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

More nonsense!

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

  • #16
    Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

    Originally posted by btowncolt
    I didn't realize we had annointed another new moderator.

    Congrats!
    I'm not even sure he was annointed "moderator". Seems to me he thinks he's "king" or something.
    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


    • #17
      Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

      Originally posted by Jay@Section204
      I'm not even sure he was annointed "moderator". Seems to me he thinks he's "king" or something.
      Might I suggest King of the Ignore List.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

        Originally posted by grace
        Might I suggest King of the Ignore List.

        lol...i know btown and jays beef.....whats urs?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

          Originally posted by grace
          Might I suggest King of the Ignore List.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

            Originally posted by foretaz

            lol...i know btown and jays beef.....whats urs?
            Your poor attitude, likely.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

              Originally posted by Hicks
              Your poor attitude, likely.
              interesting....funny how i was thinking the poor attitudes lay somewhere else....

              i guess people with great attitudes often insert negative comments and the like in conversations that in no way involve them...

              funny thing is....i have no beef with dd00....we have had numerous discussions and i respect his point of view...just think, in this case, he was misunderstanding what was going on....i thought i had made it abundantly clear, i wasnt necessarily in favor of any of these ideas, but only throwing them out there based on the initial thread in the post that asked about the best players from other teams besides kg, duncan, and shaq....

              now the others...specifically a certain two.....have a bit of an axe to grind, and more and more look to chime in whenever the opportunity might present itself....which i typically try to ignore, admittedly unsuccessfully more often times than not...

              now grace...who knows...one minute shes happy with ya....the next minute shes not...tough to tell...thats why i asked...i know she likes my color...but hates my ellipsis.....

              the ignore feature is a wonderful feature....i just always find it humorous when others publicly suggest others use it with regard to a certain person....

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

                Foretaz, you are a vicious tyrant.
                "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


                • #23
                  Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

                  Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                  Foretaz, you are a vicious tyrant.

                  evidently

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

                    I have no beef with foretaz either , in this case, we just seem to disagree on what we consider relavent to the thread.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

                      Originally posted by btowncolt
                      I wish I knew what axe I had to grind.

                      I also wish I were an admin, so I could say whatever I wanted when someone was dictating to other members what is "appropriate" for the forum and being an a.......

                      Oh wait, I am an admin. That means I can discuss what the recourse in this situation would be and post accordingly, like I did today! Whoopie!


                      This thread is gold. Now you guys know how I feel.

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

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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

                        Originally posted by diamonddave00
                        I have no beef with foretaz either , in this case, we just seem to disagree on what we consider relavent to the thread.

                        simple disagreement or misunderstanding....not that big of a deal...least it wasnt to me...nor did i think it was to u...

                        however, to others it would be a different situation....

                        i think some of it might have to do with the "annointing"

                        when some feel that they have been "annointed" and then like to point it out...

                        well...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What player(s) would you take for JO?

                          Originally posted by btowncolt
                          I wish I knew what axe I had to grind.

                          I also wish I were an admin, so I could say whatever I wanted when someone was dictating to other members what is "appropriate" for the forum and being an a.......

                          Oh wait, I am an admin. That means I can discuss what the recourse in this situation would be and post accordingly, like I did today! Whoopie!
                          interesting....

                          very interesting...

                          i truly hope u have no ambitions of going into law enforcement

                          btw...ur choice (or whoevers choice) of posts to move to this arena are questionable at best....normally i dont say anything....but this time i feel id be interested in an explanation....as i find it very difficult anyone can justify why the first few posts in this thread were moved out of the initial thread....

                          but then again, justifying a number of things that seem to be taking place might be difficult....nothing worse than people having a separate agenda misusing certain powers to further that agenda....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: More nonsense!

                            It was clear that it was just a misunderstanding. And its not like DD00 needs someone to defend him. And yes, I was a bit surprised to see these moved myself, but I could go either way on it.

                            Mostly, I was just trying to put a stop to a recurring, but generally minor problem: If you'd quit telling people how they should think and post, and leave out the unneeded and condenscending put-downs, the discussion would be over. Just because DD00 wasn't really offended doesn't mean that there weren't others - occasional posters or lurkers or even regulars - thinking to themselves, "Wow, I don't think I want to get into a discussion with this jerk."

                            +++++++++++++

                            For example, "I think you missed the premise of this thread" is sufficient, you don't need to add crap like:

                            -snip-
                            maybe take all that energy you seem to be utilizing to bash an idea and try to create additional scenarios, instead of doing what is very easy and requires very little brain power-finding whats wrong with something....

                            its a long known fact...if u want to find something wrong with something, it wont be hard...

                            so get with the program, and what the intention was....

                            the fun part of these hypothetical discussions is u come up with a bunch of scenarios and then determine which ones u like best and why....

                            now...can u play nice???
                            Unfortunately, I think you've tried to turn it into several things it was not, add a few humerous comments from your peers, and *presto* ... Welcome to the Shout Box.

