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

Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

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

  • Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

    i can imagine what went thru some of ur minds when u read the title of this thread....

    but seriously, does this draft scenario remind anyone of the san antonio scenario....

    san antonio was a good team with robinson...playoff team...but when he got injured and was out for the season, a very good team ended up getting a top draft choice and a great player-a player they seemingly would never have a shot at drafting....

    the pacers drafted last in last years draft....all signs pointed to them being near that same position again this year...then the artest situation happened and he was out the rest of the year...throw in some suspensions and numerous injuries and u suddenly have a team lucky to be drafting near the middle of the pack-that by all rights would have been drafting near the last position again....a position similar to detroit-and while im sure we wouldnt have stunk up that position as bad as detroit did this year(we took harrison last year) we simply couldnt expect to be as lucky as we were last year...so all these circumstances lead to us picking 17th instead of high 20's

    then u have a top 5 talent inexplicably fall in our laps....

    net, net....u have one of the very best teams drafting one of the very best players.....

    not that this makes up for the ewing, tisdale, or any other draft miseries....but its a damn good start....sure is nice to be on the other side of the coin for a change....with all the bad luck weve had over the years, not to mention the bad luck we had this past season, this draft was a breath of fresh air....

  • #2
    Re: Artest=Robinson...Granger=Duncan

    Originally posted by foretaz
    but seriously, does this draft scenario remind anyone of the san antonio scenario....
    Not really, no.

    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Artest=Robinson...Granger=Duncan

      I thought you meant Artest=Big Dog.......

      http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...54/1004/SPORTS

      June 28, 2005

      Commentary: Stephen A. Smith
      Downside of Spurs' victory? 'The Big Dog' gets a ring

      By Stephen A. Smith
      Philadelphia Inquirer

      Consider it a travesty of epic proportions, the kind that won't go down as anything significant in the NBA Finals but definitely should.

      Somewhere in the parade-like atmosphere inside San Antonio's SBC Center on Thursday night, amid the kind of fanfare and euphoria reserved for champions, "The Big Dog," Glenn Robinson, was not only allowed to infiltrate the proceedings but join the championship celebration as well.

      There was the sickening sight of Robinson, the former Indianapolis Star Indiana Mr. Basketball and Purdue star, hugging Spurs coach Gregg Popovich one minute, Manu Ginobili the next. Of Robinson prancing around the arena acting like his one-point, 1.5-rebound, 4.5-minute average in these NBA Finals had anything to do with winning.

      The only thing more disgusting than Robinson's smile was the residual disheartening effect he left in his wake back in Philadelphia -- a place that embraced him when he arrived and built "no re-entry" barricades for Robinson the second he left town after stealing $22 million from the 76ers.

      That's right -- $22 million. Not just the $12 million he received last season for refusing to play a single game for the Sixers, but the $10 million he hoodwinked out of them by playing just 42 games in the 2003-04 season.

      Consider that Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Reggie Miller and a host of other notable names -- after giving their blood, sweat and tears -- never experienced a moment like Robinson experienced last week, then rub and massage that upset stomach of yours as much as you can.

      In the interest of full disclosure, let's be clear: I don't like Robinson. Not even a little bit. (Although my heart did go out to Robinson and his family weeks ago after his mother passed away.)

      I'm unsure as to whether my disdain for him began when he flipped his middle finger at former Sixers coach Randy Ayers, repeatedly refused to listen to Ayers' instructions, stayed away from huddles during time-outs, or accidentally bumped Ayers en route to the bench at New Jersey's Continental Airlines Arena in what would be Ayers' last game as coach of the Sixers. (Ayers said he does not recall the bumping incident.)

      Best guess is that all of the above apply, not to mention quitting on his teammates, not even attempting to hide it while taking every penny -- especially after he got Ayers fired -- and doing so without the slightest bit of compunction whatsoever.

      To quote Billy King, Sixers president and general manager, several weeks ago on the radio.

      "I love the San Antonio Spurs and Gregg Popovich in particular. But I can't root for them as long as (Robinson) is on that team. He quit on (the Sixers). He quit on his teammates. He was a dog!"

      And then some!

      The sad part is, none of us saw it coming.

      When Robinson arrived in Philadelphia on July 23, 2003, the city nearly threw a block party. A career 20-point-per-game scorer in nine seasons, eight with the Milwaukee Bucks, Robinson was seen as the quintessential supplementary scorer Allen Iverson had sorely lacked.

