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

Stephenson coming soon...

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

  • #76
    Re: Stephenson coming soon...

    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
    Is there any history of a player being released over an accusation? Just because you sign a contract I have a hard time believing that laws just go out the window. I've been involved in the hiring/firing process and our paperwork said when hired that we can release you for any reason, and at any time, but it still didn't make us immune to the law. We couldn't fire someone for being caught doing something even if the eye witness was a police officer, until a jury came down with a guilty verdict.

    As far as Tinsley goes, he wasn't released. He just didn't play. Same thing that has happened to Lance. However if you released him, it could be construed as a signal of guilt. That's nothing like what happened to Tinsley.
    The team told Tinsley to stay at home and not come around the team anymore. That's in no way damaging Tinsley's career or labeling him as a cancer to the team? I'm not saying that I think the Pacers wronged Tinsley, because he deserved every ounce of punishment he received, just from being so stupid. I am saying that if a player makes headlines in the wrong way, a team can release them because it's conduct detrimental to the team, and it's very damaging to that team's brand.

    If Lance wanted to sue the Pacers for money lost because no team will sign him, then the Pacers should be able to sue him for ticket sales lost because some people don't like what Lance was accused of doing. By your way of thought Pacman Jones should sue the Dallas Cowboys and Mike Vanderjagt should sue the crap out of Peyton Manning. That's just not the way it works in sports.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Stephenson coming soon...

      Originally posted by DGPR View Post
      I am saying that if a player makes headlines in the wrong way, a team can release them because it's conduct detrimental to the team, and it's very damaging to that team's brand.
      No you can't. Jamaal found himself in the police blotter more than once, and the Pacers still couldn't release him like that.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Stephenson coming soon...

        Originally posted by billbradley View Post


        pic i took during pre season, i thought it was neat
        What is that light in the middle of the picture? Jim had a bright idea or something?
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Stephenson coming soon...

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          No you can't. Jamaal found himself in the police blotter more than once, and the Pacers still couldn't release him like that.

          Only because they wanted to try and get something out of him if they could through trade. Once they figured out that Tinsley couldn't be traded to anybody they bought out his contract and released him.

          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Stephenson coming soon...

            Originally posted by DGPR View Post
            Only because they wanted to try and get something out of him if they could through trade. Once they figured out that Tinsley couldn't be traded to anybody they bought out his contract and released him.
            They were trying to release him for awhile, but he wouldn't accept the buy out the Pacers were offering.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Stephenson coming soon...

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              They were trying to release him for awhile, but he wouldn't accept the buy out the Pacers were offering.

              Because the Pacers were lowballing him and Tinsley wanted to hold out and get the maximum amount of money that he could get.

              "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                Only because they wanted to try and get something out of him if they could through trade. Once they figured out that Tinsley couldn't be traded to anybody they bought out his contract and released him.
                But if what you said in your previous post was accurate, the Pacers could have simply cut him, instead of buying out his contract and saved millions of dollars.

                NBA teams can't release players just because they're headaches off the court, even if they're getting in trouble with the law.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  What is that light in the middle of the picture? Jim had a bright idea or something?
                  im a fine arts major and i have no idea where it came from. its taken with my iphone so i doubt lens flare. sometimes neat stuff just happens.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                    Is there any history of a player being released over an accusation? Just because you sign a contract I have a hard time believing that laws just go out the window. I've been involved in the hiring/firing process and our paperwork said when hired that we can release you for any reason, and at any time, but it still didn't make us immune to the law. We couldn't fire someone for being caught doing something even if the eye witness was a police officer, until a jury came down with a guilty verdict.

                    As far as Tinsley goes, he wasn't released. He just didn't play. Same thing that has happened to Lance. However if you released him, it could be construed as a signal of guilt. That's nothing like what happened to Tinsley.
                    In the NBA, I doubt there are any examples of players being released over accusations. A major part of that is the guaranteed contracts and that a team still has the financial burden to deal with, so the incentive of releasing the player is reduced. Just look at the Wizards, everyone thought they should part ways with Gil - and he was actually convicted of something - but really their only option was to hang on to him and get some value. Obviously it worked out, they got Rashard Lewis instead of just having a $20 mil hole in their cap every season for the next 40 years.

                    The laws don't "go out the window," they just don't apply in certain scenarios. Brett Favre's over 40, he's part of a protected class according to the civil rights act; but no one would suggest that the Vikings would be violating employment laws by releasing him. The law also says that Indiana employment is at-will, but that definitely "goes out the window" when a contract is involved. Granger can't just show up to practice and tell the team he quits, then go play for Phoenix. He could definitely leave hourly employment at whatever place to go work somewhere else, though.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    But if what you said in your previous post was accurate, the Pacers could have simply cut him, instead of buying out his contract and saved millions of dollars.

