answer for Fortaz......

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

  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by foretaz
    i agree one hundred percent with everything uve said here....i dont think weve ever seen anything remotely resembling a panic mode from the walsh regime....


    Bball says we saw it in 1999 when Walsh set the wheels into motion to rebuild 'on the fly'. Of course many chose to distance themselves from Bball on that point of view... just as I am doing now

    But seriously... I've always thought Walsh panicked at the (IMHO) fluke loss to the Knicks in 1999 and irreversibly set the wheels in motion that sowed the seeds that we had to reap (for better or worse) by 2000. But we'd be seriously off topic to discuss that point soley right now in this thread. But I bring it up because I disagree with your saying:
    "i dont think weve ever seen anything remotely resembling a panic mode from the walsh regime....


    -Bball
    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: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by Bball
      Bball says we saw it in 1999 when Walsh set the wheels into motion to rebuild 'on the fly'. Of course many chose to distance themselves from Bball on that point of view... just as I am doing now

      But seriously... I've always thought Walsh panicked at the (IMHO) fluke loss to the Knicks in 1999 and irreversibly set the wheels in motion that sowed the seeds that we had to reap (for better or worse) by 2000. But we'd be seriously off topic to discuss that point soley right now in this thread. But I bring it up because I disagree with your saying:
      "i dont think weve ever seen anything remotely resembling a panic mode from the walsh regime....


      -Bball
      actually i think i somewhat broached the very subject of which u speak in that same post...

      Comment


      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        Originally posted by foretaz
        actually i think i somewhat broached the very subject of which u speak in that same post...
        Actually I was going to talk about that in the future with you because I about dropped over dead when I read your comments about Walsh basing Bender on Camby.

        I thought only Bball & myself had that crazy thought.

        Anyway, other than the Artest thing, you & I share a lot of the same thoughts.

        The fact that Dale Davis is your favorite player automatically by law forces me to take what you say seriously because you obviously have good taste in players.

        Then you go & mention one of my two other favorite players of all-time (Dr. Dunk himself Darnell Hillman) & if you hit my third favorite player as one of yours I will know you are ok. (hint: Billy Knight).

        Anyway Bball go back up & read his comments about Camby & you will be amazed at how much he parallels us on that.

        Now if only we could exercize that Artest demon from you then all would be wll.


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

        Comment


        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          "The fact that Dale Davis is your favorite player automatically by law forces me to take what you say seriously because you obviously have good taste in players."

          Oh man! These guys have found each other!

          Regards,

          Mourning
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by Peck
            Actually I was going to talk about that in the future with you because I about dropped over dead when I read your comments about Walsh basing Bender on Camby.

            I thought only Bball & myself had that crazy thought.

            Anyway, other than the Artest thing, you & I share a lot of the same thoughts.

            The fact that Dale Davis is your favorite player automatically by law forces me to take what you say seriously because you obviously have good taste in players.

            Then you go & mention one of my two other favorite players of all-time (Dr. Dunk himself Darnell Hillman) & if you hit my third favorite player as one of yours I will know you are ok. (hint: Billy Knight).

            Anyway Bball go back up & read his comments about Camby & you will be amazed at how much he parallels us on that.

            Now if only we could exercize that Artest demon from you then all would be wll.
            let me give u just a little insight of what ur dealing with here...though im sure this thread has probably done enuff of that...

            as u know im 40....my first memories of the pacers were sitting in living room next to the console tv/phonograph/stereo and listening to the pacers on the radio as most of the games werent broadcast back then(i was probably around the age of 5) the most memorable of radio hosts was joe mcdonald though i cant remember if he was doing them back that far...

            anyway, i became so enamored with darnell...billy keller came to my elementary school the day after(my how times have changed) he hit a 70 foot shot against the colonels that was disallowed because it was deemed to have happened after the buzzer-and therefore the colonels won the playoff series....all i wanted to do, as i recall, was ask him about how high darnell could jump and was it true he could grab a twenty dollar bill off the top of the backboard or put his foot on the backboard...

            when doctor j came into the league and began to rival my favorite for his dunking and jumping ability, i made it a point to tell everyone that would listen, and many that wouldnt, that darnell ws the better dunker and could jump higher(remember i was around 10-12 at this point)....and i didnt just say these things....i had cut out a picture from the indy news of a jump ball between darnell and dr. j where darnell was a full hand above doctor j...i backed up my arguments with visual effects...

            as far as bk is concerned....anyone thats a pacers fan from our era...u couldnt not like him....he was simply one of the smoothest basketball players to ever play....when i think back at just how effortless he made the whole thing look....well...i really cant think or have ever noticed someone that really reminded me of him....it just seemed he played the game a bit differently...very tough to describe...

