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

USA Today Pacers update

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

  • #16
    Re: USA Today Pacers update

    Everybody that's been here over the last few years has been both villain and victim. It's a bad situation.

    I would generally agree that there's no overwhelming reason or value to talk down JO. He was a good guy who couldn't measure up to the incredibly high standard of being a franchise player. While he never became what we hoped he would be, I think he was generally good for the franchise and the community.

    That being said, I think it's reasonable to believe that he was unhappy, and it's reasonable to think that he may not have been entirely successful in any attempts he made to keep that unhappiness from bleeding into the locker room. It's not necessarily being bush league or throwing JO under the bus if Jeff is commenting on his perception of a real change in attitude in the lockerroom for the better. In fact, I think that JO would probably acknowledge that there was some truth to the comments.

    It is not my understanding that Jeff was saying JO was a bad guy and was responsible for all of the problems. I believe he was saying that the new players were excited about being here, all felt they had something to prove, and that the mood change for the better was noticeable. I would be surprised if the same things weren't being said in Toronto in regards to TJ. Keep in mind that Jeff isn't some faceless fan on a message board. He has lived closely with the situation and has earned the right to express his opinion. As long as he owns up to his responsibility in improving things around here, I don't understand why his commenting on his view of the lockerroom should be considered bush league.

    While the author of the article assigns certain motivations to Jeff, those aren't necessarily accurate. It's entirely possible that Jeff could've made those comments as a statement of his view of the situation, but still had empathy for JO's feelings. Jeff could easily have understood JO's frustrations completely, even felt he'd have them if he were in the same position, but still harbored some competing resentment, thinking "Hey, if you don't wanna be here, then I don't want you here," or something to that effect. As much as we'd like the opposite to be true, interpersonal and business relationships are never, ever cut and dried.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: USA Today Pacers update

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      Everybody that's been here over the last few years has been both villain and victim. It's a bad situation.

      I would generally agree that there's no overwhelming reason or value to talk down JO. He was a good guy who couldn't measure up to the incredibly high standard of being a franchise player. While he never became what we hoped he would be, I think he was generally good for the franchise and the community.

      That being said, I think it's reasonable to believe that he was unhappy, and it's reasonable to think that he may not have been entirely successful in any attempts he made to keep that unhappiness from bleeding into the locker room. It's not necessarily being bush league or throwing JO under the bus if Jeff is commenting on his perception of a real change in attitude in the lockerroom for the better. In fact, I think that JO would probably acknowledge that there was some truth to the comments.

      It is not my understanding that Jeff was saying JO was a bad guy and was responsible for all of the problems. I believe he was saying that the new players were excited about being here, all felt they had something to prove, and that the mood change for the better was noticeable. I would be surprised if the same things weren't being said in Toronto in regards to TJ. Keep in mind that Jeff isn't some faceless fan on a message board. He has lived closely with the situation and has earned the right to express his opinion. As long as he owns up to his responsibility in improving things around here, I don't understand why his commenting on his view of the lockerroom should be considered bush league.

      While the author of the article assigns certain motivations to Jeff, those aren't necessarily accurate. It's entirely possible that Jeff could've made those comments as a statement of his view of the situation, but still had empathy for JO's feelings. Jeff could easily have understood JO's frustrations completely, even felt he'd have them if he were in the same position, but still harbored some competing resentment, thinking "Hey, if you don't wanna be here, then I don't want you here," or something to that effect. As much as we'd like the opposite to be true, interpersonal and business relationships are never, ever cut and dried.

      Exactly, all of this. It reads different in this article because the writer adds his extrapolation to it. I don't like guys airing dirty laundry, but as you said above JO would probably agree, he's pretty much said the same thing, really.

      At this point, who cares. I like that Jeff isn't afraid to say things. He is at a point in his career he can be vocal. He's been here a long time, he's the veteran Pacer and NBA player on the entire team. Also, he may not be the highest scorer or best player by a long shot, but I don't think anyone out works him or out hustles him. I think that earns enough respect in itself that he walks the walk.

      I mean it's not as if Jeff has went on and on about how JO is a cancer, he made one printed comment about how the lockeroom environment could and should be improved this year and why he thinks that way. Good, he's allowed to say it, imho.

