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

Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

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

  • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

    Originally posted by BruceLeeroy View Post
    I'm with BlueNGold. Remember this is obviously Tinsley and his friends version of the story because they've yet to find the shooters. Who knows what happened at the club before they were followed and shot at. Maybe it was nothing, but with Tinsleys history I doubt it.

    Dude's playing great though so I can handle it.
    Yes, Tins is playing great and we need him healthy. One more night out on West 38th street and you may see a casket one week and Travis Diener playing PG the next. Neither are things anyone wants to see.

    Comment


    • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

      Originally posted by johnnybegood View Post
      I've never understood why these guys with all this money don't just party at home...eliminate the variable of jealous nut jobs.
      I would imagine that partying at home gets pretty old after awhile. I'm not rich, but I have plenty of entertainment equipment/electronics to throw one hell of a party (I have been known to host events from time to time), but sometimes you just want to go out and be able to be in public like everybody else.

      There is nothing wrong with him wanting to go out and be in public, able to enjoy a night out on the town with friends and/or family. I would agree that maybe he should consider different places to go and hang out, but he may not feel comfortable at some of the more upscale places. Just because one has money, it doesn't make them a socialite. Given the fact that a lot of gold diggers and hangers-on probably frequent the upscale places trolling for celebrities or wealthy people to cob onto, maybe he wanted to hang out outside the public eye and fly under the radar. The only problem with that is that when you are rich, it is obvious to people who aren't tend to get jealous and realize that you have so much to lose.

      Tinsley (and others) is/are the victims here, and aside from the brother that returned fire, I'm fine with all of them getting nothing and I'm thankful nobody got hurt any worse than they did. The fool that was shooting back should face the same charges that Jackson faced after he decided to play Clive Owen in downtown Indy...Just because you are licensed to CARRY a firearm doesn't mean you are licensed to DISCHARGE said firearm. I could see a case of self defense when your life is in imminent danger where you wouldn't get charged with anything for firing your weapon. Maybe that will be the case here, maybe not.

      I'm usually the first to condemn this type of behavior, but I see no reason this time why Tinsley deserves any punishment at all.



      RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

      Comment


      • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

        Originally posted by BruceLeeroy View Post
        I'm with BlueNGold. Remember this is obviously Tinsley and his friends version of the story because they've yet to find the shooters. Who knows what happened at the club before they were followed and shot at.
        You mean, the person who felt it appropriate to carry a loaded assault rifle in their car? Yeah, I really think THEY'RE going to come forward and give their side of the events. "Well, we didn't have any drive-bys on the schedule so we decided to see if we could jack a couple nice cars, then these guys drove too fast and it made us angry so we shot at them."

        Look, if you're carrying an AK-47 around town, you're not some normal Joe who had one to many and went to get your piece from your truck. You're talking about somebody who wants to kill people (packing a Glock can be self-protection, but packing an AK means something different).

        Tinsley's lucky... we could have gotten up this morning and the papers could have said "Pacers Star Point Guard Shot and Killed in Attempted Car-Jacking."
        Last edited by Anthem; 12-09-2007, 05:09 PM.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

          Originally posted by heywoode View Post
          I'm usually the first to condemn this type of behavior, but I see no reason this time why Tinsley deserves any punishment at all.
          Exactly.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

            Shooting back is not a crime. His life was being placed in danger, and he was responding accordingly. Even if he had shot and killed the guy with the AK, he would not be going to jail.

            Comment


            • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Exactly right. And the pattern is that Tinsley is learning from past mistakes. What happened at 8 Seconds? Crazy three-fingered scam artist tries to pick a fight with the Pacers, and they fight back. Here, he sees trouble developing and gets the heck out of Dodge. That's absolutely the right thing to do.
              Perhaps he is learning....although I think if Jax had been there things might have turned out worse.

              IMO, Tinsley is not intending to go find trouble. The trouble has to do with WHERE he goes and nothing else....and on that point, he has not learned. He is certainly free to go wherever he wants in whatever ride he wants...at any time of the day, but common sense and reality says this is not wise.

              When you take your Rolls to the clubs on West 38th street at 3am you are lucky not to get jacked or shot...particularly when you have a have a group of people with you that get mouthy. Not saying that happened. That's just how it usually works. There are some people that go to bars to pick fights. Tins and his entourage will always be a target under those circumstances. That does not, however, relieve him from making the right choices.

              Comment


              • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                You mean, the person who felt it appropriate to carry a loaded assault rifle in their car? Yeah, I really think THEY'RE going to come forward and give their side of the events. "Well, we didn't have any drive-bys on the schedule so we decided to see if we could jack a couple nice cars, then these guys drove too fast and it made us angry so we shot at them."

                Look, if you're carrying an AK-47 around town, you're not some normal Joe who had one to many and went to get your piece from your truck. You're talking about somebody who wants to kill people (packing a Glock can be self-protection, but packing an AK means something different).

