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

Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

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

  • #61
    Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

    Why does ESPN have such Heat biased journalists? Windhorsts, Wallace, etc its disgusting
    "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      You mean like the non-reaction when Collison got safety-tackled into the cameras in game 2? I guess Darren isn't well-liked either. Nor Granger since none of his teammates reacted to either of LeBron's elbows at Danny's head.
      I couldn't remember if there was any reaction after Wade's cheap shot to Darren. As a Steelers fan, I could totally see Hines Ward making the same hit -it was more of a blindside block than an open field tackle - and having everyone call him a cheap shot artist. And that's football, with a helmet and pads.

      I'm starting to think a little bit higher of Danny's leadership skills than I did before this series.

      I'm not sure if it is that these guys aren't well liked or their teammates just aren't interested in standing up for anybody but themselves. Like I said, I don't like either possible answer.
      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


      • #63
        Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        I'm not sure if it is that these guys aren't well liked or their teammates just aren't interested in standing up for anybody but themselves. Like I said, I don't like either possible answer.
        Or that they were told in no uncertain terms not to get into anyone's face given the fuss about it and that of course as always it is all the Pacers' faults when it happens?

        People can't have it both ways - the posturing is all fake tough but if no one does it they're showing how they hate their teammates. Or retaliation is a cheap shot but we need to retaliate when things happen.

        I'm much more impressed with a team picking themselves up and just taking care of business than I am when someone gets all chest-bump out there. I'm more unhappy that the team couldn't take care of business than I am that no one "stepped up" - especially since every single one of us knows the first Pacer to "step up" would be looking at the bench for the rest of the series and probably part of next season, which is EXACTLY what the Heat want.
        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


        • #64
          Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          They'll be fine if or when they acquire one of the darlings of the league. The NBA protects the bread winners above all else. It affects how they blow the whistle, how they hand out fines and suspensions, and how the media treats the teams/players in question.

          That's our missing ingredient.
          The question is, is it even probable for Indiana to acquire such a player outside of the draft?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

            Originally posted by rock747 View Post
            Why does ESPN have such Heat biased journalists? Windhorsts, Wallace, etc its disgusting
            Because the NBA has some influence over ESPN. This much was obvious after the brawl.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Or that they were told in no uncertain terms not to get into anyone's face given the fuss about it and that of course as always it is all the Pacers' faults when it happens?

              People can't have it both ways - the posturing is all fake tough but if no one does it they're showing how they hate their teammates. Or retaliation is a cheap shot but we need to retaliate when things happen.

              I'm much more impressed with a team picking themselves up and just taking care of business than I am when someone gets all chest-bump out there. I'm more unhappy that the team couldn't take care of business than I am that no one "stepped up" - especially since every single one of us knows the first Pacer to "step up" would be looking at the bench for the rest of the series and probably part of next season, which is EXACTLY what the Heat want.
              Great points.

              I said (or at least intended to say) that the best response to this crap is to put the ball in the basket more times than they do. I'm not sure what I think of Bird telling the Miami media that his team "went soft". Bird and Dr. J got themselves into one of the ugliest fights in NBA history, and yet they are both generally viewed as ambassadors of the game.

              Not every heat-of-the-moment decision is a good one and there is plenty of criticism on both sides.
              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


              • #67
                Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                This is taken from the actual referee's rule book. I'm a little confused at to when the ref is suppose to 'confirmation by instant replay review'? Sure didn't happen in last night's game. It has already been proven there was a discussion between refs whether fouls should be flagrant 1s or 2s yet no one did an instant replay review??? I'm getting closer to wearing a tinfoil hat I'm afraid.


                B. FOULS: FLAGRANT—UNSPORTSMANLIKE
                To be unsportsmanlike is to act in a manner unbecoming to the image of professional
                basketball. It consists of acts of deceit, disrespect of officials and profanity. The penalty for
                such action is a technical foul. Repeated acts shall result in expulsion from the game and a
                minimum fine of $1000.
                A flagrant foul—penalty (1) is unnecessary contact committed by a player against an
                opponent.
                A flagrant foul—penalty (2) is unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a
                player against an opponent. It is an unsportsmanlike act and the offender is ejected following
                confirmation by instant replay review.The offender will be subject to a fine not exceeding $50,000 and/or suspension by the
                Commissioner.
                See Rule 12B—Section IV for interpretation and penalties.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                  I'm concerned that G6 could get a bit rough (Understatement, I know).

                  West mentioned having his knee targeted and that he would "take care of it" next game.
                  One of the youngest guys on our team got assaulted (Lance) at the end of a 35 point game by a guy who actually celebrated afterwards.
                  One of our key backups (sort of...) was targeted by a total piece of **** thug (Haslem), right in the same place he was injured earlier.

                  I don't see the Pacers giving up anything inside Thursday. At all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                    Originally posted by RWB View Post
                    This is taken from the actual referee's rule book. I'm a little confused at to when the ref is suppose to 'confirmation by instant replay review'? Sure didn't happen in last night's game. It has already been proven there was a discussion between refs whether fouls should be flagrant 1s or 2s yet no one did an instant replay review??? I'm getting closer to wearing a tinfoil hat I'm afraid.


