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

If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

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

  • #76
    Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

    Kstat,

    I'm going to answer one of the classic questions for you of all time. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? The answer... it all depends on who is pouring.

    Ron Artest has done some blatant things that have caught the ire of the Pacers fans. Getting into a fight with Legendary coach Mel Daniels tops the list. The dude has just made some poor decisions. So, I will acknowledge he has made some dirty plays, yet he has tamed considerably. With his reputation, if he makes that same move than it is played on Sports Center all day with "cheapshot artist" headlines.

    This I will guarantee you. If the roles were reversed, and Chauncey had his sore leg pulled and tripped by the opposition, you would be upset indeed. You can rationalize all you want how it is ok "because other people do it," but that is the worst defense of an argument of all time. The reason it is a bad defense is that it doesn't even address the issue. Hey if I rack up as much debt as I can, as long as my neighbor does it... it's ok! I'm exaggerating here, I just don't think it is sound logic to use.

    And btw, how did you feel watching what happened to Chauncey last year? How did you feel watching Isiah get setup? Did you just throw up your hands and say "Dems da' breaks boys," or were you ticked off? If you are being honest, I'm sure you had a different perspective. This is a Pacers forum for crying out loud, so I like to share my disgust with other Pacer fans. As you can see, some have agreed and some disagreed. Rarely is a post accepted universally... and I'm ok with that.

    I still find it amusing how many people think this thread is blaming the game on officiating. Very few people have stated that at all, but I'm sure we'll see 6 new faces say "The Pacers just lost the game." It is more than obvious to me that the officiating did not lose this game and I can't imagine more than 10% of the Pacers fan base believes it was lost on officiating. Face it, we missed wide open jumpers and Free throws, and as long as the men in black and white weren't guarding us... it's hard to blame them.

    The crux of most of this thread is simply saying, they sure didn't help us any.
    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
    Reggie Miller

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

      Was I upset? Sure. But there was nobody to be mad AT. Billups wasnt trying to further injure Jamaal's leg, he was trying to stop him from initiating an outlet pass. In that kind of situation, I would consider it pretty petty for me to begrudge another team for trying to win a game. If Jamaal's leg wasnt hurt, this wouldnt even be a TOPIC and everyone here knows it.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

        Okay, so if that happened to Billups in any other game would you call that a dirty play or shrug and say "Fair enough"? That's really what the question is.
        Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

          Okay, so if that happened to Billups in any other game would you call that a dirty play or shrug and say "Fair enough"? That's really what the question is.
          If Billups was hurt and he got tripped?

          -if it was for no reason, I'd be a little peeved.

          -if the guy was simply trying to stop a sure fast break, I'd have no animocity whatsoever. You cant worry about the other guy's injuries when you're trying to win a championship. You have to treat him like everyone else on the court.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

            I guess I do remember yelling at one of Ronnie Garretson's calls, because I yelled that his dad was 10x better as an official.
            Holy cow I thought I heard some Lunatic fan screaming that during the Game :P
            Hey, when I'm in the Fieldhouse, I wear my emotions on my sleeve.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

              I think it's ridiculous that anyone would expect Chauncy to stop and think, "Maybe I'd better not foul him. He's got a bad leg."

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                I think it's ridiculous that anyone would expect Chauncy to stop and think, "Maybe I'd better not foul him. He's got a bad leg."
                Agreed. Maybe the WNBA has a thread like this somewhere....... :P

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                  Tripping = Dirty

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                    I think it's ridiculous that anyone would expect Chauncy to stop and think, "Maybe I'd better not foul him. He's got a bad leg."
                    Agreed. Maybe the WNBA has a thread like this somewhere....... :P
                    Well, we will agree to disagree. I think you made a Freudian slip in your thread above when you said "if it was done for no reason" then you would be peeved. The game wasn't on the line and there were a million other fouls that could have been made to prevent that play. If a Piston was on the other end of the floor then one of those guys could foul the shooter. This wasn't the last five seconds of a game in crunch time... this wasn't a must have play.

                    I'm not asking everybody to take it easy on Jamal, so the WNBA reference is quite lame. How often do you see a guy get his leg pulled in mid air in stride? You probably see that about zero times per game. It is a particularly obvious and dirty foul.

                    If JT goes for a layup and gets a hard foul... I can live with that as he is on the floor with every other player. If he drives and someone intentionally whacks him in the leg or is conveniently there for him to land on their foot... that is the kind of crap I'm talking about. There is clearly a difference between playing the game hard and playing dirty. If people can't understand the difference it isn't worth discussing.

                    If yanking a guys leg in mid-air isn't dirty, what is? Taking out a pouch of sand and blowing it in his eyes or maybe supergluing his shoe to the floor? Or maybe a Wile E. Coyote TNT bomb... LOL You have to draw the line somewhere and this is clearly over the line. It's just like a hard foul to the basket. Everybody has to draw that line of when it has crossed over to dirty ball.

                    Yes, dirty basketball is played every night and Foster and Artest are the usual suspects for the Pacers. However, when they do it I'm objective enough to acknowledge it. Kstat, it is clear to me that you can not do that. Either that or you have a very unique definition of what is dirty and what is not. Of course since you probably grew up with the dirtiest basketball team of all time (which includes Isiah Thomas, and I graduated from IU) perhaps you have a different vantage point.

                    For the record, I don't think Billups is a dirty player, but that was clearly a dirty play.
                    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                    Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                      In case you haven't noticved, EVERY basket in this series is big. Fast breaks are momentum-changing plays, so when you can foul to prevent one you PREVENT ONE. Who's to say the fast break that Billups doesnt prevent wakes Indiana up and sparks them to victory? Momentum can EASILY swing on a play like that.

                      The only part of Tins that was within Chauncey's reach was his shoe, so thats what he grabbed. It was within the flow of the game. If you cant see that, then YOURE the one not looking at things objectively, not me.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                        Whatever.
                        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                          The only part of Tins that was within Chauncey's reach was his shoe, so thats what he grabbed. It was within the flow of the game. If you cant see that, then YOURE the one not looking at things objectively, not me.
                          LAME

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: If the NBA wasn't corrupt, the refs would be held accountable...

                            In case you haven't noticved,
                            thats what he grabbed. It was within the flow of the game.
                            What in the world does "in the flow of the game" mean? I can hammer somebody driving the lane as long as it is in the flow??? Reggie Miller is too small to grab Rasheed, so he did the next best thing and smashed his foot on his Plantar Fascitis, but it was all cool... it's in the flow!!!

                            You keep failing to answer a simple question... if grabbing a guys leg in mid stride and making him trip isn't dirty, what is?

                            I anxiously await your response.

                            “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                            motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                            Reggie Miller

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X