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

I have a serious question for PDers

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

  • I have a serious question for PDers

    After reading through thousands of posts on here after the brawl days I've noticed something, yet no one else had ever seem to bring it up (or at least have a serious debate about it)

    Would you rather have a team full of "thugs" (smh) that wins their games, plays defense, makes it to the playoffs, and actually has a legitimate shot at doing something in the playoffs.

    Or would you rather have a team full of players with no "off the court issues" that can't do a damn thing on the court. (sorry 07-08 Pacers)

    I've seen comments referring to not wanting Melo because of his "rep", I've seen people swear up and down that trading SJax was a GOOD thing for this team WHEN IT COMES TO A BASKETBALL STANDPOINT. I've seen people say don;t trade for Marcus Williams because of his "character", I've seen people say trade Quisy and Shawne because of their "character". I've seen people saying don;t draft Mayo because of his "character" (although i wouldn't want him because he's horrid at basketball ) And of course there is the Ron Ron thing.

    So to those whom it may concern: is PR really that important to YOU, that you are willing to go through multiple losing seasons just so you can say "well at least we're squeaky clean!"
    STARBURY

    08 and Beyond

  • #2
    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

    Is it a really black and white question where the "milk drinkers" will never improve and be destined to be nothing more then a 1st round exit?

    or

    Is it just going to take longer for the "milk drinkers" to improve to the point where they can contend?
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Is it a really black and white question where the "milk drinkers" will never improve and be destined to be nothing more then a 1st round exit?

      or

      Is it just going to take longer for the "milk drinkers" to improve to the point where they can contend?
      well if u ask me, the current team has no chance to do anything
      STARBURY

      08 and Beyond

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

        If it meant getting back to the Finals, I'd happilly take a squad of JKidd, AI, Ron Ron, Chuckster and Shawn Kemp with Rodman, Latrell, Jack, Vernon Maxwell, Vin Baker, Damon Stoudamire, Anthony Mason, Olden Polynice, Qyntel Woods and Jayson Williams on the bench.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
          If it meant getting back to the Finals, I'd happilly take a squad of JKidd, AI, Ron Ron, Chuckster and Shawn Kemp with Rodman, Latrell, Jack, Vernon Maxwell, Vin Baker, Damon Stoudamire, Anthony Mason, Olden Polynice, Qyntel Woods and Jayson Williams on the bench.
          thsi is how I am too, but it seems as if we are in the minority
          STARBURY

          08 and Beyond

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

            Pretty sweet criminal list here, btw.

            http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/...e-with_20.html
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

              He may not get us to the mountaintop,
              but he'll get us to the playoffs.

              And that's all we want.
              You Got The Tony!!!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                The goal is to win consistently, with the corollary here being that you aren't going to win consistently with a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases. Why is the choice between rooting for idiots and winning and rooting for "milk-drinkers" and losing when this isn't really the case?

                I want to Pacers to take steps toward being a consistent winner again. One of those steps happens to be fleecing the team of its idiots. Another would be acquiring players whose bodies won't break down halfway through the season. Another is cutting salary. Etc etc. To me this is all part of a larger problem, so there really is no "well at least we're squeaky clean!" except as far as the being squeaky-clean is part of getting back on the winning track. So there is no "We suck, but at least we're squeaky clean!" but there is possibly a "We suck, but seem to have a clear plan in place that leaves hope for the next few seasons!"
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  Pretty sweet criminal list here, btw.

                  http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/...e-with_20.html
                  All due respect to Olden Polynice and his nice criminal achievements.
                  But WOW..... Jayson Williams? Manslaughter + i read somewhere that he shot his dog with a shotgun, then pointed the shotgun at his teammate Dwayne Schintzius and told him to clean up the remains of the dog.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                    This question has been asked multiple times btw.

                    The OP seems to think we should still have SJAX. This team still wouldn't be doing anything if we had him.

                    The problem right now is that we have a bunch of "thugs" who won't win anything, and can't get healthy enough to see the court. I would support and cheer for a group of good guys who are terrible and hussle before I could stand behind some thugs shooting up strip clubs. There is no defending someone doing that sort of thing. The best game I have seen the Pacers play was the first game after the brawl against Orlando. Those six players played an amazing game.

                    I don't enjoy watching players whine and moan after every call or no call. I want to put a box of Midol in JO's locker. Play the game.

