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

Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

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

  • Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

    I usually don't watch it but it was interesting tonight.

    They were talking about the role of the black athlete in the community or I think so but I missed some of it in the beginning.

    The one guy (whos book just came out on this subject I think) on there was saying that the black athletes need to come together as a "team" and help the black community.

    What do you guys think on this? Persoanlly I think that if they want their community to prosper they need to focus on education and getting businesses that will help the economy grow. Athletes can help out a lot in this by starting a business of their own, providing scholarships, etc but IMO it is ridiculous to call out athletes and expect them to do all the work.

    The guy who wrote the book, i've been wondering what he has done to help with this problem. I don't know but I hope he is doing his part if he is calling out athletes.

    I thought it was interesting and it has been slow on here so it's something to discuss.

  • #2
    Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

    I believe that a person has a right to do what he/she wants. If they want to help people, fine, if not... fine as well. It would be nice if they all helped others, but they don't have to.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

      With great power... Cue Spiderman.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

        Note - Jack did start a school in Port Arthur.
        Yeah, he's a cancer alright.


        But I do agree that putting an obligation on it is wrong. However, if a guy is throwing gang signs and trying to "keep it real" then the best way to do that is to take that money back to his hood and give it a productive boost with positive investments (a business, school, charity, etc). That's why I was so happy to see Jack take action after his gang colors in the locker comment.


        However until the Exxon exec starts putting his wealth back into the poor communities that struggled to pay his gas prices so he could have that wealth I won't feel bothered when athletes and stars don't do it either. Its a choice, not obligation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
          Yeah, he's a cancer alright.
          Nobody says he is.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

            I think the rich should help the poor regardless of color.
            http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

              I saw a tiny bit of it. For those of you not familiar, the discussion came largely from this book.

              I've started to respond to this thread a bunch of times, re-wrote what I said, then reconsidered again. I have so many thoughts on the subject I don't know where to begin.

              I'll just give a sliver of my thinking and I'll start with one guy, cause I totally agree with the author about Michael Jordan.

              " The "apolitical black athlete" Rhoden singles out is Michael Jordan, for whom the system has worked -- financially, anyway. "Jordan could have single-handedly consolidated Black Power in sports and transformed the entire industry," Rhoden says. "Instead, Jordan said, 'Be like Mike.'"

              I have never been a Jordan fan. Ever.

              Mike was more concerned with making millions than really having an impact for black athletes. He could have truly weilded his power for some real change, but he didn't. He was more concerned with being a corporate shill and having everyone like him. I won't digress and hijack this thread to go off about his gambling, multiple women he had on the side and the debacle of tarnishing his Dad's memory upon his death. I'll just say I was a bit disappointed with Jordan on many levels.

              My mom and grandma have a saying I grew up with: Black folks are our own worse enemy. We put down those who speak well or are educated as trying to "be white" and shun them. When someone does well, the attitude is "why don't you give me some?" As a culture, there has been a frightening lack of community cohesion in the black community.

              I think part of this mindset carries over to the black athlete. For every outspoken guy like Jim Borwn, there's a counter like Terrell Owens. I think there's a general divisiveness that is magnified by big bucks and adulation.

              My wife one time asked me why in a sport that appears to be dominated by Blacks, there are so few black coaches or owners. I didn't know what to tell her.

              Okay, I don't mean to tread on dangerous ground, but aside from religious reasons, I think there's another reason for Anti-semitism. People are envious of the cohesion in the Jewish community. I lost track of how many times my friend's families started a business venture, partially backed by others in the Jewish community. There's a sense of community that tends to run strong. I've alway wondered why there is such a divergence is community mindset with the Blck and Jewish community when there is so much common ground.

              Far as I'm concerned, I think Millionaire athletes have a moral obligation to try and make professional and societal change fro the better. As I do the big corporations like Exxon, as Seth alluded to. Thing is, the major corporations have such an institutionalized mindset of greed, I don't hold out for much hope there. With the athlete, there is a much better chance for making a change and having an impact.

              I don't mean to sound like I'm painting everyone with one broad stroke and I'm admittedly making generalities to make a point. I know some may find my opinions a bit provocative, but that's what my 4 decades on this planet as a Black man have shown me.

              I think William Rhoden has some good points, but I think he gets a bit extreme. Hopefully I can catch the rebroadcast fo the show. I'd like to see what was said.
              Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

                Even the wealthiest athlete has not more than a few tens of millions of dollars to work with -- $100 million at most. That is a lot for an individual, but it is not much when you start to think about changing society.

                I think what is expected from athletes, and perhaps black athletes most, is token activism. We all saw the "The NBA Cares" commercials during the playoffs, and we've all seen the pictures of the Pacers handing out Thanksgiving meals and reading books aloud to children. Well, all of those were good gestures and make us think favorably of the players. But does reading one book aloud to some third-graders affect their academic achievement? Does dishing out one meal in November to homeless people mean they won't be hungry in December? No. The gestures that are expected of athletes are usually just token gestures.

                The main motivation for many of these gestures is tax law that allows you to start a foundation and not pay taxes on the money you gave away, so many of the most admirable gestures actually cost the donor nothing, anyway.

                The burden of social reform is on government and church -- the only two institutions with a large enough base of members to make a sustained, substantial difference across a whole city or nation.

                The Christian church is right to expect and demand its adherents to give money and time (and lots of it, week after week) to benefit the needy people around them, because that is what Christ taught and that is at the very heart of true religion. Civil society puts a similar burden on its citizens, but not a firm one. A democratic society can be compassionate one day and then say "To hell with the homeless" the next. But church and government are the only two institutions with sufficient means and a moral duty to care about society.

                But it is neither fair nor reasonable to expect the rich (black or white) in general to fix society just because they are rich. I don't think the question should be argued especially about black people, and if it doesn't make sense for everyone then it's not right to say "black people should..."

                Occasionally you get an Andrew Carnegie or a Bill Gates who decides it would be fun to throw some millions back at the world, but the rich are seldom going to be the fount of social reform.

                I'd very much like for more people to be charitable and socially active. But "because you are rich" is never going to be reason enough to demand it from anyone. And neither is "because you are rich and black."
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

                  I think you're misinterpreting the message. I think what was being said is that the Black Athlete doesn't do enough for the Black community or for inproving is own work conditions in the NBA, not society as a whole.

                  Black athletes dominate the NBA, yet what have they done collectively to improve their lot. What have they done collectively to improve the Black community. I think there's a partial perception of "I got out and I'm not looking back."

                  I think the focus was on Black community and defining the Black man's role and power in the NBA. I got a bit of a problem with the plantation/slave analogy, though.
                  Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
                    Note - Jack did start a school in Port Arthur.
                    Yeah, he's a cancer alright.
                    What you do off the court, has zero bearing what you do on it.

                    I mean Michael Jackson raises/donates money to "Heal the Kids" quite often, but that doesn't mean he should be trusted with actual kids, now does it?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

                      Skaut, what exactly does the NBA player need to do to improve his
                      working condtion? To be an initiator of business or promoting family
                      unity would be a good place to start. Seed money for these areas
                      would be good also. Beyond that I believe the culture has to change
                      as you already noted.


                      owl
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Anyone see Quite Frankly tonight?

                        I believe that every person (regardless of wealth or poverty) has an obligation to work at improving his/her community (whether that community is well off or in shambles). Every single person, every single community.
                        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                        RSS Feed
                        Subscribe via iTunes

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X