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

8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

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

  • #16
    Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

    Originally posted by Frank Slade View Post
    Stranger by the day...



    2 and 2 so far is adding up to 5


    So only one actual Bar patron witnessed this ? And even the Bar Manager's lawyers says his clients injuries were exaggerated in the media ? Either this incident did not go down as has been reported or some money has exchanged hands. I think most likely it's the first scenario.
    Even more so when you consider that the guy that by every account LOST A TOOTH and was still there looking for it when the police arrived, wasn't even charged. How'd he lose the tooth? Accidentally?

    I assumed that at least he threw some punches in order to get punched in return.
    The 13 names include Pacer Keith McLeod and his friend Jeremy King, both of whom were cleared by the grand jury.
    Just the other day the story at WTHR as copied to PD was this
    The police report says Tinsley's first punch knocked the manager to his knees. That's when Daniels and McLeod's cousin started throwing punches. Police say the manager lost an ear lobe and it looked like he had a broken jaw.

    Tinsley and Daniels left before six off-duty police officers who were providing security in the parking lot were called inside. They say McLeod stayed out of the fight, but his cousin, Jeremy King, lost a tooth in the fray.
    2 + 2 = 5.3
    at least the way this is going, very inconsistant


    Originally posted by Since86
    Officers write down what they are told, not what they believe happened.
    err...
    Police say the manager lost an ear lobe and it looked like he had a broken jaw
    Looked like, but turns out he didn't. So in that case the officer apparently made a judgement/opinion call in his report.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      err...

      Looked like, but turns out he didn't. So in that case the officer apparently made a judgement/opinion call in his report.
      :rollseyes: That's not even close to what I was talking about, and you very well know it.

      He's not a medic, but it is part of his job to report injuries. Notice it didn't say he DID have a broken jaw.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

        This is not surprising at all. I've dealt with Indy prosecutors before and they will try to force through any case they can, regardless of evidence.

        This case will likely be thrown out. Something tells me Brizzi is trying to make something out of nothing to boost his rep here. Too many things don't add up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          This is not surprising at all. I've dealt with Indy prosecutors before and they will try to force through any case they can, regardless of evidence.
          And I've worked against them with the Marion County Public Defender's Office and can vouch that that's not accurate at all. By an overwhelming majority, they're just people trying to do their job to the best of their ability and do what they feel is right to protect the citizens of Central Indiana.
          Narf!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            :rollseyes: That's not even close to what I was talking about, and you very well know it.

            He's not a medic, but it is part of his job to report injuries. Notice it didn't say he DID have a broken jaw.

            you don't have to be a medic to notice if a guy is missing an earlobe or not...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

              Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
              If you would make a threatening verbal assault, you would find out quickly that you would be prosecuted for it, so don't give me that his celebrity status is the reason for his troubles.
              I disagree. And, by the way, that charge is a felony. A very serious charge against Tinsley.

              If the facts were that in the heat of the moment of an altercation with you I uttered, "I'm going to kill you"...then after we both calmed down, I walked away without following through with the threat, and without additional physical contact, I'd guarantee I would not be charged with a felony.

              You know why? What I did doesn't deserve a felony record. Additionally, from a practical stand point, the likelihood that a jury would convict me of a felony for that incident is probably 5%, or less. The words were just words that I obviously did not really mean. My walking away peacefully proves that.

              Get my point? The felony charge appears to be crap. The misdemeanor charges may have merit. Wasn't there. I don't know.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                Originally posted by Robobtowncolt View Post
                And I've worked against them with the Marion County Public Defender's Office and can vouch that that's not accurate at all. By an overwhelming majority, they're just people trying to do their job to the best of their ability and do what they feel is right to protect the citizens of Central Indiana.
                Not the case with who I dealt with. Of course, that was about 11 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  Not the case with who I dealt with. Of course, that was about 11 years ago, so maybe things have changed.
                  Maybe that's how that one prosecutor lived his life. Let's move on.....
                  Narf!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                    As I said previously, I'll wait until all the facts are in to make a judgement. It's getting stanger as more time passes.

                    It seems the bar owner may be more interested in preserving his customers . I suspect some Pacers drop some pretty big bucks at his place. Now the manager's injuries aren't as severe as previously reported. It could be (only speculating) that a stack of C-notes goes a long way in healing.

                    It could be that Tinsley is perfectly innocent. However, I do believe that he made the comment about the killing.

                    Regardless, if Tins and Quis are acquitted, the damage has already been done. The seed has been planted....lots of fans have already convicted them and like Simon says, attendance is down. That part of it is a reality. What to do about it is the big question. If people are convinced that they are guilty when in fact they are innocenct, you're not going to change their minds and force them to attend games.

                    Regardless of the outcome, it looks like a no-win situation for the Tins, Quis and the Pacers orginazation. A sad situation, indeed.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                      Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                      you don't have to be a medic to notice if a guy is missing an earlobe or not...

                      Do I really have to repost it?

                      That's not even close to what I was talking about, and you very well know it.