            Comment


            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              So Peck - it's
              1. DD
              2. Darnell
              3. Billy

              Do you include Roger and George anywhere among your top players?

              Comment


              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Originally posted by Peck

                Anyway Bball go back up & read his comments about Camby & you will be amazed at how much he parallels us on that.

                Now if only we could exercize that Artest demon from you then all would be wll.
                I totally missed the Camby reference(s). I was doing a lot of skimming. I can't do it now... I'm out the door on some show prep but I will try and find it when I return.

                -Bball
                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: An answer for Fortaz......

                  Originally posted by Peck
                  Actually I was going to talk about that in the future with you because I about dropped over dead when I read your comments about Walsh basing Bender on Camby.

                  I thought only Bball & myself had that crazy thought.
                  Where is that comment exactly (in this thread)? The reason I ask is because foretaz has made it clear that he doesn't indulge in speculation into the thinking behind a GM's actions because as far as he's concerned, that's impossible to know unless the GM expresses them directly to someone, which he doesn't think a GM/businessman would do.

                  Comment


                  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Peck

                    Now if only we could exercize that Artest demon from you then all would be wll.
                    What demon? Just join Artest lovers group
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment


                    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Originally posted by Harmonica
                      Where is that comment exactly (in this thread)? The reason I ask is because foretaz has made it clear that he doesn't indulge in speculation into the thinking behind a GM's actions because as far as he's concerned, that's impossible to know unless the GM expresses them directly to someone, which he doesn't think a GM/businessman would do.
                      speculation involves talking about things that might happen in the future...

                      for someone that appears to be paying as close attention as u do to my posts-almost looking for some sort of slipup it appears-ill post the link for u...

                      i could address the rest of ur post....but im growing tired of ur twisting, distorting, and generally putting words in my mouth....at this point i d just prefer to stand by what i say...and if i have a change of heart or feel i misrespresented something...then i will say so...


                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...&postcount=323

                      Comment


                      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        speculation involves talking about things that might happen in the future...
                        Not necessarily. You can speculate about past events and the thoughts, feelings and motives of the people involved in them.


                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        for someone that appears to be paying as close attention as u do to my posts-almost looking for some sort of slipup it appears-ill post the link for u...
                        I think you're misreading my intentions. I was merely trying to clarify, more for myself, your position because I was starting to get confused.


                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        the absolute closest thing i could think of would be the bender acquisition....one could definitely argue that after cambys playoff performance he put a premium value on a long athletic player that could affect a game both offensively as well as a weakside defender....he knew he had one of the very best low post defenders in dd....i think he might have become enamored a bit with what he saw camby do freelancing from the weakside on the defensive end....

                        however, as much as we might hate to admit it....and history would definitely change our opinion....there were other very pertinent and very valid reasons to do that deal....it obviously didnt materialize the way that we all wouldve liked, no matter what happens from here on out....

                        however....no one gets it right every time....there are simply too many variables
                        This seems to fly in the face of what you were saying earlier about the thoughts or feelings of a GM, but as I've admitted, I could be wrong as to what you were actually saying. There's a lot to digest here (in this thread).

                        EDIT: That said, I think the above is a very astute observation.

                        Comment


                        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Originally posted by Harmonica
                          Not necessarily. You can speculate about past events and the thoughts, feelings and motives of the people involved in them.



                          I think you're misreading my intentions. I was merely trying to clarify, more for myself, your position because I was starting to get confused.




                          This seems to fly in the face of what you were saying earlier about the thoughts or feelings of a GM, but as I've admitted, I could be wrong as to what you were actually saying. There's a lot to digest here (in this thread).

                          EDIT: That said, I think the above is a very astute observation.
                          i dont mind speculation at all...i dont think ive said to the contrary....its enjoyable....as long as its kept in proper perspective...its just speculation...and none of us know whats going to happen...only donnie and larry know that....

                          when someone says...well, if u knew this u would feel differently...i have a problem with that...how many times have we heard supposed confirmed reports of insider info-that indeed might have been accurate-and still things didnt go the way it was supposed to....

                          so when people say...ur wrong to speculate that way or whatever....to me thats ridiculous...because its speculation...and much like opinions its a bit tough for them to be wrong...though i ve often said...ur entitled to ur opinion-even if it is wrong

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X