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

Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

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

  • Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

    How cool is that? You guys do us proud.

    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...or-the-pacers/

    ORLANDO, Fla. – I had an excellent back-and-forth conversation going on with fans on Twitter on Sunday afternoon. I think most of the fans were from over at PacersDigest.com (a little plug for you guys).

    The hot topic was the Pacers’ second unit.

    George Hill. Tyler Hansbrough. Lance Stephenson. Lou Amundson.

    Those were the players most talked about.

    Hill and Hansbrough for their shooting problems.

    Stephenson and his continued maturation on the court.

    Amundson? I don’t remember because I don’t think anybody had anything positive to say about Lou.

    But after Sunday’s play against Orlando, the bench deserves credit. Actually they deserve a lot of credit because they were the unit that broke the game open in the second quarter.

    They were on the court when the Pacers led by as many as 15 points. It was the starters who played a significant part in why Orlando closed the first half on 22-4 run.

    The Pacers’ bench outscored Orlando’s bench 42-16. Indy is now 10-1 when its bench outscores the opposition’s second unit.

    “We rely heavily on our bench,” said Pacers forward Danny Granger, who scored a team-high 24 points. “When you have guys that come in and produce, it makes it easy on the starters. George Hill had a good night. Tyler Hansbrough (seven points and five rebounds) had some big buckets. Those guys definitely helped us.”

    Hill needed a breakout game because his shot had vanished in the three games (3-of-17) prior to Sunday.

    Hansbrough had a solid seven points and five rebounds. Amundson had his best game as a Pacer, getting eights points (4-of-4), five rebounds and two steals.

    Pacers coach Frank Vogel is giving Stephenson a few minutes in the first half of every game. Stephenson’s been getting fewer and fewer minutes in the first half, the time when bench struggled prior to Sunday, of games lately.

    The argument about Stephenson playing over A.J. Price is a regular topic of conversation. Talent wise? That’s a no brainer, Stephenson is clearly the winner.

    True point guard skills? That’s a no brainer, too, Price is clearly the winner in that department.

    That’s why I said last week that Price should get some minutes with the second unit.

    Price pushes the ball, he makes sure the ball is moving and he knows where his teammates like the ball on the court. That had been an area of concern with the second unit.

    I keep hearing from people that the Pacers should send Stephenson to the D-League so that he can play 30-plus minutes a game. The Pacers have never sent a player to the D-League and it’s not in their future plans. They want all their players to play in their system and be around the coaching staff all the time.

    The Pacers will hopefully get an added boost on the bench soon because they hope to have Jeff Foster against New Jersey on Tuesday.

    The bench has to produce for the Pacers.

    Vogel can’t afford to have to play his starters heavy minutes on a nightly basis because they play too many games over a short period of time.

    I enjoy the back-and-forth conversation with you guys on Twitter. There will be plenty of times where we agree to disagree on topics.

    Just ask my man Michael Grady.


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

  • #2
    Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

    now if Kravitz would just make it known where he gets all his Pacers thoughts...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I keep hearing from people that the Pacers should send Stephenson to the D-League so that he can play 30-plus minutes a game. The Pacers have never sent a player to the D-League and it’s not in their future plans. They want all their players to play in their system and be around the coaching staff all the time.
      Normally I think that would be a good idea, but in Stephenson's case you have to consider how mature he is. Stephenson appears to have grown up a lot, but putting him in a different environment would be just asking for trouble.


      I enjoy the back-and-forth conversation with you guys on Twitter. There will be plenty of times where we agree to disagree on topics.
      Personally I would never agree to disagree with someone. I think that's a stupid Internet saying, and for some reason it always touches my irate button!

      In a lazy world that is always looking for shortcuts it's easier to just say, "I disagree."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

        I sat through a lecture last week where the speaker ranted and raved about the phrase "agree to disagree"

        He said he hated this phrase, because it was an insult to the person you are speaking to.

        Not sure if I agree or disagree, but I had never heard someone so opposed to the phrase (though to be honest I have not heard the phrase very often)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

          There's a lot of threads around here where I would appreciate the knuckleheads who can't agree on anything to agree to disagree.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

            Back to Peck's point, I've felt for a number of years that PD has a good bit of influence. If your entire career is based around the Pacers (players, coaches, media, franchise staff) where else can you go beyond an article or two every week for extended commentary on the Pacers?

            This is the only game in town, imo.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              now if Kravitz would just make it known where he gets all his Pacers thoughts...


