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

About this 'three years in a row' thing.

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

  • About this 'three years in a row' thing.

    I've seen people saying this is the 3rd straight year Bird has 'screwed it up' at the deadline.

    I believe the idea is that 2 years ago it was the Tinsley to Orlando deal he somehow botched. That was Orlando getting a better offer from Houston (Rafer Alston) that killed said trade.

    Last year was the TJ/Rush to Charlotte trade. That was The Bobcats' owner nixing the deal after it had otherwise been agreed to.

    This year we're getting mixed reports, but no where that I'm aware of does it say (besides Memphis' proven-idiot owner Hiesley pointing a finger) Indiana is the one that screwed it up, and no one is saying that Indiana backed out or Indiana took too long. It's been said New Orleans backed out and Memphis was taking too long.

    Given all of that, I'm not claiming it's 100% fact that Indiana didn't screw up, but I am claiming it's at least 51% that they did NOT screw it up. With regards to this year. It IS 100% that it wasn't their fault the previous two years.

    So I would hope that the people crying about 'three years in a row' would back off.

  • #2
    Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

    I agree I dont' think its a case of we F'd up. If Bird was late in the paperwork then he would have just asked for an extension. Somebody backed out. The league would give us an extension to work out a deal, they do it every year.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I've seen people saying this is the 3rd straight year Bird has 'screwed it up' at the deadline.

      I believe the idea is that 2 years ago it was the Tinsley to Orlando deal he somehow botched. That was Orlando getting a better offer from Houston (Rafer Alston) that killed said trade.

      Last year was the TJ/Rush to Charlotte trade. That was The Bobcats' owner nixing the deal after it had otherwise been agreed to.

      This year we're getting mixed reports, but no where that I'm aware of does it say (besides Memphis' proven-idiot owner Hiesley pointing a finger) Indiana is the one that screwed it up, and no one is saying that Indiana backed out or Indiana took too long. It's been said New Orleans backed out and Memphis was taking too long.

      Given all of that, I'm not claiming it's 100% fact that Indiana didn't screw up, but I am claiming it's at least 51% that they did NOT screw it up. With regards to this year. It IS 100% that it wasn't their fault the previous two years.

      So I would hope that the people crying about 'three years in a row' would back off.
      I dont blame Bird, I blame the NBA with their utterly idiotic rule of having a hard 3pm deadline, and not allowing a deal to go through at 3:01pm

      Does Stern get a woody every time he shts on the Pacers?

      I think I actually have found another human being in the NBA that I dislike more than our former coach
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        The league would give us an extension to work out a deal, they do it every year.
        I asked you this question in another thread. How do we know the league has given extensions in the past. I really want to know, not a trick question.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

          I can't provide a source but I also recall the league granting extensions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

            Originally posted by vnzla81
            The Orlando deal was one but we had another deal with the Bobcats that fell through, I remember because I was the one that posted about the Orlando deal when I hear Kravitz talking about it on the radio(in his radio show) and everybody here was already freaking out about the Bobcats deal.
            Which, again, was another trade their owner said no to. Both Bobcat trades were agreed to, but the owner said no both times.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

              Originally posted by vnzla81
              Bird knows that the deadline is a 3pm, it was his f****** fault the trade didn't go through in the last second.
              How is that his fault if New Orleans pulled out at the last minute?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                Originally posted by vnzla81
                Bird knows that the deadline is a 3pm, it was his f****** fault the trade didn't go through in the last second.
                That is wrong. New Orleans backed out, and Memphis was taking too long.

                If it's true extensions can be granted, I have to assume it's ultimately New Orleans' fault. If there are no extensions, then it was Memphis and/or New Orleans.

