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

Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

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

  • #16
    Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

    Originally posted by grace View Post
    A fair shake around here? Are you nuts?

    I for one have never liked Stephen, but even I feel bad about how this has all been spun so ridiculously out of control.

    Should he have been out at 3 in the morning anywhere during training camp? Probably not.

    Have I been out late at night when I had to work the next day? Yes. (Hard to believe I know.)

    Do I carry a gun? No, but if I did and someone had just run me over with a car I'd probably shoot it off too.
    Late night ? for someone who has to be at work at 3.30 PM ????
    It is equivalent to going home after a night out during a workday for someone starting at 9 AM of 8.30 PM

    Surely most of you go home later then that.

    People tend to ignore this, but Friday's training was scheduled to start at 3.30 PM
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      It's about character, and many of us have strong feelings that men of this type character do not have what it takes to make a deep playoff run this year.

      If fact, they have what it takes to PREVENT us from doing so. They are not just unhelpful, they are counterproductive.
      Originally posted by able View Post
      And who are you Oh Brute, to judge the character of others ?
      Heck, leave character out and just think about common sense and decision making. If they can't figure out that going out with weed in the car or visiting an establishment where the need to carry guns to protect ones self might need to be taken into account isn't the best idea in the current environment, then how can they be depended on to make good decisions later on the job?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

        OK - I'm just going to go stand in the corner. But I agree 100% with Kravitz on this - 100%! I have been around the Pacers every year of their existence and there has not even been a cumulative collection of incidents through 40 years that could compare to the last 3.

        And able, I'm sorry - as fans were will pass judgement on a players actions. Jackson to the Pacers is to me nearly equal to what Terrell Owens is to every team he has played on. Drama follows his every move.

        Having said that, I guess I should turn in my PD membership card .
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
          "Bentleys, Babes, Bullets and Blunts.''


          a new team slogan
          sad but true
          "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


          • #20
            Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

            I'm with Hicks 100%. I can't believe this I really can't. This makes me sick to see our city judge these men because they play basketball. Everything I have read paints them as the victims, really disappointing to see a fan base that just looks for every reason to throw certain players on this team under the bus. We ride together. Just as much as it is up to this team to win us back, it is up to us as fans to actually look and read into a situation rather than call for their heads based on passed actions. Jack is lucky to be alive and instead of supporting him some people are here to try to get rid of him? I am more ashamed to call myself a Pacers fan today because of these people than because of Stephen Jackson. These people this vast majority of the lynch mob to me are not true die hard Pacers fans, they are swing with the wind fair weather fans who have now piped off because they have had an avenue to do so. I am behind Jack, Tins, QUis, and Snap(for as long as he is with us) 100% I will cheer for them now even more, because I know there will be thousands more who won't. I am saddened for Jack that he has now become such an enigma that even when he gets run down by a car, he is still the one at fault. Sad, sad days for me to be part of such a fickle fan base.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

              Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
              are not true die hard Pacers fans,
              Excuse me! I have 40 years invested in this team, watching, listening, attending, buying. Don't give me that BS about being "a true fan". Come back to me when you have as much invested in this franchise as me.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                I can see that the mob has spoken. All I can do now is sit back, watch mob mentality claim its Nth victim, and hope the Pacers are smart enough to see this for what it really is, not what it was PERCEIVED to be. If the Pacers come away with a deep playoff run this year, I think they will survive this idiotic backlash.
                I believe this is a bit more than mob mentality. I must respectfully disagree with Hicks here. Whether the Pacers run deep into the playoffs this year or not, the perception of the team is deserved. I'm not claiming that players must be roll models or that they must be held to a greater standard. However, it is incumbant upon them to "do no damage". The "It's up to us" advertising was a good PR move for this team and, I think, would have made a difference. The fact that the Pacers pulled this advertising speaks volumes.

                Should the Bullets and Blunts crew be disciplined or suspended? Nah. Should they be held accountable for the further damage (real or perceived) they caused to this team? Absolutely.

                My $.02

                TWS
                "It's wanting to know that makes us matter."
                -- Tom Stoppard, Arcadia

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                  Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                  Excuse me! I have 40 years invested in this team, watching, listening, attending, buying. Don't give me that BS about being "a true fan". Come back to me when you have as much invested in this franchise as me.
                  So you honestly think its ok to try to crucify a man publicly who was run over by a car and who all the reports from the POLICE claim as a victim? If thats the case, and you see yourself as a true Pacer fan, then you have a deep dark hatred for Stephen Jackson. The man was not at fault here, at all.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                    Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                    So you honestly think its ok to try to crucify a man publicly who was run over by a car and who all the reports from the POLICE claim as a victim? If thats the case, and you see yourself as a true Pacer fan, then you have a deep dark hatred for Stephen Jackson. The man was not at fault here, at all.
                    Indy, whether he was a victim or not, he put himself in a situation that made any claim of victimhood questionable. As Rick said, he exercised bad judgement. Does that mean he should be run over? Of course not. But he also cannot expect a pass for creating the environment for this situation.

                    As for the earlier charge of not being a fan, I only speak for myself saying that this is just "one more thing." It would be nice for this team to be able to turn the corner. As a fan, I will still watch the games and root the team on. But my expectations are certainly lower knowing that mentally, this team will struggle to show real leadership and toughness.

