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

An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

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

  • #46
    Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

    And whoever said they thought Tyler is the only guy on the team that could do something like this now... I just... what? Tyler Hansbrough? Are we thinking of the same guy? Sure, he's scrappy on the court, but he doesn't trash talk, he doesn't lose his cool, and opposing teams clearly don't like him.

    Also, have you never heard of Lance Stephenson?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

      A couple of thoughts as a [admitetly biased] Pacers fan

      - I never realized Tim D. was a ref that evening

      - After reading that I dislike Artest even more. I know its wrong, but his mentality and lack of caring just show something was off

      - I always blamed Ben Wallace, I actually blame his less

      - This article fires me up even more about how @#$%^ the security was and how the arena had 3-4 security guards. That is a joke

      - Really, the police are going to wait 10 minutes to do anything, and then choose to pepper spray Pacers? And then they come to arrest Pacers players? Total cluster $%^&

      - I still hate Stern........he came down hard on the Pacers, too hard IMO, and that Bird quote was telling.

      - Interesting to hear people say something about the announcers being so pro-player. IMO the NBA was far too pro-Detroit, and refused to say anything bad about the arena or [lack of] security

      - The refs were useless....would loved a quick ejection of both players

      - This article didnt refrence it, but I remember a quote by a Pistons person (maybe a front office PR person) who basically blamed the whole thing on Artest. That comment pissed me off, and still does, but sadly after having years to think about it, no mo-ron type of actions, and Indiana possibly has a championship that year

      - Wasnt that the same year as the bomb thread at the Palace for a Indiana - Detroit game? Or am I getting my years mixed up?

      - I truly beleived at the time, and agree that the dress code was a result of the brawl

      - As much as I hated Stern, and still do, I am shocked at how unprepared the refs were, and how poor the security was that night
      Last edited by vapacersfan; 02-29-2012, 01:44 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Which, to me, is a reason why the dress code was a good thing. Like any other uniform, if you have to dress differently than you would do every day (or might have while you were growing up), it makes you separate yourself from those everyday (or youthful) emotions. You treat the world differently in a suit than you do in jams and a long T.
        I disagree. The worst and most destructive decisions in history were made by people in uniforms or suits. In my opinion, the dress code was not about changing player behavior as much as it was about changing fans' perception of that behavior.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
          I disagree. The worst and most destructive decisions in history were made by people in uniforms or suits. In my opinion, the dress code was not about changing player behavior as much as it was about changing fans' perception of that behavior.
          You're absolutely right. The funny thing is, the NBA still has that image of its players being "overpayed thugs", even after enforcing the dress code policy. It'd be interesting to examine why that image persists, because, as far as I can tell, every pro-sports league in America has it's fair share of ******* players.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

            Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
            I disagree. The worst and most destructive decisions in history were made by people in uniforms or suits. In my opinion, the dress code was not about changing player behavior as much as it was about changing fans' perception of that behavior.
            I'll disregard the first part but the bolded part hits the nail on the head.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace


              Jackson: I actually think [Stern] took it light on us, because he could have easily kicked us out the league. This is my opinion. Taking $3 million was harsh, but I'd rather give that $3 million up and still have my job than keep the $3 million and be kicked out the league.

              O'Neal: I never even told my daughter what happened — she found out at school. One day she came home and figured it out and said, "Dad, are you suspended for fighting?" That was hard for me. It was hard for me to have that conversation with my daughter. It was hard for me to go to the Boys & Girls Club, which I was very close with in Indianapolis, St. Vincent's Hospital, talking to the people at St. Vincent Hospital. It's hard for me as a leader of a community. To have these conversations and see the effect that not just the fight itself had on our team, but the perception that it had on the community. A lot of people don't even know that I won all of my court cases.29 I got reinstated. Every case — civil, criminal, and suspension from the league — I won all of those.
              O'Neal: Nobody knows this — the Pistons security had just told that man to leave the building before that even happened. Nobody knows that that same guy threatened Yao Ming.21 People don't know that. People don't know some of the bad scenarios of the people who were caught up in that situation. But they know everything about the players. That man had been plotting to start fights against players so he could get paid. That's a fact.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                If anyone has paid attention to me over the years, you probly know that I get very upset when Artest comes up in discussion. I've always felt, from the night it happened, that the actions of that night (and other indicators that led up to that) absolutely crippled our team.

