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

Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

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

  • #76
    Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

    Peck that is an excellent analysis. I think it is probably how 99% of us really feel about the situation.

    I'll just 2nd JAy's....AMEN to that.
    [edit=99=1095948971][/edit]
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

      Originally posted by Vicious
      Could this be an attempt by the Pacers to have had someone talk to Kravitz, give him some sensational headline stuff, knowing an article would be written as an effort to motivate Artest? I mean, who knows how the guy thinks - maybe this is motivation for him. Sounds like a Phil Jackson kind of move, but who knows?
      Ron may be a lot of things including the biggest : we've ever seen, but he's not stupid enough to listen to what that putz Kravitz has to say about anything.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

        Originally posted by Peck
        So let me get this straight.

        The Pacers suck, Ron Artest rules. Is that pretty much the message I'm getting from you Artest fans?

        My God, Ron Artest isn't just the M.V.P. of the team or even the league I guess we need to start talking about him in the same breath as Wilt & Jordan.
        Yes, Peck, that's exactly what we're saying. Thanks for listening. Always nice to know you've been heard and understood.

        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

          Anthem that wasn't directed at you. Other posters were saying the Pacers would be lucky to make the playoffs & even if they did we would lose in the first round to the Pistons.

          I just thought that saying we would be mediocre without Ron was a little much. We were still a good team with or without him. We are just a better team with him when he has his head on right.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

            Originally posted by vapacersfan
            I will admite Artest is important. but how did the Pacers do when Artest was out of the lineup this past season. They were better than .500

            I dont know if the Pacers would have beaten the Heat, but as already stated, NOBODY is bigger than the team.



            When ROn was out of the line-up we had Al to fill in for him...oh wait...Al blew that chance didn't he?

            He really stunk up the place when he had his opportunity. So WHO DID TAKE UP THE SLACK???
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

              JO, Tinsley, Foster, Fred Jones.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                Originally posted by grace
                Ron may be a lot of things including the biggest : we've ever seen, but he's not stupid enough to listen to what that putz Kravitz has to say about anything.


                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                  In reality, ANYBODY who sees something written about themselves is going to sit up and take notice of what is written. It's just human nature. Sure we may say WTF and WTH but inside, we notice. Even if we're thick skinned enough to let it sluff off, we've noticed and we'll remember what was said.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                    Originally posted by Peck

                    If Ron blew an ACL are you guys saying we are a first round exit team?

                    Peck, let me first say that you have made a very good case. Difficult to argue with what you are saying. In my case love is blind, and I love Artest as a player, so I don't really ses things as clearly as I should

                    But, I do want to address your statement above. Jay will love this as well.

                    I beleive that Artest is worth 15 wins, so if you take Artest away, the Pacers would have won 46 games last season and that would have put them what 4th or 5th, and yes they easily could have lost to the Heat or Hhornets in the first round.

                    So to answer your question, Pacers would lost in the first round of the playoffs without Ronnie.

                    Peck you and others are under-estimating the effect Ron has on a game.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                      I was certainly more in favor of "addition through subtraction" when Al was still here.

                      I don't really advocate trading Ron for "a bag of chips" anymore for two reasons: (I) I've finally decided that he's a helluva ballplayer, and he might be the best one-on-one player on the planet; and (b) Al's gone, so there isn't a "reasonably good replacement waiting in the wings to re-claim the starting spot that was taken away while he was injured."

                      Clearly, if we just subtract him from the currently-assembled roster, its a 0.500 team.

                      Here's a question,

                      Would you rather (1) be 0.500 and lose in the first or second round because you just aren't good enough to go any farther or (ii) win 55+ and lose in the second or third round because the players you can depend on during the regular season can't be relied on when the pressure is on?

                      I think the Pacers are taking a big gamble on winning a championship for Uncle Reggie if Artest is on the roster for next season's playoffs.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        Peck you and others are under-estimating the effect Ron has on a game.
                        I don't think so. I think you and others are under-estimating the effect Ron's loonie-ness has on the people around him.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                          Here's a "just for the halibut" question:

                          Given the "situation" with Ron, would you rather have Ron as is (question mark about mental health, great one-on-one defender, very nice offensive production), or Heavy D circa 1995 (great team defender, stubborn refusal to meet offensive potential, great passer and offensive initiator)?

