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

Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

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

  • #16
    Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

    If a child of mine was EVER touched by a coach in that way, either he would end up in prison or I would. I think times have changed for the better.

    It was obvious to me that (for whatever reason) Bobby Knight's overbearing intimidation methods stopped working on his players, and the only thing he could come up with was to turn up the volume, not turn it down. The footage of the Reed choke nearly made me lose my lunch. That kid looked like a boxer on the court, and I sometimes wondered if all those black eyes came from game play.

    Did any Indiana folks dislike BOTH Artest and Knight?
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

      Originally posted by Los Angeles
      If a child of mine was EVER touched by a coach in that way, either he would end up in prison or I would. I think times have changed for the better.

      It was obvious to me that (for whatever reason) Bobby Knight's overbearing intimidation methods stopped working on his players, and the only thing he could come up with was to turn up the volume, not turn it down. The footage of the Reed choke nearly made me lose my lunch. That kid looked like a boxer on the court, and I sometimes wondered if all those black eyes came from game play.

      Did any Indiana folks dislike BOTH Artest and Knight?

      I was in Jr. High about 45 years ago...and my father whipped alot harder than that coach did. And there was no appeal to police or courts back then. Oh, and if you got a whuppin at school...you got one at home....afterwards they MIGHT ask what you had done to deserve whipping at school. But we didn't talk back to teachers, parents, coaches or police back then either.
      NOW SEE WHAT YOU WENT AND DID!!! YOU GOT ME STARTED!!!
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

        Geezer, it's stories that that make me GLAD things have changed. I hate how kids/their parents can and do abuse it today (teacher touches kid's arm, kid doesn't like teacher, kid cries, screams acts like they've been shot, teacher gets grilled for it), but I prefer that to kids being beaten.

        *steps off soapbox*

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

          Originally posted by Hicks
          Geezer, it's stories that that make me GLAD things have changed. I hate how kids/their parents can and do abuse it today (teacher touches kid's arm, kid doesn't like teacher, kid cries, screams acts like they've been shot, teacher gets grilled for it), but I prefer that to kids being beaten.

          *steps off soapbox*
          There is a difference between "beaten" and spanked. I've never seen a kid beaten at school except by a schooyard bully. The belt by the coach was excessive true, but nobody went yelling to the cops/newpapers either. It was handled internally and effectively.
          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

            I guess I consider hard whippings a beating anymore. I see the difference in what you're saying though.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

              Get back on topic or the FA will be moving this to the Politics board.
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                You mean, like, me?

                Bobby Knight. Well, I grew up knowing him as "famous IU coach, won some titles, good coach, and threw a chair and screamed a lot". I've learned more of him now, and I feel about the same way, but I think he's a loud-mouthed bully and don't think of him that often. Fun to watch talk though.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                  Originally posted by indygeezer
                  I was in Jr. High about 45 years ago...and my father whipped alot harder than that coach did. And there was no appeal to police or courts back then. Oh, and if you got a whuppin at school...you got one at home....afterwards they MIGHT ask what you had done to deserve whipping at school. But we didn't talk back to teachers, parents, coaches or police back then either.
                  NOW SEE WHAT YOU WENT AND DID!!! YOU GOT ME STARTED!!!


                  I like it when folks don't hold back. I guess that's why I post here.

                  If this were back then, would Ron be the one that deserves a beating? Or coach Knight?

                  An inability to relate to children is no reason to beat them down. Children talk back today, and are looking for a response. "Because i said so" used to be enough, because it came with threat of a belt. I like the challenges modern kids bring, because they make me really think about my decisions.

                  Dealing with kids, and people in general for that matter, you have to be more sly and manipulative, make them think your idea is really their idea. It's tricky and not for the short-tempered.

                  If you can't out smart people, out beating them only makes them hate you, not respect you.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                    BTW - what happened to the kid in your story? Did the kid become a better player or better person? Or did the kid drop out of basketball for good, missing out on all the things he could have learned from being on the team? Something in between?
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles


                      I like it when folks don't hold back. I guess that's why I post here.

                      If this were back then, would Ron be the one that deserves a beating? Or coach Knight?

