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

Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

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

  • #46
    Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

    Always remember to check the byline. If it says Adrien Wojnarowski then take whatever he says with a grain of salt. In his world view there are three types of people: Heroes, Villains and Victims. He loves strong characters with a singular moral purpose. He hates subtlety and reality.

    Does Isiah wants to get back in the Knicks front office? Yes. Do I think he's this Loki-esque, scheming trickster who will do whatever to it takes to undermine the heroic Donnie Walsh? No.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

      Seriously, how does Zeke have time to be advising the Knicks so heavily? He's a head coach at a Division 1 school, that's a 25 hour a day job.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        I do think he's a very good judge of talent. No one nails 100% of their picks in a crapshoot like the draft. He hit on more than he missed and got good value for guys later in the draft. Just because he supposedly pushed for Fred Jones over Tayshaun Prince doesn't mean he's not a good evaluator of talent.
        Well, which is it? Is he good, or very good? When you compliment him, you say he's very good, but when you defend him, you downgrade to good.

        I would agree with you that he is good, and the Fred Jones over Tayshaun Prince is a reason for me to stick with good, as opposed to very good.

        Also, I notice you say 'supposedly'. Well, it's as 'supposed' as most NBA reports are, but I believe it was a mainstream article discussing it within the last year or two, so I'm not sure it's any less valid than most unconfirmed NBA reports/articles that would generally be assumed to be true.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Well, which is it? Is he good, or very good? When you compliment him, you say he's very good, but when you defend him, you downgrade to good.

          I would agree with you that he is good, and the Fred Jones over Tayshaun Prince is a reason for me to stick with good, as opposed to very good.

          Also, I notice you say 'supposedly'. Well, it's as 'supposed' as most NBA reports are, but I believe it was a mainstream article discussing it within the last year or two, so I'm not sure it's any less valid than most unconfirmed NBA reports/articles that would generally be assumed to be true.
          What are you talking about? You are splitting hairs here. He's a very good evaluator of talent. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. You disagree and think he's just good. Fine. Leave it there. Not quite sure what you are trying to argue here.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

            Originally posted by Hicks
            Your slant on things is better than his, why, exactly?
            I'm a message board poster who likes basketball, my job is to put my slant on things.

            He's a news reporter for a major internet company, he shouldn't slant things in the first place.

            Having said that, his slant is lazy and insulting. Like I said, he has two or three archetypes he uses consistently. Isiah is a villain, Walsh is a hero, Dolan is the naif. Look through his archives. He fits the people he writes about into his moral framework, instead of understanding them as humans with competing motivations and interests.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Are any of those teams even under the cap? He wants New York. He's been very adamant about that.
              They can do a sign and trade, Cuban is the type of guy that doesn't care to expend whatever amount of money he can to get a guy like Melo, who knows even the Pacers can be facilitarors for one of this teams.
              Last edited by vnzla81; 02-20-2011, 05:08 PM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                Seriously, how does Zeke have time to be advising the Knicks so heavily? He's a head coach at a Division 1 school, that's a 25 hour a day job.

                His team is something like 4-10 since the first of the year so perhaps he's going to have some more time in the near future to dedicate to another team....
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  They can do a sign and trade, Cuban is the type of guy that doesn't care to expend whatever amount of money he can to get a guy like Melo, who knows even the Pacers can be facilitarors for one of this teams.
                  You're missing the point: Melo wants New York. He wants to play for the Knicks. He wants to play in the spotlight. He wants to play in the Garden.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                    Even the Knicks won't be able to offer him the max even if the new CBA doesn't shrink the cap or change anything at all. Nobody seems to understand that. If there isn't a trade to NY and he wants to go there in the offseason, he's going to lose a lot of money.

                    The Knicks salaries next year should be $44,222,498. The cap is 58 million today. The most they can offer is something starting in the 13's in millions of dollars. That's a HUGE loss, and most expect the new CBA to lower the cap and change individual player max's. It could be worse than that.
                    You know, the more I think about crap like this, I really think there is only one way to help prevent things like this from happening.

                    Do NOT put a limit on the salary that you can pay an individual player. Instead, adopt a hard salary cap that is much lower than what the cap is right now.

                    Most believe that the new cap will be decreased quite a bit. Let's say it goes from 58 to 52. My point is why not make the new cap 48M, but make it a hard cap that cannot be exceeded.

