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

The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

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

  • #31
    Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

    Didn't we have this conversation already? Anybody remember the title of that thread? (LOL, didn't I just ask these questions in another thread?)

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

      Originally posted by Hicks
      Then in that case, I think what the people crying out about it need to realize is, instead of drafting 7-9 black 18 year olds to every 1 white 18 year old, this just means now 7-9 black 19 year olds will be drafted to every 1 white 19 year old.
      i think u might be missing the point...

      if the nba or any other organization implements a rule that affects any race disproportionately, then it can be accused of being racially insensitive....

      the age limit certainly appears to have no racial motivation whatsoever....its strictly business....but the problem is it affects a disproportionate amount of black kids....

      as i said i believe the nba is made up of 78% blacks....correct me if im wrong but thats the figure that sticks out to me....

      yet i believe only one white high schooler has ever declared for the draft....

      if ur league is 78% black but ur new rule affects 99% of the blacks....u have a bit of a problem....and once again...it has nothing to do with motivation and everything to do with end result....in the day and age we live in you have to be aware of how things are perceived racially....

      and while most will admit the age limit is based strictly on business, most would have a hard time arguing that its consequences are not racially imbalanced....

      in this case its not why ur doing something.....but how it turns out that is at issue

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

        explain to me how its racially imbalanced?

        It is saving the jobs of as many black people as its preventing.

        Not to mention, you fail to mention all the euros that have been pushed back another year.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

          Originally posted by Unclebuck
          No real changes
          Exactly.

          All this means is the highschool kids will do an extra year in highschool.
          Or worse, cause more college freshman to come out after one year.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

            Originally posted by Kstat
            explain to me how its racially imbalanced?

            It is saving the jobs of as many black people as its preventing.

            Not to mention, you fail to mention all the euros that have been pushed back another year.
            ok...ill see if i can explain...because its pretty obvious....

            first of all very few 18 year old euros come across....most are older...plus this is an american organization...bound by american law and american standards...

            now...follow closely....

            78 percent of the league is black...99.9 percent of the high schoolers entering the draft are black....you affect a disproportionate amount of blacks by instituting this rule...

            is it the leagues fault that 99.9% of the highschoolers making the jump are black? no....but it must realize that when they address the issue with a rule change it will have an impact to that group...and that group is basically all black....

            when u throw in the fact that many of these decisions might be hardship cases and thats why they are entering, then you again open urself up for more scrutiny....

            as i said....there are two very distinct issues here....racially motivated-which its quite obviously not....and racially imbalanced result-which it will be-like it or not....

            i think all this will do will turn into a huge court battle....one that , sooner or later. the leagues will have a real problem with....

            the nfl skated last year with the clarett situation-the end result being that because the players association agreed to it that it was ok....sooner or later, someone is gonna expose that argument for the sham that it really is.....you cant have the only real reason to not let a younger guy come into the league be-the older guys want to hang onto their jobs a year longer and agreed with the league that the younger guys cant play...thats hogwash...

            the nfl has a better case because of the physicality issues....plus they dont have the high school success stories that the nba does....

            look, i agree most should go to school....but not all can nor do they want to....its hard to argue in america that they shouldnt have the opportunity to try and earn a living if someone will pay them....just because the owners cant help themselves, shouldnt mean teenagers should be penalized....this rule is generated out of money and money alone, no matter how the league tries to spin it....and the irony is they are the ones that created the problem....noone forced them or forces them to take these kids in the first round....they willingly do it...the kids shouldnt have to pay for the owners poor judgement....if a business owner will pay you....so be it....shouldnt be rules to keep them from the free enterprise system...

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

              Originally posted by foretaz
              ok...ill see if i can explain...because its pretty obvious....

              78 percent of the league is white...99.9 percent of the high schoolers entering the draft are black....you affect a disproportionate amount of blacks by instituting this rule...

              Whoa whoa whoa. Since when is 78 percent of the league white?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
                Whoa whoa whoa. Since when is 78 percent of the league white?
                Yeah. At that point, I stopped trying to figure it out.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                  Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
                  Whoa whoa whoa. Since when is 78 percent of the league white?
                  sorry...as i had said in other posts....78 percent black...not white

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                    Kids play basketball to get out of the hood and be successful. The age limit only punishes them. They want to get an NBA contract so they don't have to live like that anymore. The age limit in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                      Originally posted by PacerSoul
                      Kids play basketball to get out of the hood and be successful. The age limit only punishes them. They want to get an NBA contract so they don't have to live like that anymore. The age limit in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous.
                      If they are 18 then they could move some place a bit nicer and get a job to help support their family until they can get drafted, or they could try hard in school and try to get a good scholarship to play ball. Seriously, I think too many kids (I feel weird saying kids since they're older than me ) before now would just stop caring in high school knowing that their basketball skills will get them drafted at 18.