                    TWS
                    "It's wanting to know that makes us matter."
                    -- Tom Stoppard, Arcadia

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                      Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                      So you honestly think its ok to try to crucify a man publicly who was run over by a car and who all the reports from the POLICE claim as a victim? If thats the case, and you see yourself as a true Pacer fan, then you have a deep dark hatred for Stephen Jackson. The man was not at fault here, at all.
                      No actually I can ride with him on that. What I can't ride with is his part in the brawl, his cursing at the coach, his jaw-jacking at the officials, his attitude when he is taken out, his need to carry heat into an alcohol establishment, his leadership in taking two new guys to a place that puts them in a position to be potential targets. That's all. I hope Jack has a full and properous career - somewhere else.
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                        Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                        No actually I can ride with him on that. What I can't ride with is his part in the brawl, his cursing at the coach, his jaw-jacking at the officials, his attitude when he is taken out, his need to carry heat into an alcohol establishment, his leadership in taking two new guys to a place that puts them in a position to be potential targets. That's all. I hope Jack has a full and properous career - somewhere else.
                        Fair enough I guess. To me though this is not that big of a deal. Thank God Jack is ok, I hope the people that fled the scene are caught and prosecuted and then we move on. Honestly outside of the weed its just not that big of a deal. Being out at 3am when you don't have to be to practice 3:30 the next afternoon is not that big of a deal. Did Jack maybe pick the wrong club to frequent? Surely. Should he be traded because of it? Not if I had any say in it.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                          Originally posted by twscholl View Post
                          Indy, whether he was a victim or not, he put himself in a situation that made any claim of victimhood questionable. As Rick said, he exercised bad judgement. Does that mean he should be run over? Of course not. But he also cannot expect a pass for creating the environment for this situation.

                          As for the earlier charge of not being a fan, I only speak for myself saying that this is just "one more thing." It would be nice for this team to be able to turn the corner. As a fan, I will still watch the games and root the team on. But my expectations are certainly lower knowing that mentally, this team will struggle to show real leadership and toughness.

                          TWS
                          I like this post. You walk down a dark alley in a dangerous area of town, you should expect to find trouble. That's the real world. The fact it is a legal right is irrelevant and should not even enter the conversation. You are still foolish if you do it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                            So true. So true. Judge not lest ye be judged.
                            Guys, that's pretty much the main thing we do on this board: make judgments.

                            Strong opinion = judgment

                            Articulating the way you see reality = judgment

                            Thinking people who make judgments are wrong = judgment

                            Not "liking" a certain player = judgment (try substituting Jax here with Saras or Croshere or Rick Carlisle or David Stern or George Bush and some of you Jax supporters will better relate to the idea of making judgments.)

                            Do I think Stephen Jackson or Tinsley should rot in Hell forever for their actions? No. I don't judge them that way.

                            Do I think God doesn't love them as much, or that he loves me more, because of their actions? No.

                            Do I think I am a better person than Jax? No (although it's a temptation for anyone to feel this way about others--see "judge not lest ye be judged" and "forgive us our sins and we forgive those who sin against us" and "lead us not into temptation."

                            Do I think Jax and Tins (particularly Jax) have demonstrated over time that they don't yet have the intention of changing their behavior (i.e. "character")? Yes.

                            Can I prove it? No.

                            You can't prove character (who can see the heart?), you can only observe trends.

                            Hicks and the other admins observe our trends and, sometimes, make the "judgment" that a line should be censored or a certain poster banned.

                            They usually don't do this on the first or second offense (like many of us don't think Marquis should be punished like Jax and Tins) because a trend hasn't developed yet to discern a person's character. When it does, the admins pull the trigger.

                            It is my opinion that TPTB should be able to observe the trends by now (character) and start pulling some triggers.

                            To be human is to make decision based on "judgments." To be diabolical is to hate someone and want them condemned. I can think you can do the former without the latter, although it is never easy.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                              What if I told you it was on instignation of Daniels they were there ?

                              No, not a far fetched idea, whispers in the background have it that they were at a concert after-party which was held in that establishment and celebrating the birthday of quis' brother's best friend
                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sat. article about shoot out at club rio (please place all sat. articles here)

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                What if I told you it was on instignation of Daniels they were there ?
                                Well, that would make a difference.

                                There would still be some issues, and I’ll get to that in a minute.

                                But first let me say that I like this exchange. You’re giving me new information (possibly) and challenging me to view the raw facts (trends, as it were) from your perspective.

                                Everyone has a unique perspective (just like a snowflake, La La La

                                Or, to say it like some theologians, everyone has their own unique part of the Divine essence--their divine spark.

                                So, you can help me, and I can help you in discerning the trends and better coming up with how to make a decision on someone. Because, really, I don’t think you or anyone else is saying that we should never make a judgment--never say it’s time to tell a person to move on. Even us Artest fanatics finally agreed the man had to go. I think what people say when they cite “judge not lest ye be judged” is that they think people should wait a little longer, give a person another chance, show a little more mercy and hope for the best.

                                Everybody has their breaking point. Some had it much earlier than I did for Ron Ron. I seem to have it a lot earlier than others for Jax.

                                But your insights and those of others could well indeed possibly cause me to change my mind (my “judgment”) that Jax’s past actions clearly inform a future of more pain and suffering for him, the team, and the fans.

                                Actually, another poster quoted “judge not lest ye be judged,” not you. And my response is that this knee jerk phrase sounds good and works initially, but isn’t operative in terms of making decisions, but rather regarding whether you have concern about someone in your heart or hate them.

                                You (Able) actually said, “Who are you?” to make a judgment. Which, actually, is a much better argument. The person making the judgment may not have much credibility. That is for you and others to decide. Sometimes they don’t.

                                Back on point: if your scenario of Marquis initiating the visit to a dumb place is correct, than I would be a little less upset but still concerned. Why? Birds of a feather flock together. Why wasn’t JO there? Why wasn’t Foster or Danny there? Probably because they don’t hang out with the kind of people who hold parties at questionable establishments, like Marquis brothers’ friend.

                                So, while it would take some of the onus off Jack, it would still reinforce the trend that action after action shows this guy to be the “kind of person” (character) who causes trouble for the team.

                                But I could be persuaded differently.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X