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

2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

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

  • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

    LeBron and Wade just ended the Magic game in less than two minutes of play. I can't wait 'til these guys gel.

    Comment


    • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      LeBron and Wade just ended the Magic game in less than two minutes of play. I can't wait 'til these guys gel.
      Meh, I can.

      They are going to be seriously difficult to beat at home this year. I'd be surprised if they lost more than 4 or 5 games in Miami this season.

      Comment


      • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

        The Heat's defense looks really good. If they can force turnovers consistently then it's going to be very, very hard to beat them.

        Comment


        • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

          Holy cow, Rondo with a triple-double of 10 points, 10 rebounds, and 24 assists.

          Comment


          • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

            Holy ****

            Comment


            • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

              Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post
              Holy cow, Rondo with a triple-double of 10 points, 10 rebounds, and 24 assists.
              Rondo is a freak man. I'm telling you, if that guy had any semblance of an outside shot, he would be one of the 5 best players in the league. His vision and playmaking ability is on another level.

              Comment


              • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                I love Charlie..always have..I can't help it.

                edit: Jeez, that was short lived..

                Comment


                • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                  Stuckey with 24, 9 and 5, and Ben Gordon played just over half the game and still scored 32.

                  Greg Monroe is the only active piston to not play this season. We're stuck with 6'5" Jason Maxiell playing half the game at center because Kuester is a jerk and wants to punish Monroe for not giving enough effort in our last preseason game.

                  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


                  • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Stuckey with 24, 9 and 5, and Ben Gordon played just over half the game and still scored 32.

                    Greg Monroe is the only active piston to not play this season. We're stuck with 6'5" Jason Maxiell playing half the game at center because Kuester is a jerk and wants to punish Monroe for not giving enough effort in our last preseason game.
                    this reminds me of somebody I know ..................trust me I know how it feels and it sucks big time.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                      After further review Hasheem Thabeet is indeed the worst player in the NBA right now!

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                        OMG Rondo is a beast

                        24 assits 10pts 10reb OMG

                        abut 2 rewatch it on league pass

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                          Thursday, October 28, 2010
                          On renegotiating a trade after the fact

                          By Henry Abbott

                          As you may have already seen, Jerry Zgoda of the Star Tribune writes:
                          According to a league source, the Timberwolves have asked the NBA to look into whether Portland knowingly traded them an injured player when the Blazers dealt Martell Webster to Minnesota for the 16th overall pick in last summer's draft.

                          Webster on Monday underwent surgery to repair a disk in his back and is expected to miss about six weeks. He said the injury dates to last spring's playoffs, when he was undercut and fell hard in a game against Phoenix.

                          The Wolves are likely looking for a draft pick as compensation.

                          (This, apparently, is the play in question.)

                          My first thought was: maybe the "league source" was wrong. Maybe the Timberwolves aren't really appealing to the league.

                          I asked the Timberwolves, and had the following exchange:
                          Timberwolves: This is something that we don't want to discuss publicly at the present time.

                          Me: Just to super double extra-clear: That means the team is not shooting down Zgoda's report.

                          Timberwolves: Correct.

                          Hmm ...

                          The league would not comment.

                          My main thought was: If only the league had some standard procedure for a team to determine if a player was healthy or not. For instance if, before trades were finalized, the player's new team could do a thorough physical examination of the player -- and if they player didn't pass the physical, the trade could be voided.

                          Oh wait! They have that already!

                          The Thunder, for instance, rejected Tyson Chandler this exact way in 2009.

                          Now, is there some obligation, on the part of the player's old team, or the player himself, to disclose medical issues to the new team? Might any number of trades be rescinded any time a team discovers an undisclosed medical condition?

                          There would have to be such a rule for the Timberwolves to have any claim at all.

                          I scoured the collective bargaining agreement and found no such thing. (Trade rules are discussed beginning on page 181 of the document you can download here.) There are rules saying players risk voiding their contracts if they are not honest with teams during physicals at the time of signing deals. But I couldn't find anything in the rules governing trades that requires teams to point out medical issues.

                          It may be that such rules are part of the NBA constitution, or their operations manual -- two shadowy documents that have never been public.

                          In any case, several league sources confirm that what is certain is that disclosing injury history is a focal point of those trade calls we always hear about.

                          A typical NBA trade goes like this: Marc Stein breaks the news, and says that the trade will be official once the trade call with the league is complete. And then 12 hours later, teams e-mail out press releases. For as long as anyone can remember, a call like that has consisted of representatives of the relevant teams, and league officials and lawyers, all digging into the nitty gritty of contract particulars, bonuses and trade kickers. And part of those calls, whether by tradition or rule is unclear, is to declare known injuries.

                          The question is whether, on his last day on the job, then-Portland GM Kevin Pritchard or his staff did or did not know about, or declare, any Martell Webster back injuries.

                          Officials from other teams say it almost doesn't matter, and that the only prudent approach is operate in "buyer beware" mode, and assume every player is injured until doctors on the team's payroll prove otherwise.

                          Nobody can remember a time failing to disclose an injury in a trade call has ever resulted in any kind of sanction or other league intervention, although sources allowed that a trade could, at least in theory, be rescinded for that.

                          However, everybody I talked to says it's unlikely the Timberwolves could prove information was withheld.

                          "We're all laughing about it," says one front office executive, who expressed no sympathy for Minnesota's reported position. "You can't watch the freaking playoffs? That was a pretty obvious incident, right on national TV."


                          http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...after-the-fact
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                            KHAANNN!
                            Hasnt Minny got some staff member who is responsible for watching playoff games?

                            That reminds me the Minny - Sac game i was watching a few days ago. Reminded me of the Jail Blazers. I used to be so dissappointed for Sabonis because he was stuck with that Blazers team.

                            Well, now im similarly dissappointed for Kevin Love. Maybe even more, because he's so young and that team might seriously hurt him. There's probably 4 positive IQ guys on that whole team. There's so much negative body language there that it's probably going to explode soon. Esp Beasley, Milicic, their new center Pekovic.

                            And Wolves' this year pick Wesley Johnson - 23 sec left, Sac has a few point lead and the ball, so Minn coach calls timeout and asks to foul. And Johnson ignores - or forgets - or doesnt understand - and stands infront of Sac point guard for 10 sec or so. Someone else had to run to him and make the foul. Like wtf, how does Khan get his players? The dumber the better?

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                              Kstats nailed it by saying that Bosh is going to be the most overpay 10/10 guy in the league.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Kstats nailed it by saying that Bosh is going to be the most overpay 10/10 guy in the league.
                                Agreed. When I watch the Heat, all I can think is how much below Wade and LeBron's level Chris Bosh is. It's gotten to the point that I feel bad for Bosh because it is soooo obvious.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X