                      Also, adding to the thing about going to college. To me the injury argument isn't a very good one because if they got injured they could then stay in college to LEARN, get a good job and then help out their familes back in the hood.

                      Again, like someone else mentioned, none of this would really be a problem if the NBDL is what it should be.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                        Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
                        If they are 18 then they could move some place a bit nicer and get a job to help support their family until they can get drafted, or they could try hard in school and try to get a good scholarship to play ball. Seriously, I think too many kids (I feel weird saying kids since they're older than me ) before now would just stop caring in high school knowing that their basketball skills will get them drafted at 18.

                        Also, adding to the thing about going to college. To me the injury argument isn't a very good one because if they got injured they could then stay in college to LEARN, get a good job and then help out their familes back in the hood.

                        Again, like someone else mentioned, none of this would really be a problem if the NBDL is what it should be.
                        sounds good in theory....not sure about the real world

                        david harrison was the last pick in the draft...meaning he got the last guaranteed contract....he is guaranteed a minimum of 2 million dollars over the next 3 years....if he flops or whatever....how will he be as far as set for the rest of his life?

                        you know how long it would take some kid out of the ghetto to earn 2 million dollars? nevermind the feasibility of such things....

                        real world just doesnt work that way....if a kid has the ability to make 2million dollars then so be it....im not sure how fair it is to tell him he is not allowed

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                          The age limit is actually going to affect the euro's MUCH more than the high-schoolers.

                          All the graduates can go to college for a year, prove their worth in a prime-time setting, and make their value even better.

                          Euro's have to find a team to pay for them and hope they get PLAYING TIME at such a young age.

                          The whole affecting blacks more is BS.

                          And the NBA is a company, they can incorporate whatever rules they want within a small reason. It's the same as the Augusta National preventing women from golfing on their course, the owner owns that property, and technically can do that.
                          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                          ----------------- Reggie Miller

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                            Originally posted by PacerFanInAZ
                            The age limit is actually going to affect the euro's MUCH more than the high-schoolers.

                            All the graduates can go to college for a year, prove their worth in a prime-time setting, and make their value even better.

                            Euro's have to find a team to pay for them and hope they get PLAYING TIME at such a young age.

                            The whole affecting blacks more is BS.

                            And the NBA is a company, they can incorporate whatever rules they want within a small reason. It's the same as the Augusta National preventing women from golfing on their course, the owner owns that property, and technically can do that.
                            affecting black more is BS??? how do u figure??

                            and actually its nothing like augusta national....

                            augusta national is a totally private club whose only source of revenue comes from club members....

                            the nba is far different....first of all almost every team in the league plays in arenas that are subsidized to varying degrees by the community and local and state governments....the pacers pay 1 dollar for conseco and get many revenues from it that have nothing to do with the pacers....

                            so its hardly the same....and as such they have to adhere to principles that are generally used within the public eye....and i assure u that any company that implements a hiring policy that basically affect all blacks or any other race will have some issues to deal with....this is not a private club like augusta national....you cant do as u please, contrary to what u might think.....why do u think the NFL was in court???? no suits were ever filed by people who had problems with augusta national....people tried to organize and show their lack of approval...but it still was a private club and as such, can do as they please and cant be sued for doing so....if they want to discriminate that is the memberships right....

                            the nba doesnt have that right....if u think so...im sorry, but ur badly mistaken...

                            now while i dont believe the nba is racially imbalanced...especially not towards blacks-how could it be when its players are nearly 80 percent black....the age limit will affect a much higher percentage of blacks than the current percentage breakdown with the league....

                            therefore it does have racial impacts that will have to be dealt with...

                            and just for the record....i am white....not that it matters

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The NBA's new bargaining agreement with the union. No more 18 year olds!

                                Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
                                If they are 18 then they could move some place a bit nicer and get a job to help support their family until they can get drafted, or they could try hard in school and try to get a good scholarship to play ball. Seriously, I think too many kids (I feel weird saying kids since they're older than me ) before now would just stop caring in high school knowing that their basketball skills will get them drafted at 18.

                                Also, adding to the thing about going to college. To me the injury argument isn't a very good one because if they got injured they could then stay in college to LEARN, get a good job and then help out their familes back in the hood.

                                Again, like someone else mentioned, none of this would really be a problem if the NBDL is what it should be.
                                Give me a break my friend, what 18 year old black basketball star is going to go get a 12 hour a day job? His job is to make the NBA and to make millions to support his family.

                                The injury argument is very valid because a lot of these kids do not have educational skills and they would not excel in other jobs, all they have known their whole life is basketball. You consider a good job making 60 grand a year, they have worked their whole lives to make millions and imposing an age limit makes blacks from the hood suffer, hence why ballers like Jermaine O'Neal call things how they are.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X