                    So, you can give Amare and Carmello 16M-18M each, but collectively they will consume 35M and you only have 13M left to sign another 12-13 support players to help them win a championship. I think that most folks would agree that there is not enough money left over to enable you to sign enough quality players to ever hope to win a championship.

                    What this does is force team to better balance their lineups. Teams would not be able to afford both several superstars and quality support to raise them to elite status. This will also cause the balance of power within the league to be more evenly distributed over time, resulting in much more parity.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                      I may be in the extreme minority (probably the only one), but I wouldn't be too upset if Donnie came back. I'm more indifferent than I am in favor of it, but I wouldn't be mad or nothing if they went with Donnie again.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                        renaldo balkman
                        "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          That said, though, with the understanding that his weakness is taking the final step but his strength is building everything up to that step, aren't we in the position where he did the best while he was here before?


                          ya, Donnie walked into a position to have success .. then leaves Indiana in salary hell and in crappy shape.. Meanwhile Bird literally goes through hell righting the ship , getting us in position to not only have major financial flexibility, but having a young core of guys (whom IMO are gonna bring this franchise good things,..) to move into the future with.. only to have Walsh walk right back into a good situation that Bird set on a path for success??


                          NO EFFING WAY!!!

                          Bird needs to see this through and reap the rewards from his hard work... NOT let Donnie reap the rewards off of a team he left in bad shape at the end of his tenure...
                          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                            Donnie Walsh was one of the greatest things to happen to this franchise. It's pretty disheartening to me to see so many Pacers fans "piling" on him to not come back here based on all the great business moves he made for this team over 2 decades. The 16 playoff appearances in 17 years was during the Walsh era here. It seems like Zeke arrived in 2001 and infected the franchise for 2-3 years, and took us years beyond to recover from. All the "good" done by Walsh was immediately washed away by 2000-2003. The only thing I can blame Walsh for was Zeke himself... that was the one truly bad business move I can point to. The players and contracts we took on during the Zeke-era put this franchise behind for years. I have to believe that Zeke was behind a lot of those moves, or at least a large negative influence (which he's proving to be at stop after stop) because frankly a lot of those moves were rather uncharacteristic of Walsh...

                            I personally wouldn't mind seeing Walsh back here in Indy in some capacity. What that capacity is, I don't know... but he was generally considered one of the top executives in the league for YEARS before the brawl (which seemed to mar his entire legacy), and we'd be unwise to pass on an opportunity to employ his skills. He's brought back the hopelessly screwed up Knicks to respectability in just 3 years (a franchise largely screwed up by --- Isiah Thomas).

                            Just to further prove the point, it now appears that Zeke is once again railroading him in NY. The hilarious aspect of this is that NY is apparently returning control of the organization to Zeke after Walsh cleaned up *his* mess --- "Thanks for cleaning up Zeke's mess, Donnie, now if you don't mind, we're gonna let Zeke mess it up again."

                            Walsh, imo, hasn't been the malefactor --- Isiah Thomas was/is. For both the Pacers, and the Knicks. Even the great Donnie Walsh hasn't able to withstand the tornadic path of destruction Isiah Thomas has left behind him...
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-20-2011, 06:31 PM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              What are you talking about? You are splitting hairs here. He's a very good evaluator of talent. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. You disagree and think he's just good. Fine. Leave it there. Not quite sure what you are trying to argue here.
                              I don't/didn't mean to be adversarial about it, and my apologies if that's how I'm coming across.

                              It's a minor distinction, but nonetheless there is a difference.

                              You would say he's 'very good' at evaluating talent.

                              I disagreed, and offered a reason why.

                              You then said that my reason does not mean he isn't 'good' at evaluating talent. I was not trying to say he isn't 'good'. I was trying to say why I felt he wasn't 'very good'.

                              Not a huge distinction between the two, but technically there is, and that's what I was getting it.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Turmoil in N.Y. may turn into a nightmare for me

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                I don't/didn't mean to be adversarial about it, and my apologies if that's how I'm coming across.

                                It's a minor distinction, but nonetheless there is a difference.

                                You would say he's 'very good' at evaluating talent.

                                I disagreed, and offered a reason why.

                                You then said that my reason does not mean he isn't 'good' at evaluating talent. I was not trying to say he isn't 'good'. I was trying to say why I felt he wasn't 'very good'.

                                Not a huge distinction between the two, but technically there is, and that's what I was getting it.
                                Ahh, gotcha. My bad.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X