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

Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

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

  • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

    Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
    Are you sure you want to ignore? Just take it for the entertainment value it is - he likes to argue for argument's sake - the facts be damned.
    Some people would call that trolling.

    Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
    After all someone who says "Don't worry about pilling on, some guys just don't have the thick skin I have I can handle it." and then follows that statement with "Please do me a favor and put on ignore so I don't have to read your sensitive posts again, thank you." Can not be taken seriously.
    It's just so irritating, it's borderline trolling without quite going over the line. I don't find it funny most of the time, and I'm not hearing anything new - he hates West, loves Tyler and wants us to trade our starters for Monta Ellis, Nene and Josh Smith. And until that happens our front office obviously isn't doing jack squat right? I get it. It's old. And if I want to read that style of posting (being provocative and negative just to get a reaction) there are tons of sites that offer that. They are a dime a dozen. Wait no they aren't a dime a dozen, it's basically the whole damn internet. I come here to avoid that kind of crap (or at least used to) - PD isn't perfect but the level of discussion is usually much higher, and the troll/eyeroll level much lower, than on other sites.

    And yes I can take a joke, but if it's a joke it stopped being funny after it was told the two-hundredth time. I really don't think I'm being THAT sensitive, I have like 2 people on my ignore list.

    So maybe he's right, I'm going to give it a try. Not like I won't constantly be running into all of your replies anyway lol.
    Last edited by rabid; 07-26-2012, 12:54 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      Sorry, but I have to disagree with that statement. He played well in a Spurs uni. Well enough that the Spurs re-signed Diaw.
      That speaks more to how good of a coach Popovich is than anything else. Cheeseburger Boris is STILL garbage, just slightly better garbage in the Spurs system.
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

        Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
        Some people would call that trolling.



        It's just so irritating, it's borderline trolling without quite going over the line. I don't find it funny most of the time, and I'm not hearing anything new - he hates West, loves Tyler and wants us to trade our starters for Monta Ellis, Nene and Josh Smith. And until that happens our front office obviously isn't doing jack squat right? I get it. It's old. And if I want to read that style of posting (being provocative and negative just to get a reaction) there are tons of sites that offer that. They are a dime a dozen. Wait no they aren't a dime a dozen, it's basically the whole damn internet. I come here to avoid that kind of crap (or at least used to) - PD isn't perfect but the level of discussion is usually much higher, and the troll/eyeroll level much lower, than on other sites.

        And yes I can take a joke, but if it's a joke it stopped being funny after it was told the two-hundredth time. I really don't think I'm being THAT sensitive, I have like 2 people on my ignore list.

        So maybe he's right, I'm going to give it a try. Not like I won't constantly be running into all of your replies anyway lol.
        Good luck. You'll be back!
        "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        Comment


        • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

          I haven't posted much lately, but did want to weigh in on Walsh returning and the roster changes that have been made thus far.

          Like Peck, I am a little skeptical about the return of Walsh. I think Walsh accomplished a lot for our franchise, but eventually became very conservative in the moves that he was willing to make. I don't really care for how our salary structure played out nor the amounts given for re-signing our own players under his direction. There are a lot of things that I took exception with, and frankly, I was glad to see him leave and Larry take over. I believe Bird did an excellent job doing what he said he was going to do, namely waiting out our horrible contracts and making some improvements when opportunities presented themselves.

          I wanted to see Bird return, but it just didn't work out. However, what we have done so far since Walsh's return I really believe was more along the lines of what Bird himself would have done if he had remained. I think Pritchard and Bird had a plan and that plan was carried out, with or without Bird's direct input when the changes were actually made. And, with Pritchard's presence as GM, I can only hope that from this point forward that it will be him, and not Walsh, who will call most of the shot's when it comes to personnel. At least, that is what I will believe until I see some evidence that leads me to conclude differently.

          As for the roster changes made thus far, I don't have a problem with any of them. Last year, during the season, there were times that our starting lineup left us in a hole and the backups came in during the final minutes of the first quarter and picked us back up by the time the starters were back on the floor in the second quarter. There were times that the starters came out slowly, the backups did not help and we were not able to get back into the game until the second half. But more often than not, we were able to get back into most games after slow starts.

          After Hill's insertion into the lineup, for whatever reason, the norm was that the starters were able to build decent leads with their time together on the floor during the first quarter. This continued throughout most games of the playoffs. With Hill's presence in the lineup, I can't really argue with the conclusion that our starters were capable of holding their own against any team in the league. I think TPTB concluded the same, with the result being that a generous offer was made to retain Hill.

          So where did that leave us with improving our team? I think it left us exactly where TPTB took us. Find a way to make the backups compete better than what they were able to do in the playoffs. That can be accomplished in two ways.

          Option 1 was/is to replace bench players with better players that are able to provide better post defense and scoring and improve the versatility of the perimeter players as well. This is the course of action that seemed to be taken by TPTB.

          Option 2, which I was personally hoping for, would have been to acquire a starting player that was better than on of our current starting players, that would have resulted in the present starter coming off the bench, thereby improving the quality of the bench. And, then to fall back to Option 1 to strengthen some of the remaining bench positions.

          Really, I would think that all of us were hoping for what I have defined as Option 2. It only makes sense, right? Well, if it makes that much sense to us, I would only think that it would also make sense to TPTB as well. I can therefore only conclude that Option 2 was in the Pacers plans all along. Option 2 just makes too much sense to reasonably think otherwise. But, just because that may have been what they wanted to do, doesn't necessarily mean that the the appropriate personnel were made available to them to get it done. Nor does it mean that a fair deal could be worked out to get it done.

