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

  • #31
    Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

    Originally posted by Arcadian
    I think that it is a sad statment on society if Ron somehow feels there is any reason not to say I am going to therapy. Were I to lose millions of dollars because of my temper I would be the first to admit that my behavior or my job needs to change.

    Furthermore as a man who makes millions of dollars because he is a public figure I would wish he had the courage to say that he is getting profesional help as a way to make therapy more acceptable for those he feels he has to hid it from.

    Books and movies reveal a lot of societies attitude, whether it paints it for them, or just reveals them is for a different discussion though.

    Go out and watch a movie that has a character who goes to therapy in it. Then come back and tell me if therapy is viewed as a positive or a negative.

    Just because Ron is a professional basketball player, doesn't mean he should have to air every piece of dirty laundry he has, to benefit fan's minds. It's not any of your business to know if he sees a therapist, nor is it any of mine to know if you do. There's quite a lot of people that do just fine getting over things by themselves after a rude wake up call, then there's others that need help. Why don't we wait to pass judgement on a new script, instead of rushing to uninformed conclusions.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

      Originally posted by Arcadian
      I think that it is a sad statment on society if Ron somehow feels there is any reason not to say I am going to therapy. Were I to lose millions of dollars because of my temper I would be the first to admit that my behavior or my job needs to change.

      Furthermore as a man who makes millions of dollars because he is a public figure I would wish he had the courage to say that he is getting profesional help as a way to make therapy more acceptable for those he feels he has to hid it from.
      Thank you! I wish I could've made this point so succinctly.

      -Bball
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

        Originally posted by Arcadian
        I think that it is a sad statment on society if Ron somehow feels there is any reason not to say I am going to therapy. Were I to lose millions of dollars because of my temper I would be the first to admit that my behavior or my job needs to change.
        ur missing the point....totally....i wont even go into the fact of whether he lost millions due to his temper...thats been rehashed....the point is u might be the first to admit it...but in no way should u feel compelled to share that decision with the world...ur boss? yes...ur closest of close relatives? yes....the whole friggen world? no...no way...and u know it...

        Furthermore as a man who makes millions of dollars because he is a public figure I would wish he had the courage to say that he is getting profesional help as a way to make therapy more acceptable for those he feels he has to hid it from.
        its not about courage....sharing ur most intimate secrets of ur personal life doesnt make u courageous....

        im sure there are lots of people that would like stars to come out and admit they have the same problems that alot of society does....

        but just because they make millions and are in the public spotlight, doesnt mean they have to open up their personal life for the world to see...

        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....

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

          I wonder what Tom Cruise thinks of all of this......
          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

            What I don't understand is why Ron would deny he was undergoing therapy. When something is mandated so you can go back to work you just do it. It doesn't mean you are crazy, just that it was a requirment to go back to work.

            I'm thinking what's at the bottom of this is Ron has been called crazy and he thinks that admitting therapy means admitting he was crazy. Probably something as simple as that.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

              Off the top of my head I can name Good Will Hunting and 28 Days as movies which portray therapy as a positive. If you are talking about movies made in the 70's like One Flew over the Coo Coo's Nest and Clockwork Orange (which both were based one books written further back) then, yes, there is a negative view. But that reflects the 70's not 2005. Recent movies are more positive about therapy.

              As far as Ron should or shouldn't have to say? For the most part I agree with you that he doesn't have to. I do wish that as man who makes millions for being in the public eye that he would use his influence to de-stygmatize a profession that is helpful to 10's of millions non-scientologist.

              As far as what Ron did was he lied further stygmatizing that very same profession.
              "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


              • #37
                Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                Originally posted by btowncolt
                As long as I'm Ron's ad-hoc employer, I have a keen interest in the Pacer's major employees.

                The Pacers are, by virture of their dependence on the city of Indianapolis and the citizenry of Indiana, a publicly traded company (in a way more or less unique to professional sports franchises). As such, and as a financial contributor to said company, I should be privy to the kind of information that determines whether or not my investment is worth my time and resources. In this instance, it's unfortunate that Ron's decision to accept or reject professional help has to become a public issue. Regardless, it still has to be an issue the investing public should know about.

                Another blow-up and he can ruin an entire season, throw a multi-million dollar business into chaos and turmoil, and once again ruin the emotional and financial investments of literally millions of people.

                So you need to know whether or not Bill Gates sees a shrink before you buy Windows stock?

                For some reason I have a tingle that leads me to believe that even if another brawl happened, it would just involve :Artest: and not more than him.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                  Originally posted by btowncolt
                  As long as I'm Ron's ad-hoc employer, I have a keen interest in the Pacer's major employees.

                  The Pacers are, by virture of their dependence on the city of Indianapolis and the citizenry of Indiana, a publicly traded company (in a way more or less unique to professional sports franchises). As such, and as a financial contributor to said company, I should be privy to the kind of information that determines whether or not my investment is worth my time and resources. In this instance, it's unfortunate that Ron's decision to accept or reject professional help has to become a public issue. Regardless, it still has to be an issue the investing public should know about.

