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

Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

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

  • #16
    Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    Remember the time he got Paul Pierce to throw an elbow during game 6 of a playoff series and we almost got a comeback win because of it?...Oh the good times...
    We did get a comeback win out of it! Pierce was ejected, and Carlisle picked Kendrick Perkins to shoot his free throws. Kendrick missed both, and we went to overtime, where we won the game.

    Or is that my selective memory again?
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

      i wonder if we could even get a 2nd round pick for Tinsley...
      If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
      [/center]
      @thatguyjoe84

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

        Originally posted by BigMac View Post
        According to my source the bar manager was also contacted by Pacers top brass to set up a meeting to (assumedly) make this go away. These attempt included personal phone calls from Larry Bird among others. The prosecutor, however, beat them to punch (pardon the pun).

        Now this is all heresay but I have a very reliable source who is close to the individuals involved. I hope that it is not true but if it is true can we trust the Pacers any more?
        I can tell you from personal experience that the Pacer's brass will do everything and anything they can to cover for their players, so I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being true.
        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


        • #19
          Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

          Originally posted by BigMac View Post

          I guess the thing that bothers me most is the email I got from Pacers.com stating that the players denied this. If it is proven they lied then Pacers.com (and PS&EG) promoted lies, knowingly or unknowingly, regardless.
          Sending information about what someone said is hardly the same as promoting what they said. The way you are stating it, 'everyone' who says the players say they are innocent could be promoting lies. That's hardly the case. And just because the information was sent doesn't mean management is condoning it.

          The information was sent no doubt to counteract all the people who are rushing to judgment. Management wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't remind people that the players are innocent until proven guilty. That being the case, it doesn't bother me at all that management is taking the stance they are.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

            Wait, Will, so say if an incident occurs, the accused comes to me and says that he/she didn't do it, and I keep his/her quote in writing. Then I proceed to make flyers with his/her statement that I place at the post office or the public library or wherever, and then I proceed to send a letter to everyone I know in th city that says "I just wanted you to know what this person said about his/her involvement in this incident". Are you telling me that I'm not promoting what they said? It sure seems like it to me!

            The Pacers are doing the digital equivalent of this! Instead of a high-traffic real location like the post office, it's Pacers.com. Instead of sending out snail-mail to people, they send an email.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              OK if Tinsley had punched the manager as claimed then I doubt he would have been able to handle the ball the way he did last night.

              Second after all the scrapes that he has been involved in on and off the court he has never had a physical run in with anyone.
              Just because someone hits someone else, doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't use their hand the next day. If you hit someone, and the majority of the energy is used on the "sweet spot" knuckles(pointer and middle finger), most of the time you won't break your knuckles. It's when people swing wildly and hit someone with their ring and pinky knuckles that they usually push back and subsequently break their knuckles.
              Also, I just posted the official police report, and the officer at the scene even states that JT's forehead was lacerated. (JT was wearing a navy blue headband at the game on Wednesday)
              "I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".--Bushwick Bill

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                Originally posted by Skipddr View Post
                Just because someone hits someone else, doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't use their hand the next day. If you hit someone, and the majority of the energy is used on the "sweet spot" knuckles(pointer and middle finger), most of the time you won't break your knuckles. It's when people swing wildly and hit someone with their ring and pinky knuckles that they usually push back and subsequently break their knuckles.
                Also, I just posted the official police report, and the officer at the scene even states that JT's forehead was lacerated. (JT was wearing a navy blue headband at the game on Wednesday)
                It is remarks like this that make my hair rise and get me in an awfully foul mood.
                You are directing attention to a blatant lie (if it was stated that he was, which in this case it isn't) you just made up yourself.

                1: the report says "may"
                2: the report is filed 36 hours after it "happened" and it is still (4 days later) unknown what the "injuries" were, no hospital records are available.
                3: Tinsley was interviewed after the game (and removed his headband also at the end of the game) and showed no signs of being injured, not a scratch.
                4: The entire report is "hearsay" and as a lawyer I could probably rip it apart so badly you'd be willing to summise that it was something completely different they you are reading.

                Stay with the facts, not knowing them is not shameful, just wait and we'll learn.

                THEN is it time to "judge".
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                  I don't see how the facts will ever come out of it anymore than what people who were their will claim to have happened.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I don't see how the facts will ever come out of it anymore than what people who were their will claim to have happened.
                    Ok I'm in a hurry out of the door, but let me ask you one question:

                    If you are sitting on a vid of this, even on your phone, what would ESPN/station offer you for it ?
                    What do you think you can get for it ?

