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

Pacers/COLTS comparison

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

  • Pacers/COLTS comparison

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...10355/0/NEWS02



    April 21, 2008

    Colts player facing charges after arrest outside night club
    Star report

    Indianapolis Colts running back Kenton Keith was arrested early Sunday after refusing to leave a Westside nightclub, according to a police report.
    The incident occurred at the Cloud 9 nightclub, 5150 West 38th St., just after 3 a.m.

    During the episode Keith kept repeating "I am a Colts player," police said.

    Police officers and security guards were attempting to clear the parking lot after the club closed when they noticed that Keith, 27, 6700 block of Echo Lane, and other men with him were not leaving. According to the police report, the men ignored several requests to leave and began to dance, yell and lean into cars in the parking lot.
    After telling the men several times to leave, police told them to put their hands on a vehicle. Keith initially refused and tried to pull out a cell phone to record the incident, according to the report. He eventually was handcuffed while officers sorted things out.
    According to the police report, Keith "kept hollering that he was a Colts player, he wasn't doing anything wrong, and he would leave when he was ready."
    Keith was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting law enforcement, public intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as another man with him was 19.

    He was released Sunday after posting a $1,000 bond.

    Formal charges have not yet been filed. Prosecutors were granted a 72-hour continuance and have until Wednesday to file charges against Keith, said Matt Symons, spokesman for Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

    The other people with Keith were released after cooperating with police.
    Keith has been with the Colts for one season, when he rushed 121 times for 533 yards and scored four touchdowns.
    He scored 29 touchdowns during the previous four seasons in the Canadian Football League.

    The reason I post this on the Pacers board is to show that even the best run franchises cannot babysit grown men. So this isn't limited to the Pacers. The COLTS, by and large, are considered a good group of guys, but you can't always tell what guys will do when given money and free time. The one thing I'll say is that since NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, they have greater liberty to simply release these guys, than do NBA teams. But I want to watch and contrast how the COLTS deal with this nonsense, as opposed to the Pacers. Also, I think the NBA would change their culture if David Stern would crack down in the NBA like Goodell is doing in the NFL.
    Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 04-21-2008, 12:00 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

    The NFL has a bigger problem with off the field incidents than the NBA. Not even close. Rae Carruth, Darrell Russell, Pacman Jones, etc..not to mention far more rampant steroid use.

    To be fair, the NFL also has about 4 times as many players, so the chances of an incident happening are greater by sheer probability.

    As far as Roger Goodell cracking down, Pacman Jones looks like he's going to get reinstated. What would this board's reaction be if Pacman Jones played in the NBA and Stern allowed him to keep playing after his string of incidents?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

      I wonder how Tinsley got ahold of a fake ID showing he was Kenton Keith?

      dastardly.


      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

        Well, Pacman got suspended for a year. Considering the law hasn't really done anything to him I'm not sure what else Goodell is supposed to do. Of course when he gets reinstated and then he gets in trouble again that's a whole other story.

        As for Keith maybe the Raiders would like another running back. Idiot.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
          I wonder how Tinsley got ahold of a fake ID showing he was Kenton Keith?

          dastardly.


          WRONG!!!!



          In truth I think we've finally tracked down the guys that were waiting in the parking lot for Tinsley and then tried to gun him down at the Conrad.
          IYF



          But seriously, given what happened to Tins and the time of night it was when that went down, wouldn't it seem like Cloud 9's parking lot at 3 AM might not be the safest place to be, period?

          Of course what am I thinking, it's not like black on black crime is a problem or anything. I'm sure he was perfectly safe.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

            You would think that athletes would learn to stay away from Cloud 9.

            Grown men cannot be babysitted, I agree with that. But if something like this does occur, in most cases the player needs to be sent someone else, bought out, or cut. Kenton Keith has been known for being a head case already so my best guess is that he won't be back.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

              We are talking about ex-Colt Kenton Keith right? A guy that can't catch critical passes - well any passes - becomes an ex with stupidity like this.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                Originally posted by johnnybegood
                The one thing I'll say is that since NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, they have greater liberty to simply release these guys, than do NBA teams.
                Eventhough the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, there is a penalty for just cutting players outright, when a signing bonus is used to sign a player.

                Most of us that whine about NBA contracts don't usually fully look at the NFL contract. Signing bonuses are almost always used to sign players. Signing bonuses are factored into the NFL's hard cap over the life of the contract. Here's the rub that most of you don't acknowledge when you say, "just cut a guy like they do in the NFL..."

