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

Stern speaks on security

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

  • Stern speaks on security

    Associated Press

    ATLANTA -- The NBA will set new security guidelines for its arenas, exerting more authority over a matter previously left to individual teams, commissioner David Stern said Tuesday.

    David Stern
    Stern

    Stern said the Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons brawl that spilled into the stands and led to three Indiana players being suspended for 25 or more games -- including the season-long penalty for Ron Artest -- exposed current policies as inadequate.

    "I would say that's a whole subject that we have historically left to teams, and it's clear that's not going to be good enough anymore, so we're going to take another look at it," Stern said in his first public comments on the brawl since announcing the suspensions.

    Stern said the new guidelines will be issued in early January.

    The players union has filed an appeal on behalf of suspended players Stephen Jackson, Artest and Jermaine O'Neal, calling the penalties excessive. Jackson was suspended for 30 games and O'Neal for 25.

    Stern, who issued the suspensions two days after the brawl, said he had ample time to consider the lengths of the penalties.

    "Since the union has alleged that some of my public comments reflect a bias, I want to be careful, but I think it's fair to say I always think about what I've done," he said.

    Asked if he would be willing to consider shortening the suspensions, Stern said, "I don't want to prejudge the appeal."

    Stern was in Atlanta for Tuesday night's Hawks-Knicks game and to participate in a halftime ceremony honoring former Hawks owner Ted Turner.

    Stern said concerns raised by the brawl had been a secondary issue in recent years.

    He hinted the new security guidelines could include a ban on certain language used by fans.

    "We know that you can't hurl objects at a game, and it may be that you can't hurl certain expletives, either," he said.

    "Actually the area of most concern for us was protecting our building from terrorist threats," he said.

    Stern also said he did not think the brawl, suspensions or appeal would affect the tone of the upcoming NBA labor negotiations, including a session scheduled for next week.

    "I doubt it. I don't think so," he said. "I think that most players will realize that this action was taken to protect the golden goose and to protect their images, rather than to sully them. I would suggest that dealing harshly with players who breach fundamental tenants of player-fan interaction is designed to protect our players as well as our fans."

    Stern said he expects talks with the union to rise above the negative publicity generated by the brawl.

    "We've been at this for too many years," he said. "We can fight and be intelligent. We can fight and fraternize at the same time."

    Artest bolted into the stands after being hit by a cup thrown by a fan, touching off a brawl in which players exchanged punches with fans, who also threw drinks, popcorn and other debris at the Indiana players.

    Jackson also went into the stands and exchanged punches with fans, while O'Neal hit a fan who ran onto the court.

    "I think it's important for our fans and the entire NBA family to understand that we have 450 players and only four were involved [to] the extent ... there were long-term suspensions," Stern said. "These suspensions are as much to set a fine line between behavior that almost all of the 450 would not engage in and the offensive behavior those four engaged in."

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1935461
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

  • #2
    Re: Stern speaks on security

    "I think it's important for our fans and the entire NBA family to understand that we have 450 players and only four were involved [to] the extent ... there were long-term suspensions," Stern said. "These suspensions are as much to set a fine line between behavior that almost all of the 450 would not engage in and the offensive behavior those four engaged in."
    I thought I saw a segment where they went around the league and with the exception of Grant Hill, nobody was willing to say they wouldn't do the same. And Grant Hill didn't really answer the question, just said "The league's always gonna survive, and no one incident's gonna kill it."

    EDIT: Nobody except Ben Wallace (the guy whose thrown towel started it all) and Rasheed Wallace (the guy that tracked a ref out to the parking lot and threatened to kill him, as well as parking his car in front of another team's bus). Both of them were pretty quick to take the "high road."
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stern speaks on security

      Stern was in Atlanta for Tuesday night's Hawks-Knicks game and to participate in a halftime ceremony honoring former Hawks owner Ted Turne+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      That tells me all I need to know about the Commish right there.

      BTW...I don't think the PA is going to try too hard to fight for our guys. I just get the feeling the are publicly posturing for appearances sake.



      Lawyer-types you tell me...if the league sets a standard for security, wouldn't that make the league liable for whatever happens in the building then?
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Stern speaks on security

        Originally posted by naturallystoned


        "I think it's important for our fans and the entire NBA family to understand that we have 450 players and only four were involved [to] the extent ... there were long-term suspensions," Stern said. "These suspensions are as much to set a fine line between behavior that almost all of the 450 would not engage in and the offensive behavior those four engaged in."

        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1935461

        I suppose Stern has to say that, but if he believes that only those 4 players would engage in that "type of behavior" then he is wrong.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Stern speaks on security

          Originally posted by Unclebuck
          I suppose Stern has to say that, but if he believes that only those 4 players would engage in that "type of behavior" then he is wrong.
          This is a CYA move. I think the Pacers will be able to use this in their lawsuit against the league. Even Stern admits the security was woeful.
          "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
          - Benjamin Franklin

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Stern speaks on security

            Of course needing a stun gun fired twice to stop a 7ft NBA player from wrecking a bar and a few policemen has nothing to do with the image of the NBA at least not that much that the league should worry, or name any of the serious crimes committed by (ex) NBA players.

            "No sir that's not my dope, someone else put it there, they will testify to that!"
            (that is because you found it, otherwise I would have smoked it!)
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Stern speaks on security

              Of course not! It wasn't on TV. No video, only words, words, words. How boring.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Stern speaks on security

                So, since he's putting the blame on individual team owners, where's the penalty for Tom Wilson?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Stern speaks on security

                  Originally posted by naturallystoned
                  Associated Press

                  "Actually the area of most concern for us was protecting our building from terrorist threats," he said.


                  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1935461

                  This is hilarious if you think about it. How are they (Palace security) going to protect people and the building from terrorist attacks if they can't even keep a fan from throwing a cup of beer.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Stern speaks on security

                    Originally posted by btowncolt
                    "That type of behavior"?

                    I hate the hypocrisy of all this. Shouldn't he have at least attempted to do something in the last 20 years about all the guys with criminal records who play in the NBA?

                    Jason Kidd becamse the NBA's poster boy for beating his wife. Jermaine O'Neal got suspended 25 games for hitting a fan who charged the court looking to attack Pacer players.
                    If your acts are intentional or premeditated, then you can get away with a slap on the wrist or a vacation of a couple of games. If you do something in the heat of the moment and you are somewhat justified, you *** is gone for awhile.
                    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X