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

Ref'ing thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Ref'ing thread

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    I can't believe the potential gambling issues of this aren't a GIGANTIC issue. Millions, probably billions, are bet on the NFL every week. One of these refs who may not have a job tomorrow could make huge money pretty easy.
    You saying this doesn't happen with the official refs?
    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ref'ing thread

      This eff'ing ref'ing has been eff'ing awful.
      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


      • #18
        Re: Ref'ing thread

        I think we're going to have these replacement sloths of officials for the rest of the year
        Smothered Chicken!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Ref'ing thread

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          I can't believe the potential gambling issues of this aren't a GIGANTIC issue. Millions, probably billions, are bet on the NFL every week. One of these refs who may not have a job tomorrow could make huge money pretty easy.
          She's not the one I would be worried about, but if a professional gambler got through, how many Tim Donaghys got through too?
          "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


          • #20
            Re: Ref'ing thread

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            If Dick Bavetta and Ted Valentine became replacement NFL officials, it might be an UPGRADE.
            Actually, I didn't think Knick Bavetta was all that awful this past year....
            "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


            • #21
              Re: Ref'ing thread

              The 70,000 home fans screaming "bull$*it" at the top of their lungs made the refs downright scared in the late game last night.

              Merely supremely bad officiating, in both directions, suddenly became "From this point forward, to get us out of here in one piece, the Ravens can do no wrong. If the Ravens tackle a pass rusher, so be it. If Ray Lewis wants to tackle Rob Gronkowski on 3rd down as he goes out for a pass, well, he's Ray Lewis. If Ravens receivers push off to get open, fine, let's just get out of here as soon as possible with the fans satisfied."
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Ref'ing thread

                Yeah, no player/coach/fan ever complains about real NFL refs...

                I understand there are issues with referees, but people just go off and pretend like officiating is something that people just don't simply ***** about all the time anyways. And before I get the whole "Yeah, but not at this level" reasoning, let me remind you the Steelers-Seahawks SB.
                Last edited by Since86; 09-24-2012, 10:31 AM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ref'ing thread

                  Ummm... the most first downs by penalty in any game in the HISTORY of the NFL. 8 instances of after-the-whistle extra contact/jawing, in the 1st quarter alone, with no flags.

                  With all due respect, I think long-time NFL fans can tell the difference between an ill-timed unfortunate judgement call and sheer incompetence, Since86.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Ref'ing thread

                    The thing these refs are missing consistently though are helmet hits or hits to a player's head in general. Yesterday they missed two in the Colts game that I noticed, one was when Luck slid and was hit in the head as he was sliding. The other was a pass interference that should have been called, but more specifically Donnie Avery was hit in the damn head by the DB and nothing was called. Someone is going to be seriously hurt if they don't at least start making these calls correctly at the least.

                    Obviously the DHB hit was scary, but I have never seen more late hits on QBs go uncalled as what is happening right now. The defense just simply does not respect these refs. They are lining up for late hits on QBs as soon as they leave the pocket. RGIII has gotten them, Matt Ryan has gotten them in games that I've watched. A QB is going to be seriously hurt. I feel like they have put skirts on them to an extent the past few years, but with these replacement refs who IMO simply cannot keep up with the speed of the game, the amount of late hits on QBs has sky rocketed IMO and they are coming when any QB tries to run.

                    I mean if we say rookie players have to adjust to the speed of the game how can we expect scab referees to keep up with it? They simply cannot keep up with everything that is happening. They are so worried about making the right calls that they are missing dangerous penalties.
                    Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-24-2012, 10:39 AM.


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Ref'ing thread

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      What's insulting is that the NFL tries to act like everything is just fine and that everyone complaining about this is crying over nothing. What an arrogant commissioner.

                      There was a ridiculous pass interference called on New England in (I think) the 4th quarter. Collingsworth looked at it and simply said something like: "I hope that they (the real officials) are working on a deal right now." I'm glad that the people who call the games aren't trying to cover up for the NFL. The media who partner with the NFL have been very good about exposing this fiasco for what it is.
                      Dakich has been unbearable about this. Normally I like him, but he is taking the stance that the officiating isn't that bad just to be the guy who plays the other side and it is absolutely the most annoying thing in the world.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Ref'ing thread

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Someone is going to be seriously hurt if they don't at least start making these calls correctly at the least.
                        Going to? Does Darius Heyward-Bey not count?
                        "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


                        • #27
                          Re: Ref'ing thread

                          Even when these officials are getting calls right, it often takes them an obscene amount of time to figure out what happened and how they are going to say it. This kills the pace of a game that was already long even when it was being called efficiently. This happened last week in the Broncos-Falcons game, happened in our game yesterday, and happened in New England-Baltimore last night. Wasn't Belichick complaining about it? It's probably happened in almost every game, but those are just the ones I can think of that I've seen firsthand.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Ref'ing thread

                            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                            Going to? Does Darius Heyward-Bey not count?
                            Sorry, yes he counts clearly, but I was in QB mode, because it seems that defenses have realized it is essentially open season right now on any QB who runs out of the pocket.

                            Not to minimalize what happened to DHB but I was glad to see his thumbs up so I'm guessing it just didn't stick in my head. And to be fair he's not the first player ever even under good circumstances to get hurt badly when he goes over the middle.

                            I am saying that at some point, maybe next week, a sliding QB is going to get knocked the **** out by a defender on a late hit and then there is going to be a major issue. That is going to be the matchstick that lights the kindling IMO. Because if I was an offensive lineman and I saw my sliding QB getting destroyed the way Luck, RGIII, Matt Ryan, Vick, etc. have been, I would be pissed. The first time a QB doesn't get up from one of those hits, I predict we are going to see an incident.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Ref'ing thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Even when these officials are getting calls right, it often takes them an obscene amount of time to figure out what happened and how they are going to say it. This kills the pace of a game that was already long even when it was being called efficiently. This happened last week in the Broncos-Falcons game, happened in our game yesterday, and happened in New England-Baltimore last night. Wasn't Belichick complaining about it? It's probably happened in almost every game, but those are just the ones I can think of that I've seen firsthand.
                              Um, yesterday during the Chiefs/Saints game, there was a "fumble" by the Chiefs (in quotes because anyone with eyes could see he was clearly down) that was returned for a TD, and the refs reviewed it, but before they reviewed they didn't even clarify what the call was on the field. They just said, the play is going to be reviewed. That's it.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Ref'ing thread

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Dakich has been unbearable about this. Normally I like him, but he is taking the stance that the officiating isn't that bad just to be the guy who plays the other side and it is absolutely the most annoying thing in the world.
                                I agree, but he may change his mind after this past weekend. The refs around the league just took it to another level of terrible.
                                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X