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

Cheating

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

  • #31
    Re: Cheating

    Originally posted by TheDon View Post
    Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot
    I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson
    How you can possibly diss JO and Jack tonight is just beyond me. I am still SHOCKED that Tinsley basically forgot Stephen was on the floor for about the last 15 minutes of the damn game.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Cheating

      Originally posted by TheDon View Post
      Would you have rather him passed to Al
      Or maybe Jermaine on a bad foot
      I know how about stephen "the streak" jackson

      honestly granger was the only safe bet and he had a 7foot sasquatch on him all night
      Dirk was guarding JO down the stretch. Tinsley was not patient enough on several occasions to let JO get position in the post. As good as Nowitzki was, there's still no D in Irk, so you have to exploit that mismatch, IMO.

      Tinsley was eating Terry alive anyway, so it wasn't that bad to keep going to that well either, I suppose. But if you're gonna penetrate like that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT go 0 for 2 at the line in the final minute. Unacceptable and disgusting is what that was right there.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Cheating

        If I didn't know any better, I would think that those complaining about the officiating, don't watch many NBA games. Come on, the officials didn't lose this game for the Pacers, the Pacers just didn't finish. The game was there for the taking, they just let it slip away. Can the officials help it if players go for a simple head fake and jump into the shooter. You all sound like a bunch of grade school kids at recess.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Cheating

          Originally posted by PostArtestEra View Post
          I agree with you guys clearly Tinsley is the reason we lost this game. No doubt about it, just look at the stats. I mean he... he uhhh... oh wait Tinsley clearly had a great game.
          P.S. If Tinsley gets both free throws from the line we have a three point lead with a minute to go. To say "if Tinsley hits those free throws we win in regulation" is quite a God Damn assumption.
          Thank god someone else who see's the light. You people quick to point fingers at your own team for the sake of the refs!! I don't even like Tinsley but you can't put this loss on his shoulders. Look at Al's stats then look at Tinsley's...tell me who's fault it is and try to keep a straight face while you type tinsley.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Cheating

            Originally posted by ajbry View Post
            How you can possibly diss JO and Jack tonight is just beyond me. I am still SHOCKED that Tinsley basically forgot Stephen was on the floor for about the last 15 minutes of the damn game.
            No not a dis. Just reality jermaine wasn't 100% and please don't tell me you think Jack is consistent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Cheating

              Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
              Come on, the officials didn't lose this game for the Pacers, the Pacers just didn't finish. The game was there for the takeing, they just let it slip away. Can the officials help it if players go for a simple head fake and jump into the shooter.
              Agreed. (Surprisingly.)

              Accumulatively, I was not happy with the refs either. But on a case-by-case basis those were all pretty standard calls. JO did tap Dirk's elbow on that top-of-the-key jumper. And while the Jason Terry "three attempt" was completely absurd, it's hard to get to upset when A) Tinsley recklessly jumped towards him, and B) our retired Pacers legend basically invented that move. It sucks, but you can't not call that as a ref.

              JO might have gotten fouled on that last jumper in regulation, but I dunno. And 2nd-year-player Danny Granger is just not gonna get a foul called after a scrum for an O-board and a hurried put-back attempt in traffic with 1 second left in the game. And the similar one in OT looked like a fairly clean block.

              They all did seem to go one way, but individually, most of them weren't that bad.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Cheating

                Originally posted by PostArtestEra View Post
                I agree with you guys clearly Tinsley is the reason we lost this game. No doubt about it, just look at the stats. I mean he... he uhhh... oh wait Tinsley clearly had a great game.
                P.S. If Tinsley gets both free throws from the line we have a three point lead with a minute to go. To say "if Tinsley hits those free throws we win in regulation" is quite a God Damn assumption.
                yea its an assumption. so what
                Pacers would have been up by three and Terry's tre would not have cuased us to waste a 20.( another assumption)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Cheating

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  Agreed. (Surprisingly.)