                The TOTAL amount of the signing bonus comes off the cap the year that player is cut!!!! A guy like the Colts Kenton Keith will not be a hard hit against the cap if/when they cut him. I don't think Keith even had more then a one year contract. He may just not be asked back for next season. Say a guy with a sizable contract gets caught up in some trouble. I can guaran"damn"tee you that he won't be cut outright considering how the Colts are always tight to the cap.

                If the NFL had a "soft cap" like the NBA, this wouldn't be a big deal, but with a "Hard Cap" this is an enourmous consideration since most NFL teams are right up to that hard cap after signing rookies and resigning their own needs via re-signing their own or F.A.'s (Remember, there isn't a rookie scale in the NFL...like in the NBA. Top drafted NFL rookies come right out earning veteran contracts...or... HOLD OUT IF THEY DON'T!!!!!!).

                For those that don't know, a Hard Cap means, if you are not under this number, your team doesn't take the field!!! This is requirement. Remember when T.O. was giving the Eagles all that trouble? The Eagles would have loved to just cut him out right, but they ended up having to pay him to stay away/home because the Eagles wouldn't have been able to resign any of their own F.A's that year if they would have just simply cut T.O.
                Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 04-21-2008, 05:57 PM. Reason: put the wrong name in the quote box. Sorry ABADays!
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                  This is a very arguable comparison. Everything I've heard up until my post is good, except the fact that athletes will do whatever they want regardless of the rules/guidelines in place by their teams TB.

                  As much as a league is going to "crack down" on behavior like this, the more that the players are going to disobey. They're going to want to have fun, they're going to do it. It's up to them about the desicions they make. The leagues are doing everything they can.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                    Given the current atmosphere, the big difference here is that a Pacer wouldn't have had the opportunity to repeatedly state "I'm a Pacer" - the cops would have shot him the first time he said it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                      Originally posted by RomanGabriel View Post
                      Given the current atmosphere, the big difference here is that a Pacer wouldn't have had the opportunity to repeatedly state "I'm a Pacer" - the cops would have shot him the first time he said it.
                      That is considered police brutality.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                        Originally posted by RomanGabriel View Post
                        Given the current atmosphere, the big difference here is that a Pacer wouldn't have had the opportunity to repeatedly state "I'm a Pacer" - the cops would have shot him the first time he said it.
                        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                        That is considered justifiable use of force.
                        fixed.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          fixed.
                          I doubt that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                            Originally posted by johnnybegood View Post
                            The reason I post this on the Pacers board is to show that even the best run franchises cannot babysit grown men. So this isn't limited to the Pacers. The COLTS, by and large, are considered a good group of guys, but you can't always tell what guys will do when given money and free time. The one thing I'll say is that since NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, they have greater liberty to simply release these guys, than do NBA teams. But I want to watch and contrast how the COLTS deal with this nonsense, as opposed to the Pacers. Also, I think the NBA would change their culture if David Stern would crack down in the NBA like Goodell is doing in the NFL.
                            Yes, it's difficult to babysit grown men making millions. ...and yes, the Colts have a few warts as we all do. However, I would not go there (comparing the Pacers in any way with the Colts on this topic).

                            First, the Colts have 80 players. Let's say the Pacers generated 10 incidents in the last 5 years, the Colts would have to have had 50 similar incidents to be reach some semblance of an equivalent number. Instead, the Colts had LESS incidents clearly by a large margin. Second, the most talented players including several in the starting 5 have represented the bulk of the incidents on the Pacers. The backups on the Colts have been the bad apples. BTW it's a shame John Edwards and Saras didn't rack some of the violations. If that had happened, this team would probably be playing in the playoffs right now.

                            As for how the Colts have responded as you say, they almost immediately cut their last backup running back for a DUI...barely illegal BAC....a backup that was quite valuable in the championship run. In addition, I never heard Dungy say "we don't want no milk drinkers" on the Colts. Nah, it's not even close.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers/COLTS comparison

                              Originally posted by RomanGabriel View Post
                              Given the current atmosphere, the big difference here is that a Pacer wouldn't have had the opportunity to repeatedly state "I'm a Pacer" - the cops would have shot him the first time he said it.
                              Well...our contract situation does need some help.

                              Actually, I think the Pacers are literally *living* proof...a true test case...for lack of police brutality.


                              Hmmm. I think I'll back away from further discussing this topic...
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 04-21-2008, 09:43 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X