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

foretaz knows!

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

  • foretaz knows!

    After days of speculation, speculate no more! foretaz knows why Ron demanded a trade. He's successfully navigated the labyrinthal transom of Ron's mind.


    Originally posted by foretaz
    think about it....

    would ron be leaving if jack werent on this team???

    do u think ron would be leaving if fred jones, danny granger, saras or aj were the starter???

    ron didnt handle things properly, no doubt...and we can blame him for that till the cows come home....

    but he didnt create the situation that was dividing this team...

    prior to the outburst by ron, jack was getting pulverized by the public...he wasnt getting his touches, therefore he wasnt playing well, therefore he wasnt bringing the effort, especially on the defensive end....

    when ron isnt playing well, what happens to his effort on the defensive end????

    if anyone should have been gone, it shouldve been jack and not ron...whether it be to the bench or another team, it makes no difference....

    but they all knew jack wouldnt deal well with either....so they hesitated to do the right thing....

    and for that, we are losing our arguably best player...undoubtedly our best player for the money, and the heart and soul to our defense-and we are considered a defensive team...and we lose our toughness....would u consider anyone else in our starting lineup tough???

    so in answer, no, ron was not right...he was not right in the way he handled the situation....but it was a bad situation that he really shouldnt have been forced to deal with if others would have been doing what needed to be done...
    http://www2.indystar.com/forums/show...9&page=1&pp=15

  • #2
    Re: foretaz knows!

    I humbly disagree, RA is a headcase on a Rodman level. Getting rid of Jax would have solved nothing. Artest had 30 points last time he played for us and has clearly been getting "touches". I have seen so many drives to the hoop where it was one on one. He would have opted out of his contract in 08-09 and could have gotten a max deal at his age/skill level. This is just RA being a headcase. I agree Jax hasn't been the best he could be lately, but lets see what happens now that he's the #2 option.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: foretaz knows!

      wow....... just wow..............

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: foretaz knows!

        Wow, some habits just die hard, huh?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: foretaz knows!

          What? I agree that Jax is one of the problems Ron was talking about when he said something to the effect those things are just annoying...

          Obviously he doesn't like Carlisle but Jax or Tinsley IMO are the reason for Ron deciding to leave.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: foretaz knows!

            I havn't had the time to read through every thread over the past 4 or 5 days, I missed that post by Foreraz. There is little that I can say I agree with him on, however, this is not one of them.

            Its pretty common knowledge that Artest had issues with the offense. Its not a great leap to see problems arising between Artest & Jackson over their roles within the offense. Artest continued to play hard & play well. Jackson pouted & his game suffered. As far as we know, nothing was being done & I guess Artest felt, nothing would.

            His only mistake was not keeping it "in-house".

            Artest is an outstanding basketball player & I will always enjoy watching him play.

            However, I am very happy that it will now be on another team.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: foretaz knows!

              Well, we've heard from foretaz - now all we need is a Sassan "Ron-Ron" post.

              Probably something about the team wasn't "ghetto" enough for Ron.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: foretaz knows!

                Originally posted by Jose Slaughter
                I havn't had the time to read through every thread over the past 4 or 5 days, I missed that post by Foreraz. There is little that I can say I agree with him on, however, this is not one of them.

                Its pretty common knowledge that Artest had issues with the offense. Its not a great leap to see problems arising between Artest & Jackson over their roles within the offense. Artest continued to play hard & play well. Jackson pouted & his game suffered. As far as we know, nothing was being done & I guess Artest felt, nothing would.

                His only mistake was not keeping it "in-house".

                Artest is an outstanding basketball player & I will always enjoy watching him play.

                However, I am very happy that it will now be on another team.
                Interesting. I tend to agree more with the poster tippy the turtl in that thread. I find it hard to believe that Jax was at the root of all this. That said, the real reason I posted this was because foretaz was always blasting people for speculatin'.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: foretaz knows!

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                  Well, we've heard from foretaz - now all we need is a Sassan "Ron-Ron" post.

                  Probably something about the team wasn't "ghetto" enough for Ron.
                  I wonder if Sassan lost any limbs over this? After all, supporting Ron-Ron is just how he lives his life now. Guess it's time for him to please move on...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: foretaz knows!

                    Harmonica,
                    Had you posted that quote in purple there would've been a cookie for you! ...But alas, you did not.

                    He sure did have what at first looks like speculation, but we have to remember it's foretaz. Therefore, those were the facts. No other possible way to look at things. Any opposite view would, of course, be speculation.



                    -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


                    • #11
                      Re: foretaz knows!

                      Perhaps you are right, but oddly I hav had similar thoughts about ROn taking the fall for the reall cancer on this team.

                      Do I know what I'm talking about? Absolutely not. Wild speculation it is. But...just a week ago it was Jax and not Ron that was mouthing off about how he should be the one getting the touches that JO turns down. Then agai....aw hell dump em both and be done with it!
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: foretaz knows!

                        Originally posted by indygeezer
                        Perhaps you are right, but oddly I hav had similar thoughts about ROn taking the fall for the reall cancer on this team.

                        Do I know what I'm talking about? Absolutely not. Wild speculation it is. But...just a week ago it was Jax and not Ron that was mouthing off about how he should be the one getting the touches that JO turns down. Then agai....aw hell dump em both and be done with it!
                        I was just posting a similar thought in another thread. Prior to all this Reggie said Ron wasn't the bad egg. So who is?

                        I could see Ron's flareup being in response to the true "Bad egg" but he handled it wrong. Maybe the Pacers have been overly patient with this bad egg. Maybe they've been overly patient with several bad eggs.

                        Make no mistake, we know Artest isn't stable. I don't know how much the team had to walk on eggshells when they were around him. That has to be hard and grating over time. But to what degree? And was someone simply refusing to give at all for the betterment of the team and not tread lightly around Artest at all?

                        Of course Ron has shown time and time again that he can't be satisfied for long but I just have a sinking feeling he's not at the root of the problems we've seen (this time) and in fact, in part, his latest episode could be a symptom.

                        The Pacers have historically been a patient team. It's bitten them before, it could be biting them again.

                        -Bball

                        EDIT: I should add that for teammates to bend and accomodate Ron's 'position' it should also require Ron to bend as well. One without the other does no one any good.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: foretaz knows!

                          If Jack acts up ONE TIME after this, we need to ship him off too ASAP.

                          As for Ron the Martyr, I admit, a similar thought had crossed my mind. But why the hell would Ron feel obligated to throw himself on the grenade? Makes no sense. Of course, that's Ron for 'ya.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: foretaz knows!

                            I don't consider Jackson the root of all that is evil with the Pacers, nor do I think Artest was acting like a martyr.

                            It now seems the two of them on the same team was not gonna work from day 1. Jackson doesn't seem like he wants to play inside the "team" concept. Between the trouble with Jackson & his not being fully behind the Carlise offense, I think Artest simply had enough.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: foretaz knows!

                              Originally posted by Jose Slaughter
                              Jackson doesn't seem like he wants to play inside the "team" concept.
                              I saw quite the opposite these past two games. A much more relaxed group of guys all playing within the team concept...without Ron.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X