                You just want to blame Bird.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                  Originally posted by vnzla81
                  Yeah so we are right in saying the three years in a row thing, Orlando/Bobcats 1, Bobcats again 2, Memphis/NO 3.
                  Not at all. You are wrong in saying the three years in a row thing, because you're trying to say it was Bird Fails Part 1, Bird Fails Part 2, and Bird Fails Part 3, as if each time it would have worked out if not for something Bird did wrong. That's completely inaccurate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                    Originally posted by vnzla81
                    Yeah so we are right in saying the three years in a row thing, Orlando/Bobcats 1, Bobcats again 2, Memphis/NO 3.
                    I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have some sort of reading comprehension problems, or if you just don't understand the crazy concept that if the other party doesn't agree to a trade or pulls out at the last minute, there's nothing Bird can do about that. He is not allowed to strong arm other team's GMs and force them to make trades if they don't want to. Look at all the facts and then try to criticize the moves instead of just looking at the things that help support your argument.

                    I knew there was a reason I had you blocked on here. Back to that...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                      Originally posted by vnzla81
                      I don't want just to blame Bird, my issue is that this is not the 1st time with him, he should have known this, how many last second deals need to fall through before he gets it? why we never hear about this happening to other teams? name me another team that couldn't get the deal together and were rejected, anybody from this year or any other year.
                      I don't have a catelog of every failed trade in the last 10 years of the league, so I can't throw out instant examples, but two things to that point.

                      1) We can't assume it's never happened to anyone else.

                      2) Even if we could, that doesn't make this any more Bird's fault. He did his part, the other side knocked it down.

                      You can not like it until the day you die, but you can't say it's Larry's fault that someone else's owner shot down a trade, and you can't say it's Larry's fault that a team pulls out of a 3-way deal at 11:59 on the hour.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                        Originally posted by vnzla81
                        I'm not saying that is 100% Birds fault I kind of agree with you about the 51% thing, but to me the three year thing is accurate, maybe no 3 years in real years but it happened 3 times in three different seasons.
                        It's not accurate if the point is to say it's Bird's fault for each one not happening. It's not. Saying it was doesn't make it so. The known facts support me, not you.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                          I dont blame Bird, I blame the NBA with their utterly idiotic rule of having a hard 3pm deadline, and not allowing a deal to go through at 3:01pm

                          Does Stern get a woody every time he shts on the Pacers?

                          I think I actually have found another human being in the NBA that I dislike more than our former coach
                          To everyone wanting to blame the league for the deadline being firm... Put your damn blue & gold glasses down for one damn minute. The deadline has been the same for a long time. I'm sure you wouldn't be so hell bent on bending the rules if it were the Knicks, Heat or the Pistons wanting an extra few minutes... Would ya?

                          It's a set "DEADLINE"! I still fail to understand how this is the leagues fault other than just another chance to whine about Stern.

                          Extension or not.... It sounds like this deal was going to fail regardless whether the call was made at 3:01 or 2:01 considering NOLA backed out of the deal.
                          ...Still "flying casual"
                          @roaminggnome74

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                            My only critique with the three years in a row thing is that Bird acknowledged players by name that he attempted to trade. I can't help but think that morale is affected by that habit. And right now team morale was at a high we haven't seen in a decade.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: About this 'three years in a row' thing.

                              Originally posted by MTM View Post
                              My only critique with the three years in a row thing is that Bird acknowledged players by name that he attempted to trade. I can't help but think that morale is affected by that habit. And right now team morale was at a high we haven't seen in a decade.
                              Where does this come from? You think it'd be better to have the kind of person who would be heavily affected by knowing he was involved in a trade negotiation just thinking he was involved in a trade negotiation because someone was involved but we aren't telling who?

                              The FO is really in a lose-lose situation. Don't try the trade - you aren't trying to improve the team. Try the trade - you're hurting the morale of your players. Execute the trade - you made a mistake by trading (away/for) player X.

                              I really think these guys are more grown-up than that, especially if morale on the team is as good as we say and the other guys support the ones who would have been traded.

                              A player getting in a funk because he thought he was being discussed is a Ron Artest-like personality problem, not a normal reaction by a professional sports figure.
                              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