                    B. FOULS: FLAGRANT—UNSPORTSMANLIKE
                    To be unsportsmanlike is to act in a manner unbecoming to the image of professional
                    basketball. It consists of acts of deceit, disrespect of officials and profanity. The penalty for
                    such action is a technical foul. Repeated acts shall result in expulsion from the game and a
                    minimum fine of $1000.
                    A flagrant foul—penalty (1) is unnecessary contact committed by a player against an
                    opponent.
                    A flagrant foul—penalty (2) is unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a
                    player against an opponent. It is an unsportsmanlike act and the offender is ejected following
                    confirmation by instant replay review.
                    The offender will be subject to a fine not exceeding $50,000 and/or suspension by the
                    Commissioner.
                    See Rule 12B—Section IV for interpretation and penalties.
                    The rule is that flagrant 2's are reviewed by replay to ensure they are indeed "2's".

                    They aren't allowed to review called flagrant 1's.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                      WallaceNBA_ESPN Michael Wallace
                      Wade's message out of practice today was he wanted no one suspended on either team. He wanted Indy at full strength so there'd be no excuses
                      The more the Heat players talk the angrier I get.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        Great points.

                        I said (or at least intended to say) that the best response to this crap is to put the ball in the basket more times than they do. I'm not sure what I think of Bird telling the Miami media that his team "went soft". Bird and Dr. J got themselves into one of the ugliest fights in NBA history, and yet they are both generally viewed as ambassadors of the game.

                        Not every heat-of-the-moment decision is a good one and there is plenty of criticism on both sides.
                        I don't necessarily disagree that the best response is to play well, BUT

                        I'm almost as pissed that only flagrant 1's were called that no one on this team stood up for their teammates for either the Collison, Lance or Tyler flagrants (or the Lebron elbows at Danny). I don't care if these guys were disliked or whatever, its absolutely sickening that not a single player stuck up for their teammates.

                        Saying the guy is disliked or that we don't want a "thug" mentality or that we need our guys not to get kicked out of the game is complete hogwash. Shoving or jawing at a guy for trying to injure one of your teammates doesn't make you a thug, or a bad person, or even get you kicked out of a game or suspended (all you'd get is a tech). We talked big about not letting Miami push us around, but that's exactly whats happened, and whether Larry meant it in this way or not, this team is SOFT. None of the Reggie/Davises/Jax/Smits teams nor the Reggie/JO/Artest teams would have put up with this **** but this team just rolls over and takes it.

                        The way we rolled over after Haslem's blatant flagrant (NO physical play from us after that), I'm not surprised with the audacity with which Pittman went after Lance and gave a damn wink about it, and both nonresponses show a complete lack of toughness. If Lebron and Wade have any killer instinct in them whatsoever they already assume were done and are gonna come looking for the kill tomorrow.

                        If we (non) reacted this way to the Knicks ******** 15 years ago, that team would have steamrolled us everytime we played them in the playoffs.
                        Last edited by SkipperZ; 05-23-2012, 02:57 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                          Originally posted by Manguera View Post
                          It was actually both, Head & Shoulders. You know... like the shampoo.
                          Right.

                          West got the knees and Granger got the toes.

                          Maybe there was a method after all.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                            Originally posted by Stuckey7370 View Post
                            The more the Heat players talk the angrier I get.
                            Of course that jackass doesn't want "anyone from either team suspended." It's his damn teammates that are at risk of suspension!

                            God...prima ****ing donna.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                              Tyler made a Dale Davis play on the ball, unfortunately today's NBA doesn't allow that type of play and so the T will have a large fine attached to it.
                              Haslem ~should~ have his elevated to a 2 and a large fine and suspension added to it.
                              Pittman ~should~ have his elevated to a 2 and a large fine and 5 game suspension added to it.

                              However....since this has drawn media attention, Der Furher will stick his nose in it and Tyler will draw a 2 game suspension while Haslem and Pittman will get a fine and 1 game. And possible the commish could complain that it was Tylers flagrant foul that set the evil tone for the rest of the game.

                              Why would Tyler draw two games while the Heat only draw one each? Because we cannot have the Miami team looking more at fault as compared to a small market team and because Stern in involved.
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Yet another thread on the flagrant fouls and Bird's "soft" comment

                                Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
                                I'm almost as pissed that only flagrant 1's were called that no one on this team stood up for their teammates for either the Collison, Lance or Tyler flagrants (or the Lebron elbows at Danny). I don't care if these guys were disliked or whatever, its absolutely sickening that not a single player stuck up for their teammates.

                                Saying the guy is disliked or that we don't want a "thug" mentality or that we need our guys not to get kicked out of the game is complete hogwash. Shoving or jawing at a guy for trying to injure one of your teammates doesn't make you a thug, or a bad person, or even get you kicked out of a game or suspended (all you'd get is a tech). We talked big about not letting Miami push us around, but that's exactly whats happened, and whether Larry meant it in this way or not, this team is SOFT. None of the Reggie/Davises/Jax/Smits teams nor the Reggie/JO/Artest teams would have put up with this **** but this team just rolls over and takes it.

                                The way we rolled over after Haslem's blatant flagrant (NO physical play from us after that), I'm not surprised with the audacity with which Pittman went after Lance and gave a damn wink about it, and both nonresponses show a complete lack of toughness. If Lebron and Wade have any killer instinct in them whatsoever they already assume were done and are gonna come looking for the kill tomorrow.

                                If we (non) reacted this way to the Knicks ******** 15 years ago, that team would have steamrolled us everytime we played them in the playoffs.
                                Against the Knicks 15 years ago you didn't get ejected, much less suspended, for jawing.

                                I think I'll take the "shut up and play" with the possibility of coming back for the next game and a win over the "do what it takes to show how tough you are" Pyrrhic victory that ensures losing both games but makes us feel more manly.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X