              Like that's ever going to happen!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                Stephenson in D-League would be like Stephenson in Summer League.... Beating up against inferior competition. He needs to go against guys he's not going to outmatch physically every time.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                  This plug also showed up in ESPN's First Cup: Monday article.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Stephenson in D-League would be like Stephenson in Summer League.... Beating up against inferior competition. He needs to go against guys he's not going to outmatch physically every time.
                    I think it would depend on how much control we had over the D-League, coaches and such.

                    Lance didn't exactly "beat up on" college teams he played against. He was good, he won BE FOY (I believe), but he wasn't so amazing that

                    He's either not good at playing a structured offense or really raw. If we go with raw, having him play in a structured offense, and giving the D-league instructions on how we want them to play Lance (within a team concept, having him learn to move without the ball, make the right passes etc..) and have him work on that, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

                    But there are negatives. I don't know how much control the Pacers actually have over that. Putting him in a new environment, where he is probably one of the best players could hurt his maturity. He doesn't bond with his teammates on the road or get to be taught by Vogel and Shaw.

                    So it's just weighing the two.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      I sat through a lecture last week where the speaker ranted and raved about the phrase "agree to disagree"

                      He said he hated this phrase, because it was an insult to the person you are speaking to.

                      Not sure if I agree or disagree, but I had never heard someone so opposed to the phrase (though to be honest I have not heard the phrase very often)
                      "Agree to disagree" is condescending. It's a way of saying, "I'm right and you're full of crap" while trying to pretend you're not really saying that. It's kind of like "With all due respect" actually meaning, "I'm about about to disrespect the hell out of you."
                      "Reggie Miller is the hardest player to guard." --Kobe Bryant

                      "Playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts. It's like chicken-fighting with a woman." --Michael Jordan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                        Originally posted by Reginald View Post
                        "Agree to disagree" is condescending. It's a way of saying, "I'm right and you're full of crap" while trying to pretend you're not really saying that. It's kind of like "With all due respect" actually meaning, "I'm about about to disrespect the hell out of you."
                        Nah.

                        It's a way of saying, I hate your point of view, Nevertheless, I am going to be decent and cordial so that our pissing match doesn't ruin our lives today and the lives of those around us. The Golden Rule and all that.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          Nah.

                          It's a way of saying, I hate your point of view, Nevertheless, I am going to be decent and cordial so that our pissing match doesn't ruin our lives today and the lives of those around us. The Golden Rule and all that.
                          IDK. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It's a complete disrespect to the person whom it's directed.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                            Originally posted by Reginald View Post
                            "Agree to disagree" is condescending. It's a way of saying, "I'm right and you're full of crap" while trying to pretend you're not really saying that. It's kind of like "With all due respect" actually meaning, "I'm about about to disrespect the hell out of you."
                            As long as both parties can acknowledge to agree to disagree after a proper debate it's not condescending. Each one has their own view point right or wrong.

                            But, when 1 of the 2 people has to change the actual pointed subject to make their argument and then that same person leaves "agree to disagree" when the debate was really never truly debated at point. Yes, I would call that condescending because that person is passing their self off as superior and they didn't either 1. Prove the original point or 2. Got off point, which never proved the point. Which is patronizing the other that never "agreed to disagree". This sort of thing happens all to often on here.
                            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mike Wells gave us a plug in today's star...

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              There's a lot of threads around here where I would appreciate the knuckleheads who can't agree on anything to agree to disagree.
                              I understand, but "agree to disagree" is extremely annoying to me and massively overused. It's 2nd only to "it is what it is" which is outright stupid. The latter falls in my "no s***" category, unless maybe we live in a world of magic where "nothing is what it seems", in which case "it is what it is" might actually be helpful information.


                              Anyway, you don't agree to disagree, you should agree on where you disagree and why. Why not figure out what the sticking point explicitly is. If it's whether a person is tall or short, you can both agree on the actual height and agree that the definition of tall or short is subjective and can never be identified explicitly. Or you can both decide to just use some statistical version of taller than average or shorter than average.

                              But people refuse to do that because it involves thinking and often giving up at least some of their entrenched position, and doing so makes them idiots (in their mind). Is it really so wrong to just say "okay, well maybe he isn't short, but he is only slightly above average height". ONOZ 2012 EOW (end of world).


                              If you put any effort in to it and maintain a level of logic you can easily identify the sticking points, and could even come to a full, BETTER understanding where both sides benefit from the debate. It's the harder, more rewarding road.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-31-2012, 01:00 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X