                  Another blow-up and he can ruin an entire season, throw a multi-million dollar business into chaos and turmoil, and once again ruin the emotional and financial investments of literally millions of people.
                  ummm...u might like to know....but ur dreaming if u think u have any right to know....its very simple....as with any other company, no matter how much of a stretch ur analogy is.....you have no right to know the goings on in the private lives of others within the company....and if u cant handle that, or if ur investment is conditioned on that circumstance....then u wont be investing in that company....quite simple....

                  in ur example the players are the executives....with bird and walsh and the simons being the board of directors....the board will know the details....but thats it....no way in hell they make that sort of private info made public....not to mention it being a right to privacy issue...

                  as ive said repeatedly....outside of a very select few....its nobodys business...some of u might not like that....but thats life...you can always choose to invest in the colts and their admitted gun toters

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                    Originally posted by btowncolt
                    On a human level, I can understand why Ron didn't want to admit he had been getting professional help. Much in the same way I can understand why he decided to charge the stands that night.

                    But on an adult and professional level, it was just a poor choice in both regards. That PR firm he hired obviously did a poor job briefing him for the kinds of questions he would likely get.
                    oh really......so something other than a direct denial wouldve been in order????

                    cmon people....anything other than a direct denial leads to the same result as saying yes to the question....and u all know that....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                      Originally posted by btowncolt
                      I attempted, albeit poorly, to phrase my statement to be unique to professional sports.

                      But yes, I would be interested in whether or not the head of a multi-billion dollar business was being brough tup on charges, and if he complied with the terms of his "probation". I would think all of those things would have a rather direct impact on the price of said company's stock.

                      The fate of the pacers doesn't hang by a thread with Ron holding on the dangling end.

                      Pacers brass have quite a bit more of information regarding the situation, and if they feel like he needs cut, then I expect them to cut their losses.

                      I don't see how not admitting he sees a therapist, means he's not admitting he has a problem. He's said numerous times he knows he has a problem. If he's admitting he has some sort of problem, and is actually seeing a shrink, I don't see how it's a negative thing. Heaven forbid he keeps his private life, private.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                        Originally posted by btowncolt
                        I attempted, albeit poorly, to phrase my statement to be unique to professional sports.

                        But yes, I would be interested in whether or not the head of a multi-billion dollar business was being brough tup on charges, and if he complied with the terms of his "probation". I would think all of those things would have a rather direct impact on the price of said company's stock.

                        u do know that hes been brought up on charges.....

                        as far as probation goes....he hasnt been convicted of anything yet...but u will know that when it happens....if convicted, then the probation thing can be addressed then....though its really none of ur business if hes complying but only if hes not, might it be an issue...

                        it still has nothing to do with him seeing a therapist being made public.....employers make conditions of employment for many employees.....they dont make such conditions public knowledge....its illegal....called a right to privacy...

                        and u know what....this is all really a joke...because the same people on here saying how they were put off by him denying it are the same people that would be on here saying they were put off by something else he does...doesnt matter...some people will never be satisfied....and they know that....

                        the simple fact they say "he doesnt get it" really says it all....

                        doesnt get what???? the fact millions of fans are jealous or resentful and want to get inside his life? oh he gets that....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                          Originally posted by btowncolt
                          We do actually have a "right" to know these things in these sort of situations. That's why companies are forced to release quarterly stock reports, much in the same way the Pacers are "forced" to deal with the media and public scutiny that runs hand-in-hand with professional sports.

                          But you've said to the contrary repeatedly, so there's no possible way anyone else could be correct.

                          you are grossly mistaken if u think companies are obligated to put in quarterly stock reports if their employees or executives are seeking therapy....

                          do u realize how ridiculous that is.....its illegal....dont u get it???

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                            a person getting arrested is a matter of public record...

                            a person going to therapy is not...in fact its deemed by the courts to be one of the most private of issues, and efforts go to great lengths to maintain a persons privacy where this is concerned....

                            whether u agree or not...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                              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.

                              As for how much power the Pacers brass holds, I agree (and wish they had cut their losses a while ago). They've made the decision to hang onto Ron, however (and I hope they're right in doing so, there's no question about his talent and potential positive impact). But all it takes it one flair-up one day before a trade can be consumated to blow-up yet another season.

                              How did he put his emotional and personal problems on display? If he sat there crying about his problems, thats one thing, but I saw him doing his job, then taking offense to ONE persons actions. That's hardly his life story there.

                              So because he went into the stands, do you need to know if he's ever cheated on his wife? That's a personal problem, and according to you, he gave up every aspect of his private life when he jumped the scorer's table.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Reggie on ESPN Radio

                                [QUOTE=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.[QUOTE]

                                says who??????????????????????

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X