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

Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

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

  • #16
    Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

    KStat, I am only playing devil's advocate here.... but if somebody recorded (say) 20 hours of phone conversations with a person he was sleeping with, PERHAPS he could splice together 5 minutes taken from here or there that totally alter the perception of what the discussion is all about. I doubt that he had that technical ability, however, and an audio expert should be able to tell.

    Certainly what I heard on Outside the Lines seemed like a fluid, real, undoctored conversation to me, so in the end Fine is probably guility as can be.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

      With people already super sensitive about the Penn State scandal right now Beoheim's days as coach are numbered. He's as good as gone.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        the guy had a PHONE BILL that proved the conversation took place. He had more evidence than you could hope to ask for.

        Even you had nothing else at all, the tape buries Fine by itself.
        That would be fine, if she was saying it wasn't her on the other end of the phone, but she's not claiming that.

        She admits it is her. She say's that the tapes have been edited, and that's not how the conversationS went.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          That would be fine, if she was saying it wasn't her on the other end of the phone, but she's not claiming that.

          She admits it is her. She say's that the tapes have been edited, and that's not how the conversationS went.

          Even if they were edited(which I doubt) there are still enough damning sentences in there to prove it is true. You couldn't piece together something that long word by word and still have it flow like that. She didn't know she was being taped so of course she's now saying it's edited. I still thing coach is going to get the axe when this is all said and done.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
            Even if they were edited(which I doubt) there are still enough damning sentences in there to prove it is true. You couldn't piece together something that long word by word and still have it flow like that. She didn't know she was being taped so of course she's now saying it's edited. I still thing coach is going to get the axe when this is all said and done.
            You've then got to answer the biggest question about the tape.

            Why didn't he give it to the police in 2005, when they first investigated his claims, since the tape was recorded in 2002?

            Once again, I'm not saying anyone is right and anyone is wrong, but there are a LOT of questions that need to be answered, and depending on the answers it can go in a number of different directions.

            There's too many open ended questions out there to really form an opinion one way or the other, IMHO.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
              With people already super sensitive about the Penn State scandal right now Beoheim's days as coach are numbered. He's as good as gone.
              I understand people are sensitive after what happened at Penn State.

              These two cases are not alike though. I have not read anything to suggest that Coach Boeheim had the slightest idea to what was going on. If he didn't have any idea then you cannot hold him accountable for what he didn't know.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Breaking News:Bernie Fine fired from Syracuse University

                Is he lying this time too?

                Motivated by Kansas' defeat at the hands of Syracuse in 2003's national title game -- stay with me here -- Zach Tomaselli decided he'd try to hurt the program by latching on lie after lie after lie after lie in the case against alleged sexual molester Bernie Fine. According to Tomaselli now -- and it's this time he's telling the truth, just like the last time he was telling the truth -- he made everything up.

                Everything about every interaction he had or didn't have with Bernie Fine, it was all cheaply penned fiction. They were all fables of his own mind -- but not of his own doing, he says. Tomaselli and CNY Central's Matt Mulcahy had been swapping emails recently. In them, Tomaselli owns up to the lies.

                Here's the money quote, per CNY Central:
                "It has become a burden of a lie and I am sick of it. Bobby Davis told me what to tell detectives and it pretty much took off from there. The evidence that supports me is just pure luck, not real evidence. I made the ENTIRE thing up. I have never met Bernie in my life."
                Hold up. Bobby Davis told Tomaselli what to tell the police?

                Is this the truth? Are you lying again, Zach Tomaselli? If not, where are you now, Bobby Davis?

                Right here. ESPN's Mark Schwarz, who arranged contact between Tomaselli and Davis (I'll get to that in a minute), swiftly got Davis on the record Friday morning about Tomaselli's latest claims.

                "I never said anything like that at all to the kid," Davis told ESPN. "I just spoke to him a couple minutes. There were like two phone calls between us and they lasted a total of three to four minutes.
                "It was very short," Davis said of their conversations. "I asked him all the questions. I asked him to describe Bernie's house, to describe the arena, to name the players on the team at that time. He kept changing his story with me. He couldn't name the players, couldn't describe the house. I said, 'You just need to call the police.' I called back and asked him if he called the police and he said, 'no one answered.' I said, "no one answered?'"
                Throw another lie on this grease fire of a story/case/ongoing amalgam of a botched and broken narrative against all involved.

                And there is another sticky journalistic matter to address here. Consider the normal alternative to this story. There is a likelihood that we never know who Zach Tomaselli is if ESPN doesn't get Bobby Davis and Zach Tomaselli in touch with each other. It was Schwarz who arranged the the confabulation between the two accusers. What was the motivation, or the precedent, for Schwarz to do that? Schwarz injected himself into the story, and from there, according to a liar's liar, Tomaselli, Davis directed the misguided, 23-year-old sociopath from Maine to join the fight against Fine.

                "It was a game to me," Tomaselli wrote in an email to CNY Central. "It was fun trying to make this story come alive. I was told by Bobby Davis what kind of porn Bernie likes. So I would add we were watching lesbian porn and going on and on. But obviously, it didn't pan out because of my school records and stuff. I was like, 'Oh, that's a hole I didn't fill.'"

                Whoopsie.

                Tomaselli's three-year prison sentence for sexually abusing a teen in Maine begins next week. His motivation to get involved in this case stems from charges against him in that case. Though he hasn't admitted it outright, it seems clear: Tomaselli hoped getting involved in the Fine case could garner sympathy from a judge or jury in his own. If he'd been molested before, that could, in his mind, ease the punishment/explain his actions for being the sick, in-desperate-need-of-help human being he's turned into.

                What are you thinking now, Jim Boeheim? Let's all take a minute to daydream and try to envision what Boeheim is saying to close friends behind closed doors, off the record. This has officially become one of, if not the most screwed-up stories in the history of college basketball. Tomaselli makes up lie after lie -- turning a state case into a federal one in the process, oh by the way -- and helped catalyze a change in Syracuse's legacy forever.

                Zach Tomaselli casts shadow on #BernieFine accuser Bobby Davis.Says Davis knew he was liar but he "could help" bring down Fine.
                — Michael Benny (@MichaelBenny) April 13, 2012
                None of this exonerates Fine, by the way. The tape of his wife's phone call to Davis can't be forgotten, as those tapes are now the most damning, singular evidence against his behavior. Davis' credibility remains in limbo, with the tapes being the only thing that's keeping him from being put into the same category as Tomaselli and that random, fly-by-night fourth accuser, Floyd VanHooser. He said Fine molested him. He lied about it. You may have forgotten about him. I can't blame you if you did. I've said it all along: on the heels of the Penn State story, this has been completely unpredictable and ever-turning.

                Even now, the story has unbelievable life and twists that make you shake your head, not because you don't believe it, but because the totality of the story seemed amiss from the start.
                http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...the-whole-time
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment

                Working...
                X