                    If there are multiple, why not on youtube ?

                    Now take that answer, add it to the lack of hospital report, late filing of report (no wonder it broke late) and a few more "little intangibles" and then you tell me on whether you think you would ever get a conviction.

                    So what does it end up to be.
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                      I'm not trying to imply that there will ever be a conviction. Between lack of evidence and potentially the support of the Pacers, I think these players won't have any major legal trouble.

                      But I am saying that we won't TRULY know much more than we already do, unless video/pictures get out.

                      And sadly, whether they did it or not, it's believable that they did thanks to the Pacers new reputation established Nov. 2004.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        It is remarks like this that make my hair rise and get me in an awfully foul mood.
                        You are directing attention to a blatant lie (if it was stated that he was, which in this case it isn't) you just made up yourself.

                        1: the report says "may"
                        2: the report is filed 36 hours after it "happened" and it is still (4 days later) unknown what the "injuries" were, no hospital records are available.
                        3: Tinsley was interviewed after the game (and removed his headband also at the end of the game) and showed no signs of being injured, not a scratch.
                        4: The entire report is "hearsay" and as a lawyer I could probably rip it apart so badly you'd be willing to summise that it was something completely different they you are reading.

                        Stay with the facts, not knowing them is not shameful, just wait and we'll learn.

                        THEN is it time to "judge".
                        Not to mention that he ALWAYS wears the headband. Anyone pointing that out as if it were an indication of guilt has clearly not seen a single Pacer game in the last 4 years and should be banned from the forum.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                          Originally posted by able View Post
                          Ok I'm in a hurry out of the door, but let me ask you one question:

                          If you are sitting on a vid of this, even on your phone, what would ESPN/station offer you for it ?
                          What do you think you can get for it ?

                          If there are multiple, why not on youtube ?

                          Now take that answer, add it to the lack of hospital report, late filing of report (no wonder it broke late) and a few more "little intangibles" and then you tell me on whether you think you would ever get a conviction.

                          So what does it end up to be.

                          So why haven't we seen the Stephen Jackson video? We know it exists....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I'm not trying to imply that there will ever be a conviction. Between lack of evidence and potentially the support of the Pacers, I think these players won't have any major legal trouble.

                            But I am saying that we won't TRULY know much more than we already do, unless video/pictures get out.

                            And sadly, whether they did it or not, it's believable that they did thanks to the Pacers new reputation established Nov. 2004.


                            Not only that, but Tinsley and Daniels claiming they didn't do it IS JUST AS MUCH HERESAY AS THE ACCUSERS. Calling half the story facts and the other half heresay is a bit disrespectful to one side of the story.

                            We have an equal number of people on both sides of the claim. If we're waiting to make claims, let's wait for both sides.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                              Originally posted by Skipddr View Post
                              Just because someone hits someone else, doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't use their hand the next day. If you hit someone, and the majority of the energy is used on the "sweet spot" knuckles(pointer and middle finger), most of the time you won't break your knuckles. It's when people swing wildly and hit someone with their ring and pinky knuckles that they usually push back and subsequently break their knuckles.
                              Also, I just posted the official police report, and the officer at the scene even states that JT's forehead was lacerated. (JT was wearing a navy blue headband at the game on Wednesday)
                              Without an awful lot of experience in that regard, it would still seem that even without breaking your knuckles you are going to have some bruises to your hand.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tinsley and Daniels May Not Be Truthful In Their Story (per My Source)

                                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                                So why haven't we seen the Stephen Jackson video? We know it exists....
                                If you fail to see the difference between video taken from a security camera (DVR or VCR inside premises) and a "capture" from a mobile phone (or multiple as is suggested in the press) then the entire discussion becomes moot.

                                For clarity reasons, the 1st (security recording) can be obtained easily by the police.
                                I have no idea on local laws, but I do know for 100% certain that here it is law for every pub/restaurant/club to have cameras recording during all opening hours and to retain the recording for a minimum of 7 days.
                                Yet from "Tremors" there is no sec vid available.
                                "seemingly" (again this is hearsay) there are "mobile phone recordings"
                                To suggest that ppl "might" either make these public or "sell" them to someone who is willing to pay serious money for it is definitely not to far fetched.

                                To suggest that someone other then the club's (Rio in this case) management or the local authorities can obtain the security recordings is far further from the possibilities though I would not rule it out.
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X