          I believe the Pacers looked into a few deals that they thought could improve our starting lineup, but that none could be worked out. I just don't think we will ever know about them because, well it's none of our business and teams just don't comment on players that they were not able to acquire.

          So, I believe Walsh when he recognizes that we must do something to "get to the next level". I believe that he has Pritchard exploring ways to get it accomplished. I also believe that the timeline and salary information provided by shags and wintermute reasonably explain that the Pacers accomplished what they could with the timeline and restrictions that they were dealing with. We may disagree perhaps with the Plumlee as the draft choice or even some of the players that were acquired, but I have faith that in 3-4 months time, we will be pleased with the progress that has been made.

          Whether some of our youngsters improve enough for out liking and the new bench performs better only time will tell. But if not, we can always look forward to seeing what Pritchard can do with the last two roster slots and what he can accomplish leading up to the February trade deadline.

          -------

          As for problematic posters, I think Mattie once stated it best. Paraphrasing, the "Ignore" feature would work a whole lot better if some of guys would quit posting the 2-3 folks that I presently have on "Ignore".

          Comment


          • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

            Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
            Good luck. You'll be back!
            I haven't un-ignored anyone else so far, so I'm not so sure about that.
            Last edited by rabid; 07-26-2012, 02:18 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

              Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
              Some people would call that trolling.



              It's just so irritating, it's borderline trolling without quite going over the line. I don't find it funny most of the time, and I'm not hearing anything new - he hates West, loves Tyler and wants us to trade our starters for Monta Ellis, Nene and Josh Smith. And until that happens our front office obviously isn't doing jack squat right? I get it. It's old. And if I want to read that style of posting (being provocative and negative just to get a reaction) there are tons of sites that offer that. They are a dime a dozen. Wait no they aren't a dime a dozen, it's basically the whole damn internet. I come here to avoid that kind of crap (or at least used to) - PD isn't perfect but the level of discussion is usually much higher, and the troll/eyeroll level much lower, than on other sites.

              And yes I can take a joke, but if it's a joke it stopped being funny after it was told the two-hundredth time. I really don't think I'm being THAT sensitive, I have like 2 people on my ignore list.

              So maybe he's right, I'm going to give it a try. Not like I won't constantly be running into all of your replies anyway lol.



              :
              Last edited by vnzla81; 07-26-2012, 02:48 PM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean... But that guy looks creepy as hell!
                Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                Comment


                • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                  Originally posted by J7F View Post
                  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean... But that guy looks creepy as hell!
                  And my point is further proven.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                    Originally posted by J7F View Post
                    I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean... But that guy looks creepy as hell!
                    It's the worlds smallest violin, it's just more trolling from the troll master. Just him making fun of people that are truly tried of the BS.

                    After every point gets demolished in the thread he just moves the goal post farther with more spin.
                    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                    Comment


                    • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                      Yea, I think we can end this right now. There is no need to further antagonize people
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        And nobody is saying that Anderson is a leader.
                        no.. but no one else on here i see is saying ryan anderson is a better or equal to the player David West is. David West is an all-star level player, but dont let those facts stop you from these delusional statements.

                        overall West is hands down the better player. West can get 20 10 for this team but he plays his role. which is a veteran leader and gives this team some toughness in the paint to match with Hibbert.

                        I honestly cannot take you seriously after this post unless you have some sort of logical response to support your opinion.

                        David West is a much better player and fit overall for the Pacers team than Ryan Anderson is. that guy was a joke in the series vs the pacers. problem with three point shooters like anderson is they are streaky. give me a player like West any day of the week and twice on Sunday before a start a team with anderson over West.

                        ** lets return the thread to some sort of respectability and get back on track here... cause ryan anderson is not the player that will take us a "level up"

                        gimme a break please.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                          no.. but no one else on here i see is saying ryan anderson is a better or equal to the player David West is. David West is an all-star level player, but dont let those facts stop you from these delusional statements.

                          overall West is hands down the better player. West can get 20 10 for this team but he plays his role. which is a veteran leader and gives this team some toughness in the paint to match with Hibbert.

                          I honestly cannot take you seriously after this post unless you have some sort of logical response to support your opinion.

                          David West is a much better player and fit overall for the Pacers team than Ryan Anderson is. that guy was a joke in the series vs the pacers. problem with three point shooters like anderson is they are streaky. give me a player like West any day of the week and twice on Sunday before a start a team with anderson over West.

                          ** lets return the thread to some sort of respectability and get back on track here... cause ryan anderson is not the player that will take us a "level up"

                          gimme a break please.
                          Every 1 stopped taking you serious after you said Rush cant shoot 3s well.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            Every 1 stopped taking you serious after you said Rush cant shoot 3s well.
                            Everyone stopped taking you seriously when you were too lazy to type out "everyone."

                            See how fun this game is?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Everyone stopped taking you seriously when you were too lazy to type out "everyone."

                              See how fun this game is?
                              LMAO!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Donnie Walsh: "We have to go up a level"

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                Every 1 stopped taking you serious after you said Rush cant shoot 3s well.
                                hey if your gonna talk **** at least be truthful. i stated rush is not a consistent 3 pt threat. bigg difference p4e. you of all individuals should be able to grasp the concept but i guess not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X