Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

    Wow. Now you're not only reading my post wrong, but you read indyway's wrong as well...

    What I wrote:

    I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long and this is surprising.
    What you read:

    I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long. This is surprising.

    What indyway wrote:

    He's probably surprised, as am I, that it's not extremely common knowledge that Granger disassociates himself from the national anthem.
    what you read:

    He's probably surprised, as am I, that Granger disassociates himself from the national anthem.
    Stop reading what you want to read.
    Last edited by Kstat; 09-23-2010, 12:44 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

      I like Allred. I should. I have had to have a hearing aid in one ear (10 percent hearing without an aid) since I was 3, I have about 40 percent hearing in the other ear, I have a form of autism (Asperger's Syndrome), I became a sports editor, and I gave seminars to other editors about management styles. However, after 39 years of marriage, for my own safety I don't think I'll mention to her the subject of taking a few other wives.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Wow. Now you're not only reading my post wrong, but you read indyway's wrong as well...

        What I wrote:



        What you read:




        What indyway wrote:



        what you read:



        Stop reading what you want to read.
        You were correct that I read Indyways post incorrectly. I apologize for that. But you still didn't clarify your post for me.

        I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long and this is surprising.
        I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long. This is surprising.
        Both of these statements are exactly the same, except the second one is the grammatically correct one. I'm not reading what I want to, but rather the way it should be read. The first one is a run-on sentence, meaning there should be a period after long, "and" should be dropped, and "this" should be capitalized. Those sentences are literally saying the exact same thing. This is why I asked for clarification before jumping to conclusions and attacking what I thought you were trying to say.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

          Actually, they really aren't the same thing. You just lack comprehension and took it totally out of context by reading it in a vacuum.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

            Good lord. Instead of making this "a thing," why not just explain what you were saying instead of all of this nonsense?

            All that needed to be done was to clarify.

            I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long and that this is surprising to Pacer fans.
            Fixed!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Actually, they really aren't the same thing. You just lack comprehension and took it totally out of context by reading it in a vacuum.
              Sorry, but they actually are the same exact statements. The first one is not actually a sentence because it has two independent clauses. You either have to split them into two sentences or rewrite it so it's a complex sentence with an independent clause and dependent clause. Otherwise, the reader will disregard them as being unrelated. An easy fix would have been to insert "that" in the sentence.

              I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long, and that this is surprising.
              That gives the sentence a new meaning, and the meaning you were going for. Since the second half of the statement is now a dependent clause, the reader knows that it's essential to the meaning of the independent clause, or the first half of your statement, something that was missing from your original post.

              If you meant to say "I don't understand why so many people are surprised by this, considering that Granger has been on the team this long" then perhaps that's more like how you should have stated it. No part of your post showed that was the context that you were using it in. In fact, I read it as just the opposite. The entirety of your post was that Granger is a JW and that he doesn't acknowledge the National Anthem. If you were relying on context to make up for the fact that your statements lack clarity, then your post should have mentioned something about how this should be common knowledge.

              If you believe that I'm taking it out of context, tell me which part of your post indicates that it's surprising that not everyone knows this.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                Originally posted by tsm612 View Post
                If you believe that I'm taking it out of context, tell me which part of your post indicates that it's surprising that not everyone knows this.
                Did you read the earlier posts, or was that too much to ask?

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Did you read the earlier posts, or was that too much to ask?
                  Again, I don't see where I was taking anything out of context. I'm reading things within the context of your post. It's not my fault that you were vague. I understand that others were confused by his behavior, and that you came to enlighten everyone as to why he acted this way. But for all I know, you could have just recently discovered this yourself by reading the other thread. (I brought up the fact that Danny's a JW in another thread right after they won the gold.) Hence, why you could have also been surprised. That's the drawback to conversing online. You're talking to strangers, people who don't know you for the most part, who also can't read your body language or hear the tone in your voice. That's why things need to be communicated in a clear manner, and also why people shouldn't become so easily offended when their statements are said to not be very clear.
                  Last edited by tsm612; 09-23-2010, 01:39 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                    Actually, it is your fault that you were the one person confused by this, were given clarification by another poster, and then demanded further clarification from me. It's not my job to convince you that my post wasn't vague. You were given an explanation a long time ago, and you kept at it. That's on you.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                      Haha, amazing discussion this!
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Actually, it is your fault that you were the one person confused by this, were given clarification by another poster, and then demanded further clarification from me. It's not my job to convince you that my post wasn't vague. You were given an explanation a long time ago, and you kept at it. That's on you.
                        Excuse me for not knowing that you let other posters speak for you. For some reason, I thought you were responsible for the things you say. I don't care if you do or do not try to convince me that your post wasn't vague. It just would have been nice if you would have offered up clarification without throwing a temper tantrum and getting unnecessarily nasty, though that seems to be your calling card. I even hesitated in asking for clarification in the first place, having seen the manner in which you talk to others who seem to disagree with you. That's fine. I'm done here. I'll go back to disregarding your posts, and you can go back to your ivory towers.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                          Sorry, but I refuse to legitimize your claim by re-writing it to fit your sensibilities. It was made clear to you by more than one person, including myself, what that post meant. I even left about 58 subtle hints that wouldn't have been more obvious if I beat you over the head with them. If all of that isn't enough for you, then you and your high horse can go wanting. I care not.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 09-23-2010, 02:20 AM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                            Ahhh, our resident Pistons fan/professional instigator is up to his usual shenanigans. Sorry I bothered to read this nonsense.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                              Can you ever forgive me for my unnecessarily provocative post that consisted of:

                              To clarify, Danny Granger is a Jehovah's Witness, and among other things, they believe in separatism from many social functions, including patriotism, which means they do not acknowledge the national anthem.

                              Of course, this begs the bigger question why he wore a uniform that said "USA" on it for a month, but I'm not a JW, so maybe there's a loophole or something.

                              There's a picture of Granger standing during the medal ceremony, but just starting blankly ahead away from the flag with his hands down at his sides. If you didn't know his background, it's easy to mistake him for being a jerk, because his face looks like he doesn't want to be there.

                              I'm actually kinda surprised he's been a pacer for this long and this is surprising.
                              I know it's a lot to ask, given the obviously offensive nature of said post, but maybe you can find it in your heart to forgive me?
                              Last edited by Kstat; 09-23-2010, 02:44 AM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers Sign 1st Legally Deaf Player, Lance Allred

                                Chill, Kstat. You worded that sentence very awkwardly and a number of people probably had to parse it a few times to get the right meaning out of it.

                                How hard is it to just restate it if someone interprets it differently than you meant, rather than assume they are morons and act like it was obvious. In this case, it really wasn't.

                                You meant:

                                I'm actually kind of surprised this is surprising, given he has been a pacer for this long

                                but a VERY valid reading in a forum context would be:

                                I'm actually kind of surprised he's been a pacer for this long. He's been a pacer for this long and this is surprising.

                                It is an unfortunate consequence of so many people (not you!) not paying attention to their wording and preferring to be fast and witty rather than accurate. It means people get used to fighting their way through bizarre construction and having to make meaning from unusual sentence structures.

                                Sentences with no punctuation and multiple thoughts will almost always get misinterpreted, usually minimally and harmlessly, but sometimes in ways that spiral off toward the pits. When in doubt, make two sentences:

                                He's been a pacer for this long and this is surprising? I'm actually kinda surprised [at that].

                                RULE: If the other person doesn't understand what you said, the communication failed. It doesn't matter who is at fault, the communication failed.
                                BillS

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X