                      Whether or not he had a broken jaw, or a missing an ear lobe, isn't what's at the center of my comments. Officers just don't make up things and put them in their reports, especially witness statements (the exact things I was talking about).
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                        Originally posted by sixthman
                        I disagree. And, by the way, that charge is a felony. A very serious charge against Tinsley.

                        If the facts were that in the heat of the moment of an altercation with you I uttered, "I'm going to kill you"...then after we both calmed down, I walked away without following through with the threat, and without additional physical contact, I'd guarantee I would not be charged with a felony.

                        You know why? The crime does not fit the punishment. Additionally, from a practical stand point, the likelihood that a jury would convict me of a felony for that incident is probably 5%, or less. The words were just words that I obviously did not really mean. My walking away peacefully proves that.

                        Get my point? The felony charge appears to be crap. The misdemeanor charges may have merit. Wasn't there. I don't know.


                        Originally Posted by Elgin56
                        If you would make a threatening verbal assault, you would find out quickly that you would be prosecuted for it, so don't give me that his celebrity status is the reason for his troubles.

                        Note, I did not indicate in my post, that one would necessarily be convicted of this crime, only that they would be prosecuted for it. I think fans should not rush in and support players who have a propensity to give the Pacer organization black eyes on a regular basis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Do I really have to repost it?

                          That's not even close to what I was talking about, and you very well know it.

                          Whether or not he had a broken jaw, or a missing an ear lobe, isn't what's at the center of my comments. Officers just don't make up things and put them in their reports, especially witness statements (the exact things I was talking about).
                          my apologies, misread what you had said originally.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                            Maybe we should start a legal forum or a morality forum to talk about all this stuff. And I do understand why you'd want to talk about the details of all this stuff.

                            But I see the bigger issues here being: A) the public perception of the team, B) the effects on attendance/further smearing of the Pacer image, C) the effect this could likely have in front office decisions/player movement, and possibly D) potential locker room issues.

                            This is the fallout that will likely have any on-court repercussions...Not the potential conspiracy theories, legal intricacies and moral issues of going to certain places.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              Maybe we should start a legal forum or a morality forum to talk about all this stuff. And I do understand why you'd want to talk about the details of all this stuff.

                              But I see the bigger issues here being: A) the public perception of the team, B) the effects on attendance/further smearing of the Pacer image, C) the effect this could likely have in front office decisions/player movement, and possibly D) potential locker room issues.

                              This is the fallout that will likely have any on-court repercussions...Not the potential conspiracy theories, legal intricacies and moral issues of going to certain places.
                              My question is, if JT and Quis were completely innocent, would it even matter at this point?

                              I mean, they are supposedly innocent until proven guilty but this obviously has affected the Pacers in every single way you mentioned already.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 8 second saloon owner didn't even want to press charges

                                Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                                I am on Pacer fan who is sick and tired of criminal behavior by a few Pacer players, and more so by Pacer fans who stick their head into the sand and try to rationalize their bad behavior. Pacer fans should expect better and are now demanding it by not attending the games.
                                I'm sick of sitting next to PACERS FANS who I can tell are obviously drunk and whom I later see getting in their car to drive home, probably without even being properly arrested for this criminal behavior (it's still a crime even if you aren't caught, right?)

                                I refuse to go to games till someone cleans up the stands and gets the drinking under control. What kind of community are the Pacers trying to create. And while we are on the subject, what's with Colts tailgating? Don't tell me that public intox isn't involved with that tradition. Again the scoff-laws run free and the city turns a blind eye to the infractions.

                                I'm ready for someone to put their foot down and protect me from all of these people, and the Pacers too. I want to be able to go to Rio and start some s*** without being punched or having to run over someone just to get away.

                                (end sarcasm)

                                This is what I mean by the moral high horse going on. The Pacers ARE NOT GETTING A FREE PASS. They just haven't been found guilty yet. If they are plenty of people will be bothered by their behavior. Smash is right about one thing for sure, we already saw how this sort of posturing can destroy lives, as in the out of control Duke case.

                                Not only were the players hurt by the knee-jerk public reaction, but even the community ran into heated racial debates regarding the charges...all for no good reason, just because people ran with the initial story.


                                There have been TWO things, not a long history. People are just quick to dump on Tinsley now because they hated him before for having the disgusting, immoral behavior of being injured too much previously (how dare he).

                                And neither of those things has actually been a conviction of Tins or Quis. Jack looks the most likely to see a conviction from Rio, and that's moderate right now.

                                It's not a free pass to simply not judge until we have some idea of what REALLY happened, rather than go with gossip. Considering that a free pass is the immoral viewpoint, or at least it goes against society, which created the US legal system and promotes innocence until proven guilty.

                                Now I don't even mean the court judgement, though that should be a person's right. I'm willing to fudge and let a person carry their own opinion of how the case should have been judged...but that requires hearing the legal details on the case rather than going totally off of speculation, innuendo and assumption that the tabloids...err, news outlets carry.



                                I will call Tins a troublemaker and a problem when he is found guilty of starting trouble. Until then he is innocent, just like I would like to be if I got hauled in for something I didn't do (if his claims of innocence are true).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X