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

My take, for what its worth

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    My take, for what its worth

    OK, Shade's question on Pro/Anti Artest got me thinking.

    I know some would like to move on, but I want to air my thoughts on why I support the Stern suspension.


    REASON THE FIRST: I have made myself a little career out of working with juvenile delinquents. I'm currently a juvenile PO and I teach our county's Anger Management course.

    Believe me, the kids I work with (and other kids, too) are watching this kind of situation. It sure is a powerful when you can talk to kids with anger problems and say "look what happens when a good person (which I believe Ron is) loses control - when he lets the aggression make the decisions." The kids see that and they see the consequences of letting their anger get the best of them.

    Its also powerful to be able to talk about Ron Artest (pre-Detroit) and talk about his anger being harnessed and how anger is OK, it can be a powerful tool, but a tool you have to be the master of. A lot of these kids have a LOT of anger inside and a LOT of reason to be angry. When you can point out another person full of anger who is using it to improve themselves - you are telling them that its OK to feel angry (a lesson many of them never hear) and they are not bad people for feeling angry, but that everyone has to be responsible for the choices they make, not the feelings they have.

    I was working in a group home in Chicago when the Spreewell/Carlissimo thing happened. When it first came out I was talking with a young man we had at the time who was pretty aggressive. He was laughing about what a cool thing it was that Spreewell went off on the coach. Instead of trying to argue the "right or wrong" of the situation, I just said "let's watch what happens because of this". Well, not much happened (in the eyes of the young man), Spreewell immediately got his own series of shoes commercials, and ended up doing OK. That was frustrating.

    Now I realize I'm just putting out a variation on "athletes are role models" here, an argument which has supporters and detractors, all making good points. But I'm also saying "angry people are role models" Ron and Spreewell and these guys are noticed by the kids I work with, for the very reason that they're angry people. These feelings of anger are just in some people - thats just a natural fact. But some angry people deal with being angry very effectively, some don't. When they don't, they need to be held accountable, just like anyone else.

    This situation has provided me with a powerful illustration of that. I don't know if that means anything to anyone else, but its meaningful to me.

    The suspension benefits Ron.

    And by benefitting Ron, the suspension benefits the Pacers. Now I don't think the Pacers will get rid of Ron for this, so if I'm wrong there, this might be a moot point.

    But in my experience angry people don't learn to behave themselves by delving into their childhood and examining all the deep reasons for being angry. They behave themselves b/c they have to. Once they realize the pain of not controlling their anger is greater than the pain of controlling it, the anger starts to get controlled.

    That takes me to REASON THE SECOND: I feel better about the Pacers since this happened, because I feel closure is in sight.

    Closure b/c this tells me that Ron has been faced with something really big and he's going to have to "get it" or he won't for a long, long time to come. For me, that lets me feel like the other boot hasn't dropped yet, but it will within the first few months of his return (whenever that is). Now I can feel like we are going to find out soon if things are going to work out with Artest or not.

    It seems to me that with all the greatness Ron brings, there's also a cloud over the team all the time - a great cloud of unknowing, to borrow a phrase from the mystics. What's really going on with him? Will something big go down?

    Well now we've seen it and I think the team, the league, and Ron himself have a lot more leverage in negotiating that anger than before. If the anger gets under control, there's no issue - if the anger doesn't it won't our problem much longer. Either way, it feels like there's a plan now (even if I don't know the specifics). Its not just a underlying anxiety - the problem is out on the table, the consequences are clear (or will be), and we can let it play out. That's much more comfortable for me than the unknowing.



    Well, I don't know if that means much to anyone else, but these thoughts have been on my mind. Thanks for reading if you made it this far.
    "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: My take, for what its worth

    I could live with the season suspension IF they had punished the Pistons in the same fashion as they punished the Pacers.

    For example Ben Wallace ignited the drunken fellon crowd he should be out for at least half the season.

    Rip Hamilton was clearly trying to get into the fight and had to be restrained. Since AJ got five games for hitting the guy Jermaine hit, and since the commish said Jermaine's suspensension also includes attempts to go into the stands and that why he got 25 instead of 5. Rip should clearly have gotten 20 games.

    If you dont think Rip was trying to get into the stands to fight look at the attached pics.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: My take, for what its worth

      I won't argue for a second that Stern dropped the ball in how he dealt with the "other side". I suspect even us "anti-Artesters" agree with you completely.
      "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: My take, for what its worth

        Ben Wallace should have gotten 10-30 games. What is this SIX GAMES? That is an insult! The guy shoves Artest as hard as he could, goes after him like he wants to kill him, throws stuff at Artest, and for all this he only gets SIX GAMES. COME ON!

        But I completely understand what you are saying Vicious, and I agree.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: My take, for what its worth

          First, VT, I want to thank you for a very thoughtful post.

          Your unique perspective adds quite a bit of insight into the anger of young men watching Artest and how his punishment will affect their attitudes.

          That said, let me reframe the discussion: Why are they angry?

          They are angry because of injustice and oppression.

          Why is Ron angry? It certainly is related to growing up in the hood and having family problems, etc. (reference the "Ron Ron" story here). It is certainly related, at least indirectly, to injustice and oppression.

          But, more specifically, why was Ron angry in that incident?

          1. He had been hit several times with no consequences to the violators.
          2. Wallace had fouled and abused him all game with no call from the refs.
          3. Wallace had seconds ago violated him--badly--and continued to abuse him verbally and throw things at him. He was NOT immediately ejected. He should have been. When he was, security did not immediately take him out of the area. (Had they done so, no melee.)

          These are all injustices to Ron Artest, IMO.

          VT, I do not disagree with your emphasis on personal responsibility. You have to learn to forego retaliation in a sorry world.

          However, that does not take the onus off those creating an environment of anger with their injustice. I think Stern has added to this environment with favoritism toward large market cities and toward the Pistons vs. the Pacers. He has found suspending Artest (I'm talking past cases) as an easy scapegoat to addressing larger problems such as unfair foul calling (favoritism to superstars) or volatile fans.

          In summary, Stern can do TWO things to help anger from winning the day.

          1. He can communicate that out of control anger has negative consequences.
          2. He can change his own actions that lead people to become angry.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment

          Previous template Next
          Working...
          X