                Tinsley's lucky... we could have gotten up this morning and the papers could have said "Pacers Star Point Guard Shot and Killed in Attempted Car-Jacking."
                I hadn't seen where they said it was an attemted car jacking, but my point is this is their version of the story. He just seems to find himself in these situations more often than most. I'm glad he's ok though.

                Comment


                • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Exactly right. And the pattern is that Tinsley is learning from past mistakes. What happened at 8 Seconds? Crazy three-fingered scam artist tries to pick a fight with the Pacers, and they fight back. Here, he sees trouble developing and gets the heck out of Dodge. That's absolutely the right thing to do.
                  I give you that. Tins's behavior is improving. I truly commend him for getting away from the situation as soon as possible.

                  Nevertheless, he could have avoided the situation entirely by not going clubbing late at night and driving a Rolls Royce to make himself potentially more of a target.

                  How come Danny and Dun and Foster never seem to have these incidents? Probably related to the fact that they rarely or never go clubbing late at night. Just a hunch.

                  All of you who are saying Tins did nothing wrong, you are not in agreement with coach Jim O'Brien. That doesn't mean you're not right. But it does mean that those of us who believe Jamaal shares some responsibility for this latest incident aren't lone idiotic posters.

                  Here's what would make my year, and possibility endear Indy to Jamaal for a long time: JT holds a press conference and says the following:

                  "I did my very best to avoid confrontation during this last incident and am thankful for avoiding injury. I appreciate my brothers looking out for me, but it may have been best for them not to retaliate."

                  "I apologize to Indiana for yet another incident that could have been avoided if I had not placed myself in a potentially dangerous situation. While I believe I have the right to attend clubs and enjoy a nightlife like most human beings, for the good of the team this year, I have decided to not attend a night club for the rest of the year. Maybe next season, maybe not."

                  "I am also going to sell my Rolls Royce. Again, I have every right to drive it, but in order to eliminate any possible cause of incidents that embarrass the franchise, I'll avoid the appearance of flaunting my possessions to certain people who react irresponsibly to others success."

                  "I have my rights, but it's more important this year to focus on winning. We are making a great start, and I am committed to playing great basketball, avoiding distractions, making personal sacrifices, and working toward a deep run into the playoffs, even a championship."
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                    Like what you say McKey fan, but no need to sell the Rolls. Just use better judgement. Drive the Rolls to Keystone or something. Maybe even Castleton. This should not be difficult. I presume he could afford a pickup to drive to the hood.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      How come Danny and Dun and Foster never seem to have these incidents? Probably related to the fact that they rarely or never go clubbing late at night.
                      Do you know that?

                      All of you who are saying Tins did nothing wrong, you are not in agreement with coach Jim O'Brien.
                      Simply not true. Obie said "These guys have every right to go to a nightclub. I have a right, everybody here can be out till 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning." So for everybody in the thread (not you, specifically, SatanFan) who said they should be home is exactly wrong, and it's Jim O'Brien the disciplinarian who's telling you so.

                      The idea that Jamaal should apologize is preposterous, and completely outside of what Obie is saying.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                        Yeah...he should sell his car. That's reasonable.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Like what you say McKey fan, but no need to sell the Rolls. Just use better judgement. Drive the Rolls to Keystone or something. Maybe even Castleton. This should not be difficult. I presume he could afford a pickup to drive to the hood.
                          When you consider it has a bunch of bullet holes in it, it's probably a great PR move.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                            It doesn't matter who, or how many people, agree with the idea that it's Jamaal's fault for being there, it's still an idiotic concept. It is not illegal to be at a club. It is not illegal to drive a Rolls Royce. It is not even illegal to shoot and kill someone who's shooting at you.

                            I tell you what, figure out what crime Jamaal has commit and get back to me. Until then, this is a case that exactly mirrors the rape analogy, and I think everyone can agree you don't blame the rape victim.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                              So let me get this straight because certain people carry assault rifles and target athletes Tinsley should have to sell his Rolls-Royce and stop going to clubs? We still live in America right?
                              Jamaal Tinsley has every right to drive whatever kind of car he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants. The people who were carrying a loaded assault rifle can't say the same thing about their weapon.
                              I drive a nice car for someone my age, I don't go looking for trouble, but I have had some issues with people in the past. Thank God nothing like this, but to say that Tinsley is the one who should have to change his lifestyle because some people are not living in reality is ridiculous IMO.
                              Its horrifying to me that some are basically saying that the people driving the nice cars should have to sell their cars instead of saying that the city of Indianapolis needs to crack down an area of town that has gotten progressively worse over the past ten years. This should be more of a wake up call to the city than it should be for Jamaal Tinsley.
                              It was a Saturday night, he didn't have a game the next day and he was out til 3 AM (which believe it or not isn't that late). He was fully within his rights, his assailants were not. And as far as I'm concerned that is the bottom line to this story.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                "I am also going to sell my Rolls Royce. Again, I have every right to drive it, but in order to eliminate any possible cause of incidents that embarrass the franchise, I'll avoid the appearance of flaunting my possessions to certain people who react irresponsibly to others success."
                                I saw Payton's Hummer at a Pacer game. He pissed me off.
                                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X