                          What the hey, its September....
                          [edit=501=1095957430][/edit]
                          "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                            Peck, I also think you've offered an excellent analysis.

                            The only area where I might take exception is your insinuation that he is intentionally burning his bridges.

                            I fully understand that a person is responsibile for his own actions. And that Ron is certainly taking more than his share of "low roads".

                            But I really think that he craves attention and love so much that he is absolutely freaking compulsive. Who knows? Maybe bipolar without appropriate meds?

                            In doing many of the things that he does, I just don't think he makes a conscious choice to commit the act. It's like the little demon on his shoulder is compelled to initiate the act before whatever conscience Ron has is capable of kicking in.

                            But being the only poster on here with "BEAST" as part of his handle, it's obvious that I'm as big an Artest fan as anyone. But I will go on record with the following:

                            Assuming the Kravitz article is gospel, there is no way in hell that you keep Artest on your roster. You don't retain a player that, intended or not, has basically declared himself a cancer.

                            I agree with Buck that losing Artest will cost us some toughness and it will cost us some wins. I can't put a number on it. Maybe Buck is right. Maybe the number is 15. Maybe even more.... or less.

                            But you don't keep Artest around for another 5 years wreaking havoc on the psyche of his teammates.

                            If it's fixable, then dammit it's time to put Artest on "zero-tolerance notice" and suspend his *** for every even minor deviation and get the problem fixed.

                            And on the other side of the coin, if Kravitz's story contains significant inaccuracies, then Walsh and Bird should quickly step up and set the story straight, and run Kravitz out of town.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                              Originally posted by beast23
                              Peck, I also think you've offered an excellent analysis.

                              The only area where I might take exception is your insinuation that he is intentionally burning his bridges.

                              I fully understand that a person is responsibile for his own actions. And that Ron is certainly taking more than his share of "low roads".

                              But I really think that he craves attention and love so much that he is absolutely freaking compulsive. Who knows? Maybe bipolar without appropriate meds?

                              In doing many of the things that he does, I just don't think he makes a conscious choice to commit the act. It's like the little demon on his shoulder is compelled to initiate the act before whatever conscience Ron has is capable of kicking in.

                              But being the only poster on here with "BEAST" as part of his handle, it's obvious that I'm as big an Artest fan as anyone. But I will go on record with the following:

                              Assuming the Kravitz article is gospel, there is no way in hell that you keep Artest on your roster. You don't retain a player that, intended or not, has basically declared himself a cancer.

                              I agree with Buck that losing Artest will cost us some toughness and it will cost us some wins. I can't put a number on it. Maybe Buck is right. Maybe the number is 15. Maybe even more.... or less.

                              But you don't keep Artest around for another 5 years wreaking havoc on the psyche of his teammates.

                              If it's fixable, then dammit it's time to put Artest on "zero-tolerance notice" and suspend his *** for every even minor deviation and get the problem fixed.

                              And on the other side of the coin, if Kravitz's story contains significant inaccuracies, then Walsh and Bird should quickly step up and set the story straight, and run Kravitz out of town.

                              BONG

                              BONG


                              A winner of a post. I have got to agree with the "bipolar with out the proper meds" thought. I've thought of that for a long time. I've mentioned before what a devastating effect being around a person like that can have on you and that is why I'm fairly certain it's time to cut bait with Ron.
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Um, Artest fans may not wanna read this.

                                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                                Peck you and others are under-estimating the effect Ron has on a game.
                                I don't think so. I think you and others are under-estimating the effect Ron's loonie-ness has on the people around him.
                                I'm not convinced that Ron's behavior affected this team as much as the Piston's players did. So what you guys are saying is that the main reason the Pacers lost to the Pistons is because of Artest? If Artest is such a cancer why did it not show up until the ECF? Don't try to tell me there wasn't pressure before then because they had their backs against the wall in the Miami series. I think a number of things came together at the same time. No one will convince me that this team is better off without Artest.
                                "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X