                In the immediate aftermath, despite what had happened, Artest STILL had a huge support following, at least on the forums. It was a divided online community. There were so many people who not only supported what he did, but was willing to forget it because he was a "special talent". That baffled me, that a player who's actions (and other incidents) had so crippled our favorite team... was still so supported, and proved to me that people didn't know how to spot a bad sector of an entity even if it stared them in the face --- and that's exactly what Artest was doing to many, many people. This article nails it home for me, further validates my feelings on the subject that Artest was a walking wrecking ball. The Brawl AND the trade request are bonafide proof of that. The Brawl was questionable enough and his blinded teammates still had his back, until he requested that trade and drove that wedge between himself and the guys who "had his back", proving that there's nothing goin on "up there" with that guy. You could sense the betrayal in their comments when they talked about him requesting that trade.

                He was by far the worst acquisition this team ever made... we've been suffering the consequences ever since, even if we didn't deserve it. No one deserves that. Our current team, great as it is, is still suffering the consequences. All the proof you need is to look into the stands and see the empty spots. That wouldn't have occurred pre-Brawl. The reality of it is, this team has to win and win and win just to win back a still snake-bitten fanbase.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-29-2012, 01:57 PM.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  I disagree. The worst and most destructive decisions in history were made by people in uniforms or suits. In my opinion, the dress code was not about changing player behavior as much as it was about changing fans' perception of that behavior.
                  I stand by my opinion - in many of the cases you obliquely refer to, people's everyday WAS the uniforms and suits, and they wear/wore them all day and not as an exception. There are many studies to show that if you dress differently than usual, you act differently than usual.

                  I agree it had to do with public perception as well, but that is why I said a reason, not the reason.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                    A couple of thoughts as a [admitetly biased] Pacers fan


                    - Interesting to hear people say something about the announcers being so pro-player. IMO the NBA was far too pro-Detroit, and refused to say anything bad about the arena or [lack of] security
                    It depends on when you watched it. If you watched it that night, John Saunders and Stephen A. Smith were for the Pacers all the way. Called the fans thugs and how they should be banned from the arena and ashamed of themselves

                    Next day though, Pacers were thugs, out of control, etc. It was amazing how they were able to flip flop 100%. Haven't liked John Saunders (or was it Tirico) since then.


                    @Pacers24Colts12

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                      Forget what you thought of the way he played basketball, is there anyone here who would be opposed to JO getting the ceremonial one day contract so he could retire a Pacer? The man did a great deal for the community and clearly loves the city.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I stand by my opinion - in many of the cases you obliquely refer to, people's everyday WAS the uniforms and suits, and they wear/wore them all day and not as an exception. There are many studies to show that if you dress differently than usual, you act differently than usual.

                        I agree it had to do with public perception as well, but that is why I said a reason, not the reason.
                        That's fair. If you dress differently, you are more likely to act differently - I'll buy that. It makes sense, and I can say from my own experience that I've demonstrated it at times in my own life. Differently isn't always better though. That's the important thing. We should never judge a person by their appearance, but instead by their words and actions. I don't care too strongly about the dress code one way or another, but I do have strong feelings about what was implied by what you said. I would never want to separate myself from my everyday emotions - they are what define me.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Not to mention he just had a brother of his die a couple of days earlier.
                          SJax just about was trying to make it two dead brothers of his lol

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Forget what you thought of the way he played basketball, is there anyone here who would be opposed to JO getting the ceremonial one day contract so he could retire a Pacer? The man did a great deal for the community and clearly loves the city.
                            YES!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                              Yes, you would be opposed to it?


                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: An Oral History of the Malice in the Palace

                                Going back and looking at the video. 2 of the refs are just standing there with their hands on their hips. Geez...if they step in and break it up, never happens.


                                @Pacers24Colts12

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X