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

Davis gets 5 games

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

  • #31
    Re: Davis gets 5 games

    It looked to me like Antonio was in his right mind when he went into the stands, unlike Artest who clearly just snapped. Whether that makes Antonio going into the stands more or less wrong is debatable.

    Question - had a brawl broken out, what do you think Antonio's suspension would have been? And what do you think it should have been?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Davis gets 5 games

      Originally posted by DG-33
      It looked to me like Antonio was in his right mind when he went into the stands, unlike Artest who clearly just snapped. Whether that makes Antonio going into the stands more or less wrong is debatable.

      Question - had a brawl broken out, what do you think Antonio's suspension would have been? And what do you think it should have been?
      This seems to be the question people want to ask, and I don't get it. Why would that change anything? Can't we all agree that a brawl very well could have broken out. Whether it does or not is entirely on Davis. What is on Davis is going into the stands and making it a possibility. I think that is only logical, but I'm sure I'll get torn apart for it.
      "Ever wonder what it's like to wonder what it's like to wonder, they get up out of bed but can't awaken from their slumber, they know what they've been told by those who know what they've been told, you see this hand me down knowledge generated ages ago, and I know what they've been told because I've been told the same thing, I had to broaden my horizons to expand on greater things..." Many Styles

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Davis gets 5 games

        WOW!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Davis gets 5 games

          Originally posted by Kstat
          Assuming there was no retaliation in his part, no I wouldn't think so.
          I disagree. The whole reason the brawl was such a big deal was b/c of the interaction of players and fans. Even if Antonio doesn't throw punch #1, all of a sudden we have the potential of fans staying away from arenas worrying about players coming into the stands.

          As a fan, you may not worry about them attacking you, but perhaps you are afraid of the riotous atmosphere that you could be involved in if they do. Maybe you ponder that you don't want to bring your kids to be involved in such an environment.

          If a fan hits Antonio it makes things look worse for the NBA with this particular situation, and I think Stern would be forced to add some games to his suspension accordingly.
          “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
          motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
          Reggie Miller

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Davis gets 5 games

            it's funny how much better at posting kstat is than everybody else

            myself included
            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Davis gets 5 games

              Somewhere from 5-10 games seemed about right. Be interesting to see how the lawsuit pans out - Axelrod's got a lot of money and AD isn't poor.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Davis gets 5 games

                AD's not in nearly as bad shape as Rimfire's championship forumla....

                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


                • #38
                  Re: Davis gets 5 games

                  This hilarious....of all the people on this forum..I just *knew* that Shade would be one of the extremely few misguided who would dare to compare Ron Artest to Antonio Davis.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Davis gets 5 games

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan™
                    Yeah, its not like they both went into the stands or anything............
                    You too, are you kidding me? Is this a joke? Am I living in the twighlight zone?

                    Do you people not have real jobs? Employee A has made mistake after mistake after mistake....next mistake they get fired. Employee B has been a great representative of your company and is widely respected..his next mistake he'll get a slap on the wrist.

                    Hell you have Donnie Walsh saying the exact same thing, that its nowhere near the same situation.

                    This is like talking basketball with my brother's kids or something. Nerve-racking sons of batches.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Davis gets 5 games

                      Vescey makes a lot of good points


                      http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php



                      SLAP ON THE WRIST
                      By PETER VECSEY

                      FOLLOWING last sea son's Palace rampage pitting players vs. players and then players vs. fans, David Stern made one thing indubitably clear above all else:

                      Never again!

                      No matter what the motivation, the NBA commissioner harrumphed when announcing his judgment to suspend Ron Artest for the remainder of the season and other verdicts pertaining to Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O'Neal, Anthony Johnson and David Harrison, no matter what the provocation, no matter what the circumstances, the league will not tolerate players violating the sanctity of the stands or spectators from trespassing onto the court.

                      I don't know this to be a fact, but I got the distinct impression over the succeeding months that Stern agonized whether he'd done the right thing, that perhaps his Artest sentence had been too harsh.

                      On the other hand, the totality of the design was to deter anybody from even thinking about ever again breaking and entering into the fans' sanctuary. The plan was to prevent another such outrage from scarring the league's already stained image, and Stern's decision may have tormented him; at the same time, he had to make sure there couldn't be a next time.

                      Yet only 14 months later, Stern's worst nightmare comes to life; there is, indeed, a next time. Not only that, but now it's 37-year-old Knicks center Antonio Davis, the anti-Artest, one of the league's nicest guys, the president of the players' union, for crying out tears, who lumbers over the scorer's table with 1:04 left in OT and ventures 12 rows up into the stands.

                      Evidently, Davis, naturally an ex-Pacer (the team's non-operational training camp in Afghanistan must have taught this kind of behavior, that and proficiency on the monkey bars — see accompanying video) wasn't paying the least bit of attention when Stern read the riot act to his constituents two Novembers ago and laid down uncompromising law and order commandments.

