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

03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

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

  • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    I didn't have a problem with them. They were rooting for their team, but honestly they were spot on about TJ (his body language and such) and shared an interesting convo they had with Josh.

    They said they thought they'd see McBob again tonight, but they asked him about his game last night and if he'd been having a few of them. Josh said "no" in a way that suggested he knew how much playing time he'd be getting.

    It's okay really, at least JOB didn't flat out lie and say "I'll find X time" and then not do it. I'm sure Solo and AJ (twice) appreciated that one.
    Well there's a difference between rooting for your team and mocking an opposing team's player by saying something like "oh, look at me, I'm so small, someone's gotta protect me" when one of our players is fouled by a bigger guy. That's just me, if I'd have heard Denari on the FSI telecast saying junk like that I'd be shocked (back when I was able to watch FSI, I assume he's still doing our telecast).

    Not that they're required to be overly interested in interviewing our guys are anything--I understand what team they're supposed to be focused on--but I'm pretty sure the only reason they wanted to talk to McRoberts is that he was on the Blazers until recently (drafted by them? I'm not sure about that part). That doesn't make them any less of homers in my book. But whatever, that's what they get paid to do.
    Last edited by ToasterBusVIP; 03-04-2010, 12:49 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

      Originally posted by Deadshot View Post
      There just seemed to be a lot of generalizations thrown around. I don't expect them to know every intricate detail of the visiting ballclub, but from time to time the Pacers would make stupid mistakes and they would just say "This is the main reason why the Pacers can't contend." They talked about how the team has had some rough years in the past, and Tinsley of all people got blamed for that. They made a few comments towards the end about how if Roy would have the passion he did in the little scuffle the whole game, the Pacers would compete. Just a lot of stuff that didn't make sense. I've watched games on LP for 3-4 years now though so I'm used to it for the most part. My cable provider generally doesn't let me select which feed I see.
      I don't have any problem about professional comments like that. The stuff the Pacers typically do is the reason they can't contend. And the talk about our difficult years doesn't bother me either, it's fact and it's pretty well known. It's when they're chuckling and laughing at our missed shots, turnovers, or as I said blatantly mocking one of our players for a foul call. Actually more often than not I enjoy hearing the other team's commentary because they're classy enough to point out the positives our guys have going for them, the potential of the young guys, etc. Granger did get much love from the Blazers telecast tonight and I respect that. There's been very few times where I've felt we were actually being made fun of, though, and tonight was one of those occasions.

      Comment


      • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

        Originally posted by AlexAustin View Post
        The love fest for such a mediocre player is what out of control
        And just how do you know he is such a mediocre player? Everytime the dude plays he is freakin awesome. So what are you going on? Do you have some bias?

        Comment


        • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

          Jim must be pissed at Solomon. He usually sticks him in for Roy at center.

          Comment


          • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

            Originally posted by AlexAustin View Post
            The love fest for such a mediocre player is what out of control
            Eh...in my case at least the respect towards McRoberts and the interest in seeing him play has less to do with whether he's mediocre vs. a star talent, but seeing him get proper recognition for his effort when he is in the game. And that goes not just for garbage time, but on those (rare, and mostly long ago) occasions where he plays in real competition and works his tail off. Maybe AJ or McRoberts won't be superstars but when I tune in to watch these games in this down year, I'm not tuning in expecting to see all of the Pacers many all-stars in action. I'm watching to see what guys like McRoberts will bring in terms of their effort and flashes of potential.
            Last edited by ToasterBusVIP; 03-04-2010, 01:11 AM. Reason: I no can spel gud.

            Comment


            • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

              Originally posted by Trophy View Post
              Jim must be pissed at Solomon. He usually sticks him in for Roy at center.
              Solo was suspended 1 game for some kind of "conduct detrimental to the team", I believe. Whatever that means.

              Hm, nope, that was actually for last night's game. I guess maybe he was just pissed at him.
              Last edited by ToasterBusVIP; 03-04-2010, 01:06 AM. Reason: Added a retraction

              Comment


              • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                Originally posted by ToasterBusVIP View Post
                Solo was suspended 1 game for some kind of "conduct detrimental to the team", I believe. Whatever that means.
                He served that suspension last night against the Lakers.

                Comment


                • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                  Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                  He served that suspension last night against the Lakers.
                  Maybe Jim didn't count last night as a real game?

                  Comment


                  • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                    Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                    Do you have some bias?
                    Completely. He's a Hansbrough/UNC fan.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                      Well it was nice to see this team get back to its winning ways now that JOB could employ his preferred rotation again. I mean really, it was like night and day.
                      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                      - ilive4sports

                      Comment


                      • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                        Well it was nice to see this team get back to its winning ways now that JOB could employ his preferred rotation again.
                        You know, the more I watch this season, the more I'm convinced the team is going downhill for reasons that has nothing to do with talent. No, we're not a greatly talented team, but am I crazy or did they used to be more fun to watch. Even when they weren't any better they had a scrappiness that made it possible for them to win the games they shouldn't win. I get the feeling now that they're mainly going through the motions...with the particular exception I'd say of Jones, McRoberts, Price, and Hibbert (who's at least really trying to make stuff happen, as evidence by some of those wild desperation hook shots he threw up tonight). Last night I thought Rush would've been included in that group.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                          Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                          And just how do you know he is such a mediocre player? Everytime the dude plays he is freakin awesome. So what are you going on? Do you have some bias?
                          I don't have any bias I just think he is average at best and know he will be gone soon so no reason to get worked up every game about how much time he gets and then celebrate when he does something positive after the other team stopped caring.

                          If he was "freakin awesome" every time he played he would be playing for someone else, and If your not from Indiana and could care less about Josh it gets unbelievability old reading post after post on how McRoberts gets abused and misused by JOB and the Pacers.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            Completely. He's a Hansbrough/UNC fan.
                            Hansbrough fan yes, but hated UNC and Williams until to seeing him dominate his fresman year, and haven't watched but a few UNC games when they were the only decent game this year, so where is the bias again Josh isn't taking time from Tyler.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                              Originally posted by AlexAustin View Post
                              Hansbrough fan yes, but hated UNC and Williams until to seeing him dominate his fresman year, and haven't watched but a few UNC games when they were the only decent game this year, so where is the bias again Josh isn't taking time from Tyler.

                              HRRRMMMM....
                              sounds fishy, but whatever. I was a fan of neither of them until they joined the Pacers. All I know is whenever Josh plays, he plays well. If you think he is a scrub I just have to wonder if you have preconceptions.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 03/03/2010 Game Thread #61 Pacers at Portland

                                Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                                HRRRMMMM....
                                sounds fishy, but whatever. I was a fan of neither of them until they joined the Pacers. All I know is whenever Josh plays, he plays well. If you think he is a scrub I just have to wonder if you have preconceptions.
                                Why on earth would that sound fishy were on a internet chat board why would I need to lie about if I liked a college team or not, I would think Josh is mediocre if I liked Maryland, Kansas, UCLA, UCONN, Florida or Purdue?

                                What are the Blazers and Pacers FO's agendas on not playing Josh and why hasn't the other 28 teams swooped in and made a offer for the boy wonder?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X