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

usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

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

  • usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

    I was traveling this past week, and reading USA Today. They are taking votes for the all time top 5 players for each NBA team.

    Cast your votes for the greatest players in the history of the Indiana franchise, including the ABA era, at http://highfives.usatoday.com. Pick up next Thursday's edition for the results.


    The list of players has some head scratchers, both on the included and snubbed list.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
    - Margaret Mead

  • #2
    Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

    I saw that last night and voted twice. It should generate sme debate anyway.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

      Right now this is the top 5 based on vote totals:

      1. Reggie Miller
      2. George McGinnis
      3. Jermaine O'Neal
      4. Mel Daniels
      5. Detlef Schrempf

      The rest:

      6. Mark Jackson
      7(tie). Chuck Person and Roger Brown
      8. Billy Knight
      9. Ron Artest

      Big Omits:

      Rik Smits
      Dale Davis

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

        I voted for:

        Reggie, Mel, George, Roger, and JO.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

          This isn't intended to be a knock on JO and I do think he's a great player. In the whole scheme of things, I think history will show he really only had a few good seasons for the Pacers. His second, third & fourth years as a Pacer were standout seasons. I mean the Pacers (as of today)are 339-303 and hovering just above .500 ball for his tenure. After this season, JO led Pacer teams will have 4 1st round exits and two (likely) missed playoffs in eight seasons. I don't view him as an all-time great. Injuries are injuries. Nobody is clamoring for Kellogg to be on this list, are they?
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

            The USA poll is old news as far as who the fans voted as the top five "Best Ever" Pacers in franchise history (or however one would like to label them).

            JO was voted as the #3 best followed only by Reggie Miller and Mel Daniels. Ranked as #4 and #5 were Rik Smits and George McGinnis, respectively. You can view the list of the top 12 greatest Pacers here in the article, "Pacers 40th Anniversary Team".

            I'd be interested, however, to see where JO stacks up now considering his recent injury and the length of time he's been off the court this season. Does he still rank within the top five as is the case with NaptownMenace or would he now be viewed as "over-rated" as the good Dr. now labels him?

            Hmmmm....
            Last edited by NuffSaid; 03-21-2008, 11:30 AM. Reason: Added additional commentary

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

              When Daniels and McGinnis were going well for the Pacers, in a last second game they ran "give the ball to Roger so he can win the game and we can have a beer"...and he's not currently in the top 5....sad
              Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                I'd be interested, however, to see where JO stacks up now considering his recent injury and the length of time he's been off the court this season. Does he still rank within the top five as is the case with NaptownMenace or would he now be viewed as "over-rated" as the good Dr. now labels him?

                Hmmmm....

                JO still makes the my top 5.

                I think when he's been healthy, he's been a great player and even with the injuries he's on pace to break several franchise records. If he comes back to play and stays with the Pacers through the end of his contract, he could end up as 2nd all-time in points and rebounds. He's already number 1 in blocked shots. He's been to 6 All-Star games (tied for franchise record with George McGinnis), led the league in blocks in 2001, won the MIP award in 2002, and led the team to the 2003 ECF.

                His overall average in 8 seasons with the Pacers is 19.1 ppg, 9.9 rebs, and 2.4 blks.

                Holds Indiana Pacers franchise records for:[4]
                Most blocks, game: 10 (January 22, 2003 vs. the Toronto Raptors)
                Most blocks, season: 228 (2000-01)
                Most rebounds, game, playoffs: 22 (Game 5, 2003 Eastern Conference First Round)
                Highest rebounding average, playoff series: 17.5 (2003 Eastern Conference First Round)
                Most free throws attempted, game: 25 (January 4, 2005 vs. the Milwaukee Bucks)


                Good numbers overall and better than Smits, Chuck, Scrempf, or Billy Knight. I'd be interested in hearing who people think should make the top 5 instead of JO.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                  Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                  I voted for:

                  Reggie, Mel, George, Roger, and JO.
                  That's my Top 5 as well.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                    Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                    When Daniels and McGinnis were going well for the Pacers, in a last second game they ran "give the ball to Roger so he can win the game and we can have a beer"...and he's not currently in the top 5....sad
                    Isn't it though
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                      Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                      I voted for:

                      Reggie, Mel, George, Roger, and JO.
                      I chose the same 5. I can't believe that Detlef is getting more love than Roger. I guess that proves a lot of Pacers fans don't know squat about the history of the franchise.
                      Life's a piece of ****
                      When you look at it
                      Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
                      You'll see it's all a show
                      Keep 'em laughing as you go
                      Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
                      ------- Eric Idle

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                        I would say the JO debate centers around whether you're trying to select "The Five Greatest Pacers" or "The Five Best Basketball Players to Play for the Pacers." To me, JO is unquestionably on the second list. The first is up for debate (though I also say yes to that).
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                          Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                          I voted for:

                          Reggie, Mel, George, Roger, and JO.
                          Same here
                          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                            Reggie, Mel, George, Roger, and M. Jackson

                            JO has a little more to prove. I just think Jackson had a bigger impact when he was here than JO has. Much love for JO though, as he is actually my favorite, current Pacer, believe it or not. A case could be made that Jackson didn't play enough seasons here, but whatever.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: usatoday.com - high fives - Pacers up next week

                              Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                              This isn't intended to be a knock on JO and I do think he's a great player. In the whole scheme of things, I think history will show he really only had a few good seasons for the Pacers. His second, third & fourth years as a Pacer were standout seasons. I mean the Pacers (as of today)are 339-303 and hovering just above .500 ball for his tenure. After this season, JO led Pacer teams will have 4 1st round exits and two (likely) missed playoffs in eight seasons. I don't view him as an all-time great. Injuries are injuries. Nobody is clamoring for Kellogg to be on this list, are they?
                              I agree with this somewhat, but at the same time you just don't fall *** backward into 19-10. If we are going to knock him for his FG% stat (for good reason), we have to also give credit for his points, rebounds and blocks. He's WAY up the list in all those categories, as well as being the all time leader in NBA all-star appearances.

                              I can see how some people now reflect on his career and find it to be meh, but the fact is that it hasn't been. You swap JO for Dale in 1993 and he puts up the numbers he has but with that roster around him, he's suddenly part of all-time teams with ECF and even Finals runs in his career. Rik struggled with his own foot injuries for years, but here he is with people wondering why he wasn't listed and with the occasional "retire his number" rumblings. I assure you that back in the day when he was gimping around a lot of fans were fed up with him and ready to see him moved.


                              I also think Detlef gets overlooked by the late-to-the-game crowd, the fans that weren't old enough or just didn't care enough to pay attention prior to the ECF runs. McKey eased up the scoring jam I'll agree, but I think even with Detlef and his lesser defense the Pacers could have made the same ECF runs once Brown came on board. He certainly did well enough for Karl and the Sonics who had a few serious defenders around him at the time (meaning they cared about D).

                              I know he is 5th here, but in day to day discussion he gets overlooked. Back to back 6th Man WINS, and an All-Star appearance back when it was rare (Reggie only had 1 or 2 by that point). But because all the Reggie highlights came after the trade for McKey he often gets forgotten. At the time of the trade I'd suggest that Detlef was the bigger Pacer star (again, no Reggie miracles yet). Certainly he was much more of a triple double type of threat.

                              Rik is a classic, but it's only the fact that he was here longer that makes him in any way a better Pacer than Det.


                              Having said all that for JO, I didn't put him on my list. Reg, Mel, Mac, Rajah, Detlef


                              BTW, how disgusting is it that they left Ferrell off this list, not to mention no Sanders.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-21-2008, 11:52 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X