                  Accumulatively, I was not happy with the refs either. But on a case-by-case basis those were all pretty standard calls. JO did tap Dirk's elbow on that top-of-the-key jumper. And while the Jason Terry "three attempt" was completely absurd, it's hard to get to upset when A) Tinsley recklessly jumped towards him, and B) our retired Pacers legend basically invented that move. It sucks, but you can't not call that as a ref.

                  JO might have gotten fouled on that last jumper in regulation, but I dunno. And 2nd-year-player Danny Granger is just not gonna get a foul called after a scrum for an O-board and a hurried put-back attempt in traffic with 1 second left in the game. And the similar one in OT looked like a fairly clean block.

                  They all did seem to go one way, but individually, most of them weren't that bad.
                  Good post.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Cheating

                    Also...I'm not trying to apologize for Tins missing those free throws, because that was horrible...but he did step up and make a very good defensive play on Terry to get us the ball back with the score tied for the final shot of regulation.

                    You can say it was his fault we were even in that situation, but that's a big play for a slow-of-foot, bad defender guarding a guy with as much quickness and ball-handling ability as Jason Terry.

                    Just saying.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Cheating

                      Originally posted by marcus View Post
                      yea its an assumption. so what
                      Pacers would have been up by three and Terry's tre would not have cuased us to waste a 20.( another assumption)
                      I don't feel like getting into a semantic discussion on the butterfly effect, but suffice it to say that if Tinsley hits those free throws the rest of the game plays out differently. By your logic if Granger makes the free throw he missed we win the game in regulation.
                      "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


                      • #41
                        Re: Cheating

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        Dirk was guarding JO down the stretch. Tinsley was not patient enough on several occasions to let JO get position in the post. As good as Nowitzki was, there's still no D in Irk, so you have to exploit that mismatch, IMO.
                        QFT

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        Tinsley was eating Terry alive anyway, so it wasn't that bad to keep going to that well either, I suppose. But if you're gonna penetrate like that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT go 0 for 2 at the line in the final minute. Unacceptable and disgusting is what that was right there.
                        You have to be joking. Yes, you absolutely cannot go 0 for 2 from the line in the final minute, BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE!

                        Tinsley not only choked, he shot 58% from the line, 38% from the floor and allowed Terry to score 30 points! Who the f did the eating here? Seriously. Your post reads (at least to me) as if you mean it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Cheating

                          J.T. bad defence on fouls at the end fouling Terry twice for 3 point chances ( just lucky he missed one freethrow) then J.T. MISSING 3 freethrows was very costly. He cost us the game in Dallas and now at home. He is one bad decision maker at the end and his butt should have been on the BENCH ! Pacers will never win big games as long as he is here.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Cheating

                            I dislike JT as much as anyone, but if you are blaming him for the loss than I have to wonder if you were watching the same game I was. With a few rare exceptions Jamaal tried to create a shot when the play broke down and someone had to do something.

                            Yes this was a poorly officiated game - but that is not why we lost

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Cheating

                              Originally posted by BBALL56HACKER View Post
                              J.T. bad defence on fouls at the end fouling Terry twice for 3 point chances ( just lucky he missed one freethrow) then J.T. MISSING 3 freethrows was very costly. He cost us the game in Dallas and now at home. He is one bad decision maker at the end and his butt should have been on the BENCH ! Pacers will never win big games as long as he is here.
                              !! That is all.
                              "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


                              • #45
                                Re: Cheating

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I dislike JT as much as anyone, but if you are blaming him for the loss than I have to wonder if you were watching the same game I was. With a few rare exceptions Jamaal tried to create a shot when the play broke down and someone had to do something.

                                Yes this was a poorly officiated game - but that is not why we lost
                                "Someone had to do something" is a very common explanation for Tinsley taking the game into his hands. One thing is certain. We are in real trouble if he is our go-to guy going forward. His effectiveness in this role is questionable at best.

                                I think if you just handed the ball to Jack or Granger and have them force a shot, you might have better results. 26% from 3 is better than 38% from 2. I think we could force more 3's and do better.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X