                    This isn't just on the players though. TPTB haven't sat on any of our players like they should have. Stern does not punish the players, especially his "superstars". The players feel like they can get away with anything. Look at how Goodell is cleaning up the NFL.

                    Soup said it pretty well. Why shouldn't we aim to get good players as well as good human beings? We souldn't have to choose which of the two we would prefer. It should be expected that they perform well on and off the court. The players don't compete, and they are a PR nightmare. Lets get rid of the problems, and build a team that will compete.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                      Originally posted by Bridge View Post
                      This question has been asked multiple times btw.

                      The OP seems to think we should still have SJAX. This team still wouldn't be doing anything if we had him.

                      The problem right now is that we have a bunch of "thugs" who won't win anything, and can't get healthy enough to see the court. I would support and cheer for a group of good guys who are terrible and hussle before I could stand behind some thugs shooting up strip clubs. There is no defending someone doing that sort of thing. The best game I have seen the Pacers play was the first game after the brawl against Orlando. Those six players played an amazing game.

                      I don't enjoy watching players whine and moan after every call or no call. I want to put a box of Midol in JO's locker. Play the game.

                      This isn't just on the players though. TPTB haven't sat on any of our players like they should have. Stern does not punish the players, especially his "superstars". The players feel like they can get away with anything. Look at how Goodell is cleaning up the NFL.

                      Soup said it pretty well. Why shouldn't we aim to get good players as well as good human beings? We souldn't have to choose which of the two we would prefer. It should be expected that they perform well on and off the court. The players don't compete, and they are a PR nightmare. Lets get rid of the problems, and build a team that will compete.
                      Seth has got an early competitor for "most offensive" - watch out Nap!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        If it meant getting back to the Finals, I'd happilly take a squad of JKidd, AI, Ron Ron, Chuckster and Shawn Kemp with Rodman, Latrell, Jack, Vernon Maxwell, Vin Baker, Damon Stoudamire, Anthony Mason, Olden Polynice, Qyntel Woods and Jayson Williams on the bench.
                        I'm not sure why I bother to post sometimes, since Jay has already said what I'm thinking.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                          Originally posted by Bridge View Post
                          The players feel like they can get away with anything. Look at how Goodell is cleaning up the NFL.
                          He's got a long ways to go.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                            The goal is to win consistently, with the corollary here being that you aren't going to win consistently with a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases. Why is the choice between rooting for idiots and winning and rooting for "milk-drinkers" and losing when this isn't really the case?

                            I want to Pacers to take steps toward being a consistent winner again. One of those steps happens to be fleecing the team of its idiots. Another would be acquiring players whose bodies won't break down halfway through the season. Another is cutting salary. Etc etc. To me this is all part of a larger problem, so there really is no "well at least we're squeaky clean!" except as far as the being squeaky-clean is part of getting back on the winning track. So there is no "We suck, but at least we're squeaky clean!" but there is possibly a "We suck, but seem to have a clear plan in place that leaves hope for the next few seasons!"
                            This is the key. Obviously, I think most of us would mortgage the future/soul of the team for just one championship a la Miami or Boston. However, what's the point of winning 61 games and reaching the ECF if your second best player is going to meltdown in the most important game of the season? And then destroy the possibility of contending single-handedly the next two seasons?

                            Also, I seriously doubt that JayRedd's team would win anything simply based on the lack of chemistry that team would have. The goal in Pacerland these days needs to be consistency. If you have nutcases and "thugs," oftentimes that distracts and affects consistency negatively. As I said in the Josh Howard thread though, I couldn't care less about off-the-court stuff as long as it doesn't affect on-the-court stuff, which it often does, unfortunately.

                            I think the GSW trade results aren't really debatable (the Dubs won that one). However, I think the pure Jack-Dunleavy swap idea holds considerable merit for the aforementioned reasons. Jack is better, no doubt, but Dunleavy is consistent and you know what you'll get from him, night in and night out. Dun's a better fit for an organization looking for on-and-off the court consistency. For an organization like GS, which needed some extra talent in the backcourt, Jack was worth the price/risk.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                              The reality is if the team is winning it's a lot easier to put up with some off the court nonsense.

                              It would be nice to have core superstar players that aren't idiots off the court so that they could plug in a Rodman or Artest occasionally without changing the whole face of the team.

                              I still love the crazy shutdown ability of Artest.

                              As long as we're hypotheticially building the next generation of Pacers though we might as well build it with guys who win AND haven't been arrested.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X