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

Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

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

  • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

    26-10 in favor of Ronnie and the Pacers now...it keeps on growing!

    Comment


    • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

      Originally posted by XXSASSXX31
      26-10 in favor of Ronnie and the Pacers now...it keeps on growing!
      Stop voting. The poll is not scientific; therefore, it is flawed and invalid. It does not "prove" any point you may be trying to make.

      Comment


      • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

        Originally posted by XXSASSXX31
        Look, I am not taking a scientific poll here.

        Right now, it is 17-6 in favor of Ron and the Pacers and no my poll is not flawed and it is not invalid. This forum favors Ron 17-6 at the current point and the ones who hate him posted here while the ones who support him simply have not because some of them may feel like they will get chastised by some of you....

        Pacer fans I have met throughout support Ron unanimously...even ones I know in Indy who regularly goes to games...all I have to say is look at all the Ron Artest jerseys in the crowd and throughout the country I find the Ron Artest jersey to be the most popular even ahead of J.O.

        Look for me at the Pacer-Suns game Sunday in Phoenix, I will be right behind the Pacer bench...1st row!
        Actually, yes, the poll is flawed and invalid. Statistics 101.

        Problems with the poll at a glance: Two extreme answers to choose from, a person can vote more than once, nonrandom biased sample, etc.

        Once again, you have not met all Pacers fans, so don't generalize. This is a topic that I know you CANNOT generalize. It elicits too many different responses.

        I love Artest as a player. And I think Stern acted too quickly. And, I think that the year long suspension is rather harsh, but a new precedent needed to be set. Ron Artest is being made an example. Sometimes that needs to be done.

        Comment


        • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

          Originally posted by Stryder
          Actually, yes, the poll is flawed and invalid. Statistics 101.

          Problems with the poll at a glance: Two extreme answers to choose from, a person can vote more than once, nonrandom biased sample, etc.

          Once again, you have not met all Pacers fans, so don't generalize. This is a topic that I know you CANNOT generalize. It elicits too many different responses.

          I love Artest as a player. And I think Stern acted too quickly. And, I think that the year long suspension is rather harsh, but a new precedent needed to be set. Ron Artest is being made an example. Sometimes that needs to be done.

          Once again, I am not voting over and over...you can only vote once on these boards....

          Now again, I question the loyalty of Pacer fans who say that the suspension was just and a "new precedent" needed to be set...why?!?!

          Why was the blame not shared around the table? Why did Ben the Punk Wallace get only 6 games? How come the Referees did not eject Wallace? The refs did not have control of the game and the incident was dragging on...where in the hell was Detroit security???? The blame obviously was not shared around as it should have been.

          You can not like Ron and want him traded...but for any sane person to say thge suspensions were "just" and not overboard based on any factor....I question their loyalty because the suspensions were not just an attack on Ron Artest, but they were an attack on the Pacers organization and to Pacer fans everywhere...

          BTW, you are right...I may not know Pacer fans all over the world...every single one...but based on the ones I do know and the ones I see on tv...the Ron Artest jersey is still very popular and is one of the highest Pacer selling jerseys....these numbers are very important and even though the anti-Ron crowd organized 13 votes against Ron (probably double votes)....Pacers Digest members still clearly favor Ron and the Pacers.

          Comment


          • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

            "probably double votes"? Sassan, you JUST SAID in the SAME post that you can't do that on these polls (and you're right, you can't). What was that?

            Comment


            • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

              Originally posted by Hicks
              "probably double votes"? Sassan, you JUST SAID in the SAME post that you can't do that on these polls (and you're right, you can't). What was that?
              What if people made multiple screennames??? I don't have any multiple sns....and what if there was an organized effort? I sure did not have an organized rally for people to vote Pro-Ron...people saw the poll and voted!

              Comment


              • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                I HIGHLY doubt people took all that time and effort for this. And, actually, you have a bunch of aliases...

                Comment


                • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                  Originally posted by Hicks
                  I HIGHLY doubt people took all that time and effort for this. And, actually, you have a bunch of aliases...
                  I DID....all my other ones are banned and I only use this one.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                    Ok.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                      Since this thread had gone to hell, I would like to say something. Something strange has happened to the chair I sit in, previously amazingly comfortable, it has been now robbed of that necessary "comfort" factor. It is like I am being punished here, this thing is bound to hurt me. Sassoon I am blaming you for this strange occurance.
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                        Originally posted by XXSASSXX31
                        Wow you were 24 or 25???

                        Of course you are A Pacer fan and a lot of you are....and you should be proud...but there comes to an extent where just some fans bash everything about this team instead of rallying behind it...

                        I mean on this forum I have even heard the call of "Trade Stephen Jackson" because he is a thug...I am a