      Personally, between years of JO and Carlise constantly trying to say what the fans want to here, I welcome some straightforwardness.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: USA Today Pacers update

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        It's amazing to me how Jeff can be labeled the villain so quickly, but people for years will find any reason they can to paint JO in the white light of goodness as if he isn't capable of what Jeff is talking about.
        It's really not so much that. Look at who is saying this, it's the same people who are in every thread throwing themselves on the J.O. hand grenade.

        While I respect both posters immensly I have to consider them like I do Uncle Buck with Ron Artest or myself with Dale Davis. They are fans of J.O.'s so rationality goes out the window. I can't even get upset or even try and dispute them any more on the subject because it became very clear a couple of months ago that this was very emotional for them.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: USA Today Pacers update

          I want to clarify my comment about "faceless member of internet board" and "earned the right...blah, blah, blah."

          What I really think is happening here is that Jeff's comments are being removed from the context in which he said them (which I don't know since I wasn't at the interview) and put in the context of the conversation that has been occuring on this and other Pacer boards for years now. These comments take on the same cloak of motivations and underlying agendas as the JO-detractor side simply because they are not favorable to JO.

          My impression all along is that Jeff was answering a question, not calling up someone to give them a juicy quote about JO. He may have intended no harm, and may have even had this exact conversation with JO. I've worked in difficult, turnaround situations. I've seen people I respected who needed to move on because they couldn't be part of the solution. I've been the person who's had to go, as well. I have great relationships with a number of those folks, in some cases, better after the parting.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: USA Today Pacers update

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Well I think Anthem is saying that he threw JO under the bus with those comments.
            I wasn't talking about Jeff at all. I was talking about USA Today and the way they took somebody else's quote and extrapolated.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: USA Today Pacers update

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I wasn't talking about Jeff at all. I was talking about USA Today and the way they took somebody else's quote and extrapolated.
              Oh, well...


              never mind.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: USA Today Pacers update

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Well I think Anthem is saying that he threw JO under the bus with those comments.
                Curious...

                Why couldn't it be the Foster was merely speaking the truth? If JO, the team's former leader, was, in fact, a cause of the disention among the ranks why wouldn't it be okay for one of the team's most tenured players to finally say something about it?

                IMO, Foster has deserved the right to finally step forward and speak his mind after having been in the shadow of Reggie, JO and Artest for so long. He and Croshere tried to become more vocal a few years ago, but the "spotlight" wasn't on them; it was on the other three. And although Reggie would be candid from time-to-time and JO would also come forward on a few issues, both remained politically correct for the most part when they addressed the media.

                So, I, for one, am glad somebody is finally stepping out and telling it like it was and like it is behind closed doors. It's refreshing! and very much appreciated by this fan.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: USA Today Pacers update

                  Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                  you either die a hero or you play for the pacers long enough to become the villain
                  [Chris Matthews]Ha![/Chris Matthews]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: USA Today Pacers update

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    It's amazing to me how Jeff can be labeled the villain so quickly, but people for years will find any reason they can to paint JO in the white light of goodness as if he isn't capable of what Jeff is talking about.
                    I think the issue is that Jeff didn't mean it the way Anthem is taking it (oops, also nevermind, at least the Anthem mention). I think you get asked something and answer honestly with an entirely different focus on your response. So some statements are your key but others key on something else.

                    Jeff is thinking of the trade point as a time stamp and a marker of physical change and is noting that since then things are going nice. I never got the vibe he was trying to trash JO but rather that he was reinforcing a general understanding that things weren't fitting right, JO wasn't really happy, and that this had an impact on the locker room mood.

                    That's not the same as passing moral judgment. He could have been in 100% agreement with JO's feelings and still noted the change. I'd guess he was more neutral, understanding where JO was coming from but also concerned with his own situation which is impacted by the mental health of the roster.


                    You could say "I don't like these uniforms as much" and in comes the brother of the woman that designed them defending her against attacks. If you've got the mindset going into it then I think you are going to find things pretty easily.

                    In Jeff's case he's getting questioned quite a bit about the particulars of the situation. He's yet to say anything close to "JO ruined it for us" or "it was JO that made everything bad". If JO had a feud with Bird that hurt the vibe everyone could be neutral and just ready for that feud to be over with regardless of the solution.


