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

Reggie on ESPN Radio

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

  • #46
    Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

    Originally posted by btowncolt
    Reading comprehension is for chumps.
    Originally posted by btowncolt
    Ah, but when he decided to put his emotional and personal problems on display on an almost nightly basis for a number of years, cumulating in the largest brawl in NBA history, and doing so in a profession that demands a high of level of personal interaction with fans and the public, he intentionally (although doubfully knowingly) gave up the right to keep those sort of problems entirely in his private life.

    Because he plays basketball, he has no private life, and he gave up his private life intentionally, but he didn't know he gave them up.

    How can you do something intentionally, but you don't know that you did it?

    But that's okay, my fault.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

      Originally posted by foretaz
      ur missing the point....totally....

      its not about courage....sharing ur most intimate secrets of ur personal life doesnt make u courageous....

      he gets paid millions to play basketball....not to be a public advocate and example for the pros and cons of therapy....one could argue that him coming out and admitting it could do as much harm as it could good....the naysayers would say, "if thats what therapy does, i want no part of it"....its a no win situation...and why private lives should be kept private, like it or not....
      1)Telling people they totally miss the point isn't really helpful in arguing your point or furthering dialogue. When you start a response that way it tells me I saw what you wrote and either you think I'm stupid or you've made little effort to see my point. I don't believe that either of those messages were what you were trying to communicate.

      2)I completely disagree with the idea that a person admitting that they have a problem and getting help for it has nothing to do with courage. If that is how you truely feel then perhaps that is why we disagree.

      3)This is a bit off subject on my part but NBA players do not make thier money because they play basketball. If simply playing basketball earned money the Milkan's family would have been able to afford his burrial costs.

      NBA players make money because people pay to watch them play basketball and take an interest in thier personalities. This is especially true in the star driven promotions of the NBA.

      Bottom line is that Ron makes millions for being in the public eye. He is under no obligation to use that fame for good causes. (Ron in fact does and is a very generous person.) However, in this case I think he made a mistake. He should have had an answer ready that wasn't a lie.

      By the way I wish people who think that therapy is a personal issue would apply that same logic to drug use, law infractions, personalities and sex lives. Those issues usually aren't said to be out of bounds and the only reason I think that in this case it is different is that Ron is a Pacer.
      "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


      • #48
        Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

        Originally posted by Arcadian
        By the way I wish people who think that therapy is a personal issue would apply that same logic to drug use, law infractions, personalities and sex lives. Those issues usually aren't said to be out of bounds and the only reason I think that in this case it is different is that Ron is a Pacer.
        Last time I checked, denying you are going to therapy wasn't a crime, but hey that's just my reading comprehension skills at work.

        Hopefully he doesn't go to jail for it.



        (Amazing that denying something is now considered on par with infractions that can land you in jail for 3+ yrs.)
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

          My god things are slow.

          The "P" in "PD" stands for psychology right?
          House Name: Pacers

          House Sigil:



          House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

            Originally posted by Since86
            Last time I checked, denying you are going to therapy wasn't a crime, but hey that's just my reading comprehension skills at work.

            Hopefully he doesn't go to jail for it.



            (Amazing that denying something is now considered on par with infractions that can land you in jail for 3+ yrs.)
            I never said anything about your reading skills...but not all of the things I listed were legal infractions.
            "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


            • #51
              Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

              Originally posted by Arcadian
              1)Telling people they totally miss the point isn't really helpful in arguing your point or furthering dialogue. When you start a response that way it tells me I saw what you wrote and either you think I'm stupid or you've made little effort to see my point. I don't believe that either of those messages were what you were trying to communicate.
              if i tell u i dont like the taste of beets and thats why i dont eat them and u come back to me with the nutrional benefits of beets-uve missed the point...and while u might not like it..and it may not be very conversational, its still the truth...some of u want to go into the merits of why he should disclose something that is of a private nature....doesnt matter why u think he should....its private...therefore, its none of our business...no matter what good it might do...

              2)I completely disagree with the idea that a person admitting that they have a problem and getting help for it has nothing to do with courage. If that is how you truely feel then perhaps that is why we disagree.
              ahhh...but we dont disagree....what we apparently disagree with is who that person should admit it to and more importantly who they choose to disclose what they are doing about it to.....based on what ur saying, one should admit it to the whole world and then tell the whole world what they are doing to make things better....i disagree with that...ron has admitted he has problems...even said some of the things that he would like to do-as it relates to public knowledge-less techs and flagrants and playing more as a team....

              3)This is a bit off subject on my part but NBA players do not make thier money because they play basketball. If simply playing basketball earned money the Milkan's family would have been able to afford his burrial costs.

              NBA players make money because people pay to watch them play basketball and take an interest in thier personalities. This is especially true in the star driven promotions of the NBA.

              Bottom line is that Ron makes millions for being in the public eye. He is under no obligation to use that fame for good causes. (Ron in fact does and is a very generous person.) However, in this case I think he made a mistake. He should have had an answer ready that wasn't a lie.
              as i said earlier...any answer other than a denial he would be persecuted for...whether he says its noones business...or no comment...it was a no win situation....how would u expect him to answer just about any aspect of his personal life that was seemingly being brought into question....denial is the pat response for politicians, athletes, etc....