                      "Violators of this policy will be treated with the utmost seriousness," Stu Jackson, the league's dean of discipline, reiterated yesterday before completely compromising Stern's original premise and the above-stated positions with a capital BUT.

                      "We have concluded, however," Jackson summarily hedged, "that Antonio's actions were the result of his belief that his family members required his immediate assistance, and have taken those mitigating circumstances into account in setting the length of the suspension" of a ludicrously insufficient five games.

                      No wonder Davis felt it was unnecessary to take notes when Stern was preaching fire and brimstone from his pulpit.

                      No wonder he didn't think twice about leaving a stalemated OT game (if only Antonio could see the court under pressure as well as he sees the stands) to get in between his wife, Kendra, and a fan who have been equally relieved that Antonio interceded.

                      "Given the choice of taking on Kendra or Antonio," declared someone who has known both for years, "I'd rather fight Antonio. She can be real tough on people."

                      So, what is the literal translation of Stern's latest ruling? That players now have the right to pick and choose a time to go into the stands? They're now free to decide when it's justified?

                      You start making excuses for one player, and the next player is more apt to take the law into his own hands and cause a disturbance that's going to hurt more than just his family. Remember the picture of those frozen-in-fear youngsters at the Palace? Chairs being heaved indiscriminately? Fist fights all over the place? It doesn't get any viler. Not until the next time, anyway.

                      Did Antonio consider anybody but himself and his family before taking his misguided tour? He easily could've incited a riot by going into the stands. The fact no one took the bait is irrelevant.

                      Antonio had no idea if someone was going to take offense to him breaching their space. No clue if someone might stab him, shoot him or throw beer on him. And then it would've been on! That quick!


                      Antonio very well might have had the right (though distorted) intentions, but once he's offsides and things get out of hand he's no longer in control of his emotions or anything else. For exercising such stupidity and selfishness, it says here, he should've be given 20 games minimum, an unpaid opportunity to spend quality time with his wife.

                      Hell, I'd even find out which players voted for him and give each of them five games.

                      peter.vecsey@nypost.com

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Davis gets 5 games

                        "Given the choice of taking on Kendra or Antonio," declared someone who has known both for years, "I'd rather fight Antonio. She can be real tough on people."
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Davis gets 5 games

                          Originally posted by vapacersfan™
                          Yeah, I have a job.

                          Save the bull **** trolling for IS.
                          Yeah VA, noticing a trend here.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Davis gets 5 games

                            the clear message:

                            going into the stands gets you a double digit suspension.

                            It may be more if you are a hopeless nutjob who has a long history of behavioral issues and blown 2nd/3rd/4th/...22nd chances.

                            It may be less if you have absolutely no such history, if there were some mitigating circumstances, and if you didn't run up with fist clenched ready to "take somebody out", and thus you lucked out and no brawl ensued.

                            I'm not sure that the outcome (brawl/no brawl) should or did factor into it, but that aspect always factors into it elsewhere in society.

                            If Peck and I both shoot people as we each separately rob memorabilia shops in Indiana and Florida to haul away all their Brad Miller gear, and the guy Peck shoots lives miraculously while the guy I shoots dies, I am a murderer but Peck is not. The reason? Peck got lucky.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Davis gets 5 games

                              I said it before, I'll say it again, the outcome bares no semblence on the initial act.
                              The outcome bares substance once it leads to "other" infringements.

                              This crowd was not rowdy, not druk, and had no Brother of Ben Wallace in the stands.

                              BUT...........WHAT IF..........

                              Let's say I was sitting next to the guy, innocent, and the guy is right, she attacked him, in his team's building, and AD stormed at "us", would you forgive me for taking no risks and taking him down as soon as he came close?

                              What would the result have been?

                              What if the guy who thought that way, had raised a hand to AD, woul he have held his hands to his own or decked the guy?

                              Can we agree that "any" player entering the stands in this matter is a thread to the public?

                              It was for that reason that Stern announced the very severe punishment on 5 of our players. Not only ron a season ( as he was the "ionitiator") but also 40 to Jax, 30 to JO (who never entered the stands) and so on and so on.

                              Ron entered the stands because he was physically attacked, no way about it, someone threw a bottle in his face, that constitutes an attack.

                              Jax went to help his friend/teammate, both were attacked once in the stands and defended themselves.

                              "You shall not go in the stands"


                              Unless........................

                              You have friends in high places.


                              PT, your example goes limp, Peck could simply have been a better shot with no intentions to kill, you were not, you knew the risk when you used the gun.

                              The only one lucky in your example is Peck's victim.

                              What is the next justification for going in the stands? It seems that if they attack you, you have to refrain, however if you as much as think they are attacking your wife, no matter what way, THEN you have mitigating circumstances.


                              If you can not see the absolute bollocks in this then I fear for justice in the world in general.
                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Davis gets 5 games

                                Originally posted by Mr._Basketball
                                This is like talking basketball with my brother's kids or something. Nerve-racking sons of batches.
                                Where ya' goin' with that shotgun?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X