                    NBA teams can't release players just because they're headaches off the court, even if they're getting in trouble with the law.
                    I don't believe he was saying they'd cut him and not have to pay him. I think everyone here is educated enough as a fan to realize that the NBA has guaranteed contracts and that terminating them without pay is essentially impossible.


                    With regard to the Tinsley situation... As I recall, it's not that they couldn't release him. They were trying to trade him, and then trying to get him to accept a low buyout, and he didn't budge. There was no incentive for the team to release him straight up, since he'd get the full amount whether he was released or paid to sit in Atlanta. From the team's perspective, if you have to pay him one way or another since there are no trade takers and he's rejecting low buyouts, why would you release him so that you can pay him to go play for a competitor when you can just keep him and pay him the same figure to not compete against the team?
                    Last edited by smj887; 02-03-2011, 03:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      But if what you said in your previous post was accurate, the Pacers could have simply cut him, instead of buying out his contract and saved millions of dollars.

                      NBA teams can't release players just because they're headaches off the court, even if they're getting in trouble with the law.

                      If the Pacers were to just cut Tinsley then they would be on the hook for the exact amount remaining on his contract. Typically a buyout is just a lump sum that is less than the remaining amount left on the contract.

                      I used Wiki as a reference but here is what I'm talking about....




                      Released players
                      Released/waived players with guaranteed contracts continue to be included in their former team's payroll. Players whose contracts are not guaranteed are included in team salary in the amount they made while they were with the team. Players on non-guaranteed "summer contracts" are not included in team salary unless they make the regular season roster.
                      If another team signs a released player who had a guaranteed contract (as long as the player has cleared waivers), the player's original team is allowed to reduce the amount of money they still owe the player (and lower their team payroll) by the right of set-off. This is true if the player signs with any professional team—it does not even have to be an NBA team. The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and a pro-rated share of the minimum salary for a one-year veteran (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap

                      "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                        Originally posted by smj887 View Post
                        I don't believe he was saying they'd cut him and not have to pay him. I think everyone here is educated enough as a fan to realize that the NBA has guaranteed contracts and that terminating them without pay is essentially impossible.
                        Maybe it's semantics, but doesn't "releasing" a player mean having the ability to cut them, like they do in the NFL?

                        That's what I think of when someone say's "release."
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Maybe it's semantics, but doesn't "releasing" a player mean having the ability to cut them, like they do in the NFL?

                          That's what I think of when someone say's "release."

                          The team is just "releasing" that player from their duties to that team, and they are allowed to go play for another team and get paid by 2 different teams at the same time. The NFL isn't a good example because a lot of their contracts aren't guaranteed and if a player is cut then they are SOL if no other team wants to sign them ala Marvin Harrison.

                          edit: Also shouldn't Marvin Harrison be able to sue the pants off of Jim Irsay since he was never convicted of any wrongdoing? I know the Colts didn't say they released him because of his legal troubles, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't think that, right?
                          Last edited by DGPR; 02-03-2011, 03:26 PM.

                          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                            Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                            The team is just "releasing" that player from their duties to that team, and they are allowed to go play for another team and get paid by 2 different teams at the same time. The NFL isn't a good example because a lot of their contracts aren't guaranteed and if a player is cut then they are SOL if no other team wants to sign them ala Marvin Harrison.
                            I guess my problem is the way you structured the argument then. Because the NBA doesn't need any excuse to buy out a player's contract. If they don't want them there because their breath stinks, they can simply buy out their contract and move on. They don't need a reason, like continual trouble with the police.

                            I think that's where I got confused. It looked as if the two issues were being combined, when they don't need to be.

                            EDIT: See that's my issue with your statement. NFL contracts are partially guarantee'd. When a player is released, the team still has to live up to a financial obligation. The NFL just makes the financial impact less than what the NBA does. If you just release a player in the NBA, you owe them all the money or whatever percentage the two sides agree on.

                            Marvin has no legal ground to stand on, regardless if he has charges brought against him or not.
                            Last edited by Since86; 02-03-2011, 03:29 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                              Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                              This is just my guess but I picture him being agressive and getting 8 points and showing that his size makes him our best defensive PG option. Most thought he was to slow but will be pleasently surprised when they realize he is quick enough to make it in the NBA as a point, but his size and strength will set him apart defensively from our other PGs.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Stephenson coming soon...

                                My guess is he'll get hurt in the first game he plays in and then we won't have to worry about him anymore.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X