                    Pacers coaches have raved about how hard Hibbert works and how receptive he is to criticism and praise. Hibbert set an example for the rest of his teammates recently when he worked out with the coaching staff at Conseco Fieldhouse early in the morning and then caught a late-morning flight to New York for the NBA's rookie orientation.
                    I won't bump my "I don't care if Hibbert flops" thread....but just know that I feel it.


                    I wasn't talking about Jeff at all. I was talking about USA Today and the way they took somebody else's quote and extrapolated.
                    Yes. Plus it really just felt like a cut and paste after doing a 3 month search on Indy Star/Pacers.com articles. It's just a big summary of all the stuff discussed the last few months.
                    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 09-12-2008, 02:37 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: USA Today Pacers update

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      It's really not so much that. Look at who is saying this, it's the same people who are in every thread throwing themselves on the J.O. hand grenade.

                      While I respect both posters immensly I have to consider them like I do Uncle Buck with Ron Artest or myself with Dale Davis. They are fans of J.O.'s so rationality goes out the window. I can't even get upset or even try and dispute them any more on the subject because it became very clear a couple of months ago that this was very emotional for them.
                      What did you say about Jackson you




                      (ps - let's be clear, despite the joke I'm not up his rear, just thought he took way too much of the rap and that other than crap emotional control he was a decent player at his price - starter but not star)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: USA Today Pacers update

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        I wasn't talking about Jeff at all. I was talking about USA Today and the way they took somebody else's quote and extrapolated.
                        Sorry about that, I completely mis read what you meant.
                        Last edited by Speed; 09-12-2008, 03:10 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: USA Today Pacers update

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          Sorry about that, I completely mis read what you meant.
                          Ditto.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: USA Today Pacers update

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Ditto.
                            Well, I should have been more clear. But we'd already talked about the Jeff quote, and I didn't have a problem with what Jeff said when he said it.

                            But this was just some USA Today hack who hasn't been following the situation. And it seems (to me, at least) that he took the quote pretty far out of context.

                            Ahh well. It is what it is. Good luck in Toronto, JO, and I'm glad to have Hibbert/Ford/Rasho here.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: USA Today Pacers update

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Well, I should have been more clear. But we'd already talked about the Jeff quote, and I didn't have a problem with what Jeff said when he said it.

                              But this was just some USA Today hack who hasn't been following the situation. And it seems (to me, at least) that he took the quote pretty far out of context.

                              Ahh well. It is what it is. Good luck in Toronto, JO, and I'm glad to have Hibbert/Ford/Rasho here.

                              Wait, are you saying Hibbert is better than JO?????

                              I keed

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: USA Today Pacers update

                                Originally posted by USA Today
                                —Center Jeff Foster said he has already noticed a difference inside the locker room since forward Jermaine O'Neal was traded to the Toronto Raptors in late June. Foster said the seven new players have a chip on their shoulder and the returning players want to end the franchise's two-year hiatus from the playoffs.
                                "There are a lot of guys that are new to this and want to be part of the culture change," Foster said. "You have holdovers that are hungry... there's been a black cloud over us the last few years. We're ready to have a nice sunny day."
                                A lot of the change is because they don't have to deal with O'Neal's negative attitude toward the franchise anymore.
                                "It was tough because Jermaine really didn't want to be here the last couple of years," Foster said. "It was tough to become a team when your best player did not want to be on the team."
                                You know... I think you ALL need to re-read the piece with extra detail to where the "quotation" marks are at!!! If what is written is not in "quotation" Jeff didn't say it, period! It is just the way the writer may tie quotes together to serve how he wants the piece to come across. Another thing that bothered me was the three dots that I hi-lighted in red. That means the writer left something out of the quote. Distubing. This just reminds me of when WTHR used a tease after Jermaine was traded saying how he ripped Indianapolis on his way out the door. Then, when you got to the sports segment of the news...Jermaine just said the last couple years here were tough. Then again, WTHR has the worst teases in the market for their worthless newscast.

                                The reason I even brought this up is because when this thread started, I noticed the "juciest" parts that have so many people up in arms are not in quotation. The only thing that was in quotation was the comments from Jeff that we knew from 2 weeks ago that were not as inflamitory as the writer wants you to think.

                                This is Hatchet Journalism at its best!
                                ...Still "flying casual"
                                @roaminggnome74

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X