                      An inability to relate to children is no reason to beat them down. Children talk back today, and are looking for a response. "Because i said so" used to be enough, because it came with threat of a belt. I like the challenges modern kids bring, because they make me really think about my decisions.

                      Dealing with kids, and people in general for that matter, you have to be more sly and manipulative, make them think your idea is really their idea. It's tricky and not for the short-tempered.

                      If you can't out smart people, out beating them only makes them hate you, not respect you.
                      OH oh....
                      I can understand to a degree what you are saying but (isn't there always a "but"?) your method also sets the example where the kid learns to sneak around and manipulate others rather than respect rule and accept the consequences of their actions. At some time they may be shocked to learn that there are consequences and they won't understand why they can't get out of paying the price forwhat they did.
                      Manipulating them teaches kids that to get their way they must manipulate others rather than deal honestly and fairly. Now your arguement is that beating them teaches them to lash out and use force. But not if they learn to respect others first. And that was part of my upbringing. Respect others and their rights or there is a penalty to pay and sometimes that penalty is painful.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles
                        BTW - what happened to the kid in your story? Did the kid become a better player or better person? Or did the kid drop out of basketball for good, missing out on all the things he could have learned from being on the team? Something in between?
                        He played the remained of his eligibility but because he had been held back in early grades, he was over the age limit his senior year. He went on to be a car salesman, embezzeled money from the dealership and spent time in prison. The last I heard he OWNED a dealership in Arizona.

                        Honest
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                          I think we're seeing eye to eye. I also very much believe in structure and discipline, as it's clear you do. I was wrong to use the word "manipulation" because that suggests lying is appropriate. I think "reasoning" - turning the question back on them and putting them on the spot - is a better word. Can't explain why you need an extra 5 bucks? No money from me. You've come up with a good reason? Here's your 5 bucks, but i'll be asking you all about it later. Later: Can't prove you used the 5 bucks the way you said you would? Got caught in a lie? Enjoy all that sweeping and mopping. The Garage could use some help too. Plus, you just gave me more ammo for next time.

                          Talking it through KEEPS kids honest, it doesn't encourage them to lie as long as you are diligent. I should add that this is only one of the weapons in your arsenal - not the only one. Discipline is a good thing. Push ups. Running laps. Towel duty. 100 free throws. These are all physical forms of discipline used by our coaches, and don't require one swat.

                          Sometimes, especially when they are young, I consider laying hands on kids an absolute last resort - but a little goes a long way. And only if we are talking about your own kids.

                          I wouldn't DARE touch another person's child. Obviously, your coach felt that it was OK.
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                            Originally posted by indygeezer
                            He played the remained of his eligibility but because he had been held back in early grades, he was over the age limit his senior year. He went on to be a car salesman, embezzeled money from the dealership and spent time in prison. The last I heard he OWNED a dealership in Arizona.

                            Honest
                            Wow - just wow.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                              Now see, we have exact same methods of disciplin. I'm a firm believer that windows need washing just every few days, and there is always a garage to clean, or a stairway to vacuum. Don't like it? Just say so because we've got a really messy house and additional chores can be assigned!!
                              Geezer Jr. and Geezerette can count on one hand the number of times I've applied corporal punishment to either. {{Unfortunately my oldest two cannot say the same They are nearly 40 and I was brutal when they were young}}. Oh, the younger ones have also discovered that even mom and dad can assign term papers to write. And they get graded (Mrs. G being a teacher). But I do not condemn a parent who uses an open hand swat to the bottom at the appropriate time. Sometimes other means just do not have the needed impact.

                              A few years ago I was at Jr. Cub Scout meeting. 50-60 boys and their parents in attendance. During the break a scuffel occurred and two boys ganged up on a smaller one. They knocked him down and were punching on him and started to kick him. I came up behind hind the two, grabbed em by the shirt collar and lifted them up off their feet. Face to face I yelled at em...WE DON'T DO THAT SORT OF STUFF AROUND HERE....I had never seen the boys before in my life. But I soon found out that their parents had seen what I did. They were part of the group that asked me to be the Cub Leader the next year. (NO THANKS I DID THAT WITH THE OLDEST TWO)
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Bobby Knight - Ron Artest - Question?

                                Good stories. Thanks.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X