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

Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

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

  • #16
    Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

    I believe Vecsey when it comes to the Pacers (usually) because I think he has good sources with the Pacers.

    I can believe Isiah wanted Tinsley traded because he probably expected him to be more like Isiah the player and probably cut him less slack for that reason (speculating).

    I will further speculate that Vecsey is either being duped, or is willingly spreading propoganda for the Pacers because Wells reported the truth and the brass wants Tinsley's stock to go up.

    IOW, I think the odds are better than not that Tinsley IS on the trading block.

    Wells, so far, seems to report the dirt as opposed to who told us what the Pacers wanted us to hear (or at least what he thought the Pacers wanted us to hear... he pulled punches).

    ...Of course I could be wrong and Wells was just speculating....



    -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


    • #17
      Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

      In an article earlier this season, Vecsey wrote something like "Every team would have a Jamaal Tinsley" when he was describing his dream team, or something.

      Pete is a big Tinsley fan, and for good reason. When he was healthy this season, he was spectacular, my second favorite Pacer. I have decided I don't want to see Tinsley moved. I think he will come back even better after this season, and I think he will get over his injury problems, especially if we limit his minutes.

      I want AJ back too, BTW. The perfect complement to Tinsley, for whenever Tinsley loses his head, or is shooting terribly.

      Don't touch the PG position, Donnie! (unless it's Gill )

      What was that Tinsley said about the playoffs being like a drug, he just couldn't get enough of it? I loved that.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

        Originally posted by indygeezer
        Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????
        I just wonder how he did it? I'm guessing he somehow distracted the ref so his partner could poke Jamaal in the eye with a foreign object, leaving him writhing in pain. Then Vescey military pressed Wells Tony Atlas-style and threw him onto the incapacitated Tinsley......

        Sorry.....
        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

          So let me get this straight. Peter Vescey reads the Star to get the scoop on what's happening with the Pacers? Sounds like he needs to do a little leg work of his own and come up with something original.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

            Originally posted by RWB
            So let me get this straight. Peter Vescey reads the Star to get the scoop on what's happening with the Pacers? Sounds like he needs to do a little leg work of his own and come up with something original.
            He got all the leg work he wanted sitting behind the Pacmeates during the playoffs.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

              I never do put a lot of faith in what Vescey has to say.

              For the most part, he spews a lot of ****, knowing that some will find its way to sticking on the wall.

              He has enough history to know that he'll be right a certain amount of the time, ahd he'll be wrong probably even more of the time. But those that like him will usually only see the **** that sticks.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                I originally read that sentence as Bird wanting to trade Tinsley, which would make sense when the team brought in Carlisle, AJ and KA and then Tinsley went to the bench.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                  I wouldn't trade tinsley but if we get a startin c with scorein touch I would trade in heat beat

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    I originally read that sentence as Bird wanting to trade Tinsley, which would make sense when the team brought in Carlisle, AJ and KA and then Tinsley went to the bench.
                    Agreed.

                    Bird only watched the last 20 games from the season before he came in, and formed his opinions (including his opinion of Brad) accordingly. That was one of my major misgivings when we moved Brad... I thought Larry never looked to see what it was like early in the year.

                    Say what you want about Thomas, but before he ran his first practice he'd watched every minute of tape from the previous year. I respected that.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                      After the 2003 season I am sure everyone wanted Tins gone. He was horrible then.
                      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                        He was also in his 2nd year then but most people wanted to cut his throat and send him out of town then too. If I were him, I'd want out of Indy. Seems like everytime he struggles people just turn the knife at him his whole career here.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                          Perhaps he just wants to play Jamaal up to the NY fans and make him sound like the best thing ever so that when the Pacers trade him to the Knicks for Stephon Marbury that the fans don't go crazy over it...Helping sway the fans' opinions before his buddy Isaiah makes a deal...Just an idea...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                            Originally posted by Arcadian
                            After the 2003 season I am sure everyone wanted Tins gone. He was horrible then.

                            You can do a search on my posts, not that you care, but I never ever wanted Tins gone. He is very tough mentally and is in control. He veers of at times and just needs to mature a little, which he will do with age (in the next couple of years) and we will be real good.

                            However, he needs to work out real hard to stay fit. Conditioning is definitely a problem with him.
                            ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                              Tinsley was the one guy who played well against Boston in '03. After everything he'd just been through, I knew then he was who I wanted at point. So, of course we ran out and got Kenny.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Vescey slams Star Reporter on Tinsley????

                                Originally posted by Kegboy
                                Tinsley was the one guy who played well against Boston in '03. After everything he'd just been through, I knew then he was who I wanted at point. So, of course we ran out and got Kenny.


                                Wow I completely disagree.

                                If my memory serves me well, Tinsley had one good shooting game, game #1 and after that he was horrible. In fact Hardaway played a lot in game #5 and I remember suggesting that was the best point guard play the pacers got in that series.

                                Artest and J.O played well, and that was it.

                                That series convinced me Tinsley had to go.

                                Tinsley was getting eaten alive by Tony Delk. That was the year when Tinsley refused to get into a defensive stance, and his defense was beyond bad. I remember the next preseason I remarked, at least Tinsley is in a defensive stance for once.


                                Edit: I just checked the stats, and yes Tinsley shot well 57%, but only averaged 8.2 pts per game.

                                J.O averages over 17 rebs per game

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X