      "I can't put into words how happy I am right now," Iverson said back then, from Puerto Rico during the Olympic qualifying round. "I love it. He's the best player I've ever had as a teammate."

      Go ahead and ask Iverson how he feels now. I guarantee you he harbors no interest in kissing Robinson on the lips.

      Iverson knows Robinson quit on him, the Sixers, and the city of Philadelphia. He knows Robinson could have played all those months he swore his ankle wasn't up to par. It may have been foolish and wrong for former coach Jim O'Brien to bench Robinson in favor of rookie Andre Iguodala, particularly considering the discrepancy in salaries and the fact that Iguodala would have had no problem coming off the bench, but there is never an excuse for quitting on your team.

      A lot was made of Alonzo Mourning's and Jim Jackson's refusing to show up to Toronto and New Orleans, respectively, after being traded earlier this season. But at least they remain AWOL instead of collecting a salary while they were at Chili's or Houlihan's.

      Robinson isn't being criticized because of his game. We all know he spent years as one of the game's prolific scorers. His abilities will never be questioned or debated in this column.

      But neither will his ethics or professionalism. For there is no doubt he's devoid of both those qualities.

      His is a label for quitters. The kind who does so without regret or sorrow. And if his story isn't horrific enough, consider this last poignant reality: Rasho Nesterovic probably deserves a championship more that Robinson does right now.

      Forgive the ignorance of anyone who disagrees.

      They're probably not in Philadelphia. They simply don't know any better.

      Stephen A. Smith writes for The Philadelphia Inquirer.
      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Artest=Robinson...Granger=Duncan

        Except that Artest and Big Dog are known to sucker-punch each other.
        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


        • #5
          Re: Artest=Robinson...Granger=Duncan

          When I read the title of this thread, I thought what does "Big Dog" Glenn Robinson have to do with anything.

          But I see you mean David Robinson. I see your point

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

            In regards to Steven A., yes, Robinson had his issues, but the notion that Philly has ever embraced anybody, let alone a vagabond like Glenn, is beyond ridiculous.

            I hope Dipper is above such pettiness.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

              Originally posted by vapacersfan
              I could go take a dump and that piece of crap would have a higher IQ then Screamin' Stephen A
              Yeah, well, you've always been a smart ***.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

                I mentioned it before but I'm not a big fan of SAS. He writes to get a reaction and rarely lets the facts get in the way of his agenda.

                In LB's last season in Philly the Sixers started out like 15-4 then they had a couple of key injuries and went into a nose dive before the all-star break. They limped into the break at like a game over .500

                SAS wrote a 2 page story during the break about how Larry Brown was too old and couldn't adjust to the new rule changes,utilize the three point shot, yada, yada, yada and he should retire. The Sixers won 15 out of 17 after the all-star break and SAS didn't say a word. He also ripped LB's wife in the story and when the 76ers threatened a lawsuit he was removed as the Sixers beat writer for the Inquirer.

                Now when you see him on ESPN he is always professing his love for Larry Brown and how Brown is a great coach etc.,,, I wasn't a big fan of Robinson's game but that is pretty low to slam the guy like that when he isn't around to defend himself.

                The best beat writer for the 76ers is Phil Jasner for the Daily News. He has been covering the team for about 30 years.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

                  Originally posted by Kegboy
                  Yeah, well, you've always been a smart ***.
                  ZING-O!!!!
                  "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Artest=D.Robinson...Granger=Duncan

                    Originally posted by dipperdunk
                    I mentioned it before but I'm not a big fan of SAS. He writes to get a reaction and rarely lets the facts get in the way of his agenda.

                    In LB's last season in Philly the Sixers started out like 15-4 then they had a couple of key injuries and went into a nose dive before the all-star break. They limped into the break at like a game over .500

                    SAS wrote a 2 page story during the break about how Larry Brown was too old and couldn't adjust to the new rule changes,utilize the three point shot, yada, yada, yada and he should retire. The Sixers won 15 out of 17 after the all-star break and SAS didn't say a word. He also ripped LB's wife in the story and when the 76ers threatened a lawsuit he was removed as the Sixers beat writer for the Inquirer.

                    Now when you see him on ESPN he is always professing his love for Larry Brown and how Brown is a great coach etc.,,, I wasn't a big fan of Robinson's game but that is pretty low to slam the guy like that when he isn't around to defend himself.

                    The best beat writer for the 76ers is Phil Jasner for the Daily News. He has been covering the team for about 30 years.
                    Yeah, I remember that stuff from Larry's last year. What a jackass.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X