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

Links on possible Pacer move

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

  • #16
    Re: Links on possible Pacer move

    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
    I would probably put a team in Vegas, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, and San Diego before Oklahoma City, but Clay Bennett happened to be the only guy willing to take on the Sonics at the time and thus the team went to OKC.


    "And now ... the starting line-up for your ... LLLLas Vegasssss PAAA-CERRRRRS!!"

    Last edited by DrFife; 05-14-2009, 09:18 AM.


    "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

    - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Links on possible Pacer move

      Originally posted by DrFife View Post


      "And now ... the starting line-up for your ... LLLLas Vegasssss PAAA-CERRRRRS!!"

      Hey, I'm not saying I want this to happen, but if I were looking to buy an NBA team expansion team (NOT the Pacers), those would be the cities I considered.

      If I were to get 10 billion dollars tomorrow, one of the first things I'd do is buy the Pacers, call a press conference, and promise the people of Indiana that the team would never move under my watch.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Links on possible Pacer move

        These rumors don't make any sense. There's a reason Vancouver lost the Grizzlies in the first place. If the Simons think they're losing money in Indy, they'd be hemorrhaging it in Vancouver.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Links on possible Pacer move

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          .

          Are these rumors legitimate?


          .
          No. I can't think of a less reliable source on the web. I can literally set up an account right now and be writing an article in under an hour.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Links on possible Pacer move

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            These rumors don't make any sense. There's a reason Vancouver lost the Grizzlies in the first place. If the Simons think they're losing money in Indy, they'd be hemorrhaging it in Vancouver.
            A well managed team would probably make good money in Vancouver, just like Toronto. If Stern had given them a top 5 pick from the outset, they might have ended up with Rasheed Wallace or KG instead of Big Country Reeves. Stu jackson's drafting record wasn't any better after that either.

            Having said that, this story is pure BS unless it comes from a legitimate source.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Links on possible Pacer move

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              .

              Are these rumors legitimate?


              .
              What do you mean by "legitimate"?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                I'll be done with the NBA if the Pacers move. It's sad that the taxpayers have to bail out an NBA franchise. The tax on hotels & restaurants should be enough to pay for that field house. I have to ask, with all the deals on tickets this past year how full would Conseco have been? Can we blame this on Tinsley?
                "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


                • #23
                  Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  What do you mean by "legitimate"?


                  I don't know!


                  .
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                    Originally posted by aceace View Post
                    Can we blame this on Tinsley?
                    NOPE

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                      My blog simulposts on Bleacher Report, so honestly any bozo can post whatever they want. I do not count it as a reliable source.

                      Also did anyone see this comment on the second link?

                      # Nick
                      May 11th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

                      Abdul,

                      You forgot to mention that the city has the first option to purchase the Pacers in their contract along with a $100+ million break up fee.


                      Accuracy of that statement? Anyone?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                        Even though this is probably just a rumor, it still doesn't sit well with me. The timing for this to happen is just downright scary.

                        One thing that seems incorrect is the notion that the Simons are trying to leverage the C.I.B. Didn't the head of the C.I.B. come out and say that they would cover the $15M short fall if they had the money? The state approved the way to collect the money... The jam up was in the Indianapolis City-County Council not wanting to increase the hotel tax and Jim Irsay not willing to renegotiate his deal to come off of $5M per year. (A deal is a deal... Yeah, whatever... Until business decides that the deal isn't working for them!)

                        I know that we all want the Pacers to stay here, but is the rest of Indianapolis ready to let the Pacers go? Every time you read a Star article, the comments are pretty angry towards the franchise, still. I could only stomach reading about 3 of the comments at the end of the Indiana Barrister article. Maybe it's true that Indianapolis can only support one pro franchise, as the 2005 study determined. When that study was done, I'd never guess that we'd be thinking that this franchise could be the odd man out. Never would have guessed it!
                        Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 05-14-2009, 12:34 PM.
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                          The Pacers aren't moving now or anytime in the future. This is nothing but a pure scare tactic. Besides, there are a few other NBA teams who would likely move before the Pacers would:

                          -- Sacramento (they need a new arena)
                          -- Milwaukee (playing in an older arena)
                          -- Memphis (lack of support)

                          The guy who posted this lives in Seattle, has no connections to Indy and is basing this purely off his own theory and rumors. Plus, he's a disgruntled Sonics fan who is still upset over his hometown team leaving. All it takes is someone like this to come out and post a rumor and then someone else runs with it and then everyone gets up in arms.

                          Yes, the Pacers will get a deal done with the City and the State Legislature. Remember when the Colts were set to leave for LA and Irsay's jet was spotted in LA? Or when the Rockets were going to head to Louisville?

                          How many NBA teams have left and moved within the last 15 years? Charlotte, Vancouver and Seattle. In Charlotte and Seattle there were issues over an aging arena and there was a lack of support in Vancouver.

                          As far as Jack Trudeau, who are his sources? The police who arrested him for buying alcohol for his teenage daughter and friends 2 years ago?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                            This is really sad.

                            Could this be the reason why Larry Bird doesn't want to sign a contract? He wants to work under a handshake agreement with the Simons so he don't get stuck working in Vancouver.

                            I still would like to think that if the Simons wanted to sell the team Bird would be wanting to buy them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                              Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
                              The Pacers aren't moving now or anytime in the future. This is nothing but a pure scare tactic. Besides, there are a few other NBA teams who would likely move before the Pacers would:

                              -- Sacramento (they need a new arena)
                              -- Milwaukee (playing in an older arena)
                              -- Memphis (lack of support)

                              The guy who posted this lives in Seattle, has no connections to Indy and is basing this purely off his own theory and rumors. Plus, he's a disgruntled Sonics fan who is still upset over his hometown team leaving. All it takes is someone like this to come out and post a rumor and then someone else runs with it and then everyone gets up in arms.

                              Yes, the Pacers will get a deal done with the City and the State Legislature. Remember when the Colts were set to leave for LA and Irsay's jet was spotted in LA? Or when the Rockets were going to head to Louisville?

                              How many NBA teams have left and moved within the last 15 years? Charlotte, Vancouver and Seattle. In Charlotte and Seattle there were issues over an aging arena and there was a lack of support in Vancouver.

                              As far as Jack Trudeau, who are his sources? The police who arrested him for buying alcohol for his teenage daughter and friends 2 years ago?
                              This made me feel better. Thanks for slapping us in the face to return to our senses.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Links on possible Pacer move

                                Originally posted by rommie View Post
                                I still would like to think that if the Simons wanted to sell the team Bird would be wanting to buy them.
                                Larry has some cash, but I wouldn't think he has $200+ million it would take to buy the team.

                                And another telethon probably wouldn't raise that much.

                                The Simons are business men. If they are indeed losing the money amounts that have been rumored, they can't be happy about it. It wouldn't shock me if they sold - disappoint - certainly, but not shock.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X