                            ++++++++++++++

                            There are other examples of this - and although none of them are particularly bad in their own right - after a while, "enough is enough." IMO, there was nothing here bad enough to warrant a PM or a warning or anything like that, it was just something was (1) totally unnecessary, and (2) receiving a small amount of complaints. So we thought we'd try to draw a line in the sand so everyone is reminded that its okay to say, "You missed my point", but its not okay to say, "You missed my point, idiot."

                            ++++++++++++++

                            Lastly, I'm not much of a consiracty theorist, so I'll need some help here: What separate agenda is being pursued? I'm really curious because the only intent I'm aware of is the one I just mentioned above.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: More nonsense!

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                              It was clear that it was just a misunderstanding. And its not like DD00 needs someone to defend him. And yes, I was a bit surprised to see these moved myself, but I could go either way on it.
                              if u could go either way on the fact that the first 4 or 5 posts of this thread shouldve been moved.....then something is bad wrong...which points to my "conspiracy theory"....theres not a reason in the world that those posts shouldve been moved...not one...not unless someone has a different agenda

                              Mostly, I was just trying to put a stop to a recurring, but generally minor problem: If you'd quit telling people how they should think and post, and leave out the unneeded and condenscending put-downs, the discussion would be over. Just because DD00 wasn't really offended doesn't mean that there weren't others - occasional posters or lurkers or even regulars - thinking to themselves, "Wow, I don't think I want to get into a discussion with this jerk."
                              i tell noone how to think or post....in fact, in this case, if anyone was doing that it wouldve been DD00....and i think that part was the misunderstanding as he somehow thought that these were things that i was advocating....i tried to state very clearly that i wasnt....then when in his next post he started it out with it being something that i wanted, i became alot more blunt....

                              i find it funny that because i provide my viewpoints and then alot of reasoning and rationale behind those viewpoints that people interpret that to mean im telling people how to think or post...now in this particular case, my suggestion might have been a bit strong to DD00 in reference to actually providing a scenario instead of debating the one i was stating, mainly because i feel like he probably didnt read the initial post, for if he did, he wouldnt be responding the same way....i know him....and these are his specialties...he loves coming up with scenarios....and is pretty good at it sometimes...

                              as far as being a jerk...i often think that many times with regards to a number of people on here....difference is....if i think someone is being a jerk....and they are potentially wrong....i might engage that person....

                              the fact that u as a mod are now guessing what other people are thinking as a reason to speak up, in this case which i feel was a bit inappropriate, and then do it in a very "jerky" manner....what good does that do???? i have respect for u...and u know that...i do think u were a bit out of line in not only what u did, but how u did it....

                              btown is a different story.....he definitely has an axe to grind...and frankly i dont know why.....hes obviously offended by me in some way....anyone that resorts to the types of conversations that he has over the last week with me, has not only an agenda but maturity issues as well, as evidenced by his "im a mod, and i can do whatever i want post"...thats a joke...and we both know it....


                              +++++++++++++
                              For example, "I think you missed the premise of this thread" is sufficient, you don't need to add crap like:



                              Unfortunately, I think you've tried to turn it into several things it was not, add a few humerous comments from your peers, and *presto* ... Welcome to the Shout Box.

                              ++++++++++++++

                              There are other examples of this - and although none of them are particularly bad in their own right - after a while, "enough is enough." IMO, there was nothing here bad enough to warrant a PM or a warning or anything like that, it was just something was (1) totally unnecessary, and (2) receiving a small amount of complaints. So we thought we'd try to draw a line in the sand so everyone is reminded that its okay to say, "You missed my point", but its not okay to say, "You missed my point, idiot."
                              ++++++++++++++

                              Lastly, I'm not much of a consiracty theorist, so I'll need some help here: What separate agenda is being pursued? I'm really curious because the only intent I'm aware of is the one I just mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

                              i defy u to show me where i called someone an idiot....thats not kewel jay, and u know it....embellishment to make ur point in this case is shameless....i d like to think im versed enuff in the english language (despite what kstat might say)along with mature enuff to avoid calling people names....

                              yes...ive said uve missed my point....and i may often make it a point to do that.....but i dont believe ive ever called someone a name like that....i usually show a great deal of restraint when it comes to calling people names...

                              and please remember this is a message board....u start assuming what people are thinking and what their attitudes are and u are going down a road that can lead to nowhere good...

                              as far as the agenda goes....ive addressed that....i personally think that the fact ive pointed out u have a tendency of dragging ur disdain for artest into threads that it simply is not necessary may not have gone over very well...im not sure...i cant know what ur thinking...however u did jump in unlike any way you have in the past....i know u a wee bit, and id probably say this is probably not the case....

                              btown is a different case....ill try to avoid stating what type of attitude it appears he has, as ive said thats a bit out of line....but the things hes typed in my direction of late, well, lets just say that they were out of line....but wait...hes a mod...so he can do that and apparently its ok...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: More nonsense!

                                FWIW, I often get into long-winded and sometimes heated discussions with others. But there's always a point where saying "I apologize for the way my post sounded" (and then dropping the subject) really helps everyone cool off.

                                It's taken a while for me to get it, but sometimes saying your piece, acknowledging others who say thiers (even if you don't agree with them) and then letting it go is a good 1-2-3 for getting along.

                                “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