              By the way I wish people who think that therapy is a personal issue would apply that same logic to drug use, law infractions, personalities and sex lives. Those issues usually aren't said to be out of bounds and the only reason I think that in this case it is different is that Ron is a Pacer.
              im not sure what ur trying to say here....if ur saying that people are too concerned with public figures personal lives then i would agree....but im not sure thats what ur saying, because if it were , im not sure why you would be arguing that he should have shared his personal life with the world...

              i cant speak for anyone else, but i feel this to be the case for everyone, not just ron...

              however arrests and what have u are matters of public record, so in that light it is a bit different...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                You know the real question should be is if Reggie's willing to layout that personal info on Artest then shouldn't he come clean on who burnt down his house?
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                  Originally posted by RWB
                  You know the real question should be is if Reggie's willing to layout that personal info on Artest then shouldn't he come clean on who burnt down his house?
                  and this is kinda the whole point...

                  is there anyone who truly doubts ron isnt going to therapy?????

                  is there anyone that truly doubts who burnt reggies house down?????

                  why does everyone have this persecution complex????

                  u did it...u know u did it....now admit it.....hahahahaha.....

                  i seriously dont get it...can it be any more immature?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                    My purple friend you have a Ragnarian ability to carry on an arguement.

                    All I am saying is Ron shouldn't have lied about it.

                    If you don't think that Reggie should have outted him that's fine by me.
                    "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


                    • #55
                      Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                      Originally posted by foretaz

                      denial is the pat response for politicians, athletes, etc....

                      SIZE][/COLOR]

                      How many times do I have to tell you? I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Now Monica go in there and get me some Cubans.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                        Originally posted by Arcadian
                        I never said anything about your reading skills...but not all of the things I listed were legal infractions.

                        It was an allusion, I know you didn't say anything about them.

                        No, not all of them were against the law. Just 2 out of the 3. But still comparing the two, would mean they are on equal levels, and that's about as far off base as you can get short of calling it murder.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                          Originally posted by Arcadian
                          My purple friend you have a Ragnarian ability to carry on an arguement.

                          All I am saying is Ron shouldn't have lied about it.

                          If you don't think that Reggie should have outted him that's fine by me.

                          im not a proponent of lying....however i understand the dilemma hes faced with....and as i said, it was a no win situation...and bottom line is his responsibility to the fans does not require him being honest and forthright when it comes to his personal life....

                          i think if anyone, including u, was in rons shoes, they would do exactly the same....and i wont fault him for that....i refuse to hold him to a higher standard than anyone else...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                            Perhaps everyone misses the point?

                            Ron made a decision about his personal life that was his to make. In no way are we obligated to know anything about him. If his employer made explaining this to the public a condition of his employment he would then have to decide whether he should explain what he was doing, or quit. That is his decision to make as well. It would appear that the Pacers have left this matter to Ron to explain how he chooses. If Ron felt comfortable with everyone knowing, we would know. If he doesn't feel comfortable letting everyone know, than he doesn't have to.

                            However, this same point applies to the argument that is going on. It is for each and every individual to decide what they deem an appropriate response is for specific situations. The person who felt that Ron ought to have not denied his therapy and needed more courage in admitting his problem isn't wrong. Neither is the person who felt this matter was private and had no reason to be revealed. Those are both valid opinions and, last I checked, we are allowed to have those. They are right as the topic relates to them. Whereas one person may grow and be helped by admitting his faults, another may feel it's private and have nothing to gain by doing so. These decision are situational and furthermore, are different from one individual to the next. So perhaps everyone arguing is missing the point?

                            It is a person's undeniable right to have an opinion in this matter. However, that doesn't mean one party is correct and the other is false. It means that humanity has many facets and this is an example of that in progress. As individuals, we form opinions about nearly everything we are informed of. You can't fault any person for that.

                            Do we have a right to demand Ron act on our opinions though? Absolutely not. The final decision is up to him. Employers, family members, friends, fans, and therapists may place consequences on whichever decision he makes in order to encourage the response they prefer, but they can't force him to make a decision he's not ready to commit to. And that's his right.

                            Personally, I believe that Reggie ought not to have acknowledged something that Ron had wished not to be said. But I am not Reggie/Ron, so I cannot say how this effects either. It's my opinion that handling this matter was/is Ron's obligation, not Reggie's. I also, however, do not believe that there is nothing to gain in admitting that you have a problem. There can be many instances where being openly honest about your troubles can be very helpful. It's not for any of us to decide for Ron whether this is one of those instances though.

                            In all reality, none of us know enough about Ron as a person and the therapy and organizations he is working with to declare we know the correct or best way to do things in regards to him. We can only form an opinion based on what we know, and wait, watch and listen to see what happens next.

                            So maybe arguing about who's right and who's wrong is a silly thing to do. Who's to honestly say which decision is right or wrong in this instance other than Ron Artest? Maybe instead we should explain our opinions, recieve others' opinions and feel better informed because we have heard more opinions than our own.

                            That's just my opinion anyways. Take it for what it's worth.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                              Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                              My god things are slow.

                              The "P" in "PD" stands for psychology right?
                              I was beginning to think it stands for Purple.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                                Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                                I was beginning to think it stands for Purple.
                                ZING again!
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X