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

considerations in an alternative fashion

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    considerations in an alternative fashion

    Ok, so most of us are sad, angry, upset, angry, betrayed, angry and upset.
    That doesn't make for the most considerate posts in your lifetime, or even the past 24 hours.

    So I am not sure if mine will be listed among my worst (easy, there's a lot of them) or whether I have "calmed down" enough to really make clear what my thoughts are.

    Shock, when I first read, partly rejection when I heard that Rick was misquoted.
    Stupid Ron, when I read it again, dumb Pacers when I read it again, wondering how on earth, knowing this guy, they let him alone during an interview and did not take other precautions for preventing this coming out the way it did.

    Why would I want to prevent this coming out ? because no matter how you look upon it and whether you like Wells or not (I specifically don't, I'm no enquirer reader) this hurts the franchise far more then anything else or any player.
    This sinks any championship hopes we had, this ruins the value of a team and a player, no matter that in case of a trade there will be more then enough suitors.

    Now for some information that is greatly ignored and I will not speculate on what DW & LB will do, whatever it will be done with the best of the franchise in mind, however I do think they carry at least as much responsibility for letting this get to where it is at right now as anyone else.
    Earl yin the season, Reggie reports "chemistry problems" on the team on national television. The discussion here and everywhere takes of, all newspapers and columnists run with it, JO speaks out, Cro speaks out, they settle whatever it was they had and we win a few games, until the next burnout.
    The pattern in our W/L coumn is; a team over 500 is likely to be beaten, a team under likely not.
    Now that is an important pattern, certainly if we add the stats for the loss and wins, +12 on wins and -10 on losses. According to Carlisle that is astonishing, menaing they can and will play the system, that the system works, but not when they can not be bothered.

    In the mean time, JO gets ripped on these board, untill he steps it up about 4 or 5 games into the competition and starts playing MVP style ball.
    Next to be ripped is Tins, and while he's out with an injury the focus shifts on Jax, next of the goats.
    Some question Carlisle, AJ states in an interview that when Rick lets the team play (like aginst the Nets) they do a lot better then when he micro-manages, yes AJ commented on Rick.

    JO is the face of the franchise and has firmly underscored that by playing as he does at the moment and being thoughtfull though open in his interviews, he gets in a scuffle with Jax but strangely enough Rick does nothing.

    Tinsley in the meanwhile is silent, while the fans en mass jump on the Saras bandwagon, an influx of LT fans helping with that "view" and make yet again a rookie and newcomer on the team the team's saviour (remember when Jax came here, or Miller, or (stop, list can easily get to long) Granger (new rook) also sees his status with the fans rising to the top, while last year's heroes, Tinsley, Harrisson and Jax see their stock plumet on the index that is PD.

    Back a little while, (last seasons) Artest states Rick micro-manages to much, as says JO, Tins, even Reggie to a point says so.
    return to the future:
    Once again Ron comments on Rick's coaching, added with the above, (L/W column) and Jax has done so, if Tins did this time I missed it, but I doubt he did, last time he did he was riding pine in favour of Kenny Anderson and AJ.
    Hulk obviously is so unhappy that he smashes his own picture, not the first and not the last player to do something like that.

    A pattern of unhappy players is clear, for whatever reason, the list grows, and the chemistry is not getting better.

    Then we return to today; Ron's statements, and the trade propositions made here, and even an open letter to the Pacers, management, though I would write the players, nonetheless, a large part of the team now needs to be traded because they are no choir boys.

    Of course it is UB who writes that letter and who keeps in mind that if his favorite Pacer has to be traded he might as well get rid of all other players he does't really like, so I'll take it with a grain of salt.

    Now what do I consider we should do?

    Look hard at why these guys worked together great over the past 3 years, what happed after we lost in the conference finals and a 61 win season?

    For one: we got Stephen Jackson and last year he was hailed as our saviour when he came in, went in the stands, threw punches, got 30 games and came back, still our saviour, but some soured on him for the brawl, some later for his play.
    We drafted Hulk, another last pick in the first round that according to some would turn out to be the steal of the draft and fill the void we had at C (seemingly).
    After the brawl the team went on a merry go round, up and down, up and down and so on, until we brough on Dale and made a nice run towards the semi's of the conf, where we were exposed by the Pistons once again and in no part due to a serious injury to JO.
    So now we started a new season, people wanting to get rid of JO, because he's always inured, and Tins for the same reason, certainly after the European Saviour was signed and AJ had his yearly "great" game early on.

    So let's see, and forget the fans pov, just for a minute, we have unhappy players galore, none of them like the system the coach plays, we lost a co-head coach in Mike and that happened the one who brought Tins back in to the game, kept Jax in hand and related well with Ronnie and all other players.
    He's "replaced" in function by our 3rd coach, Kevin O'neal, who left Tororto because he lost the players confidence shortly before management lost it as well, here he becomes co-head coach.
    Chuck Person is moved from the front office to the bench (by management or did Rick request it?) and is supposed to "replace" the player-interaction Mike brought.
    Now in that picture, where best friends Rick & Kevin are head coach, the influence of new comer Chuck is small at best if Rick suggested adding him, but even less then that if management came up with the idea.
    The medial staff was replaced, the conditioning coach was replaced, in short a lot of other people moved into important places, important places for chemistry, trust and human relations on a team.

    We now are heavily discussing trading Ron, as he asked for it, Tins, as he is injured, Jax, as he is "disruptive" and wants things that shouldn't be and ok, for now we do not want to trade JO, but AJ, Fred, Hulk can all go as well.

    Does no one stop to ask questions?
    If so many are unhappy with the coaching staff, perhaps we have a problem there?
    Do we want to trade away half our team, give up all hope and wait another 3 years to see what happens?
    Or do we think "just trading Ron" will solve our problems and we'll remain a "contender"?

    Or do we stop to think and ponder what is really wrong and going on?

    I like to do the latter, not to save Ron for the Pacers, not because I like the player Artest, he's certainly not my favourite Pacer, but his talent remains undiscussed, and if most of you recognise that Phil J could make it perhaps work with him, then why not another coach?

    Do you really think that Rick is still the ideal coach for this team?

    Let's look at all angles, if there is a fire when there is smoke, then there is a fire in the coaching staff as well, only Ron and it is nonsense, but all those players and it becomes a very serious problem.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: considerations in an alternative fashion

    Here's another pattern you should note: In Chicago, Ron was disruptive. Before Rick got here, Ron was disruptive. After Rick got here, Ron was disruptive. Notice the pattern there?

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: considerations in an alternative fashion

      I'm not angry, upset, betrayed, or whatever. Ron wants to leave, hopefully Larry and co finds a way to oblige him while helping out our situation also. G'luck Ron.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: considerations in an alternative fashion

        If we are not winning nearly every game someone someone has to be the whipping boy. Isn't that one of the rules of Pacer's Digest?

        Basically it's much ado about nothing, from a bunch of people who live vicariously though the Pacers.

        Now . . . where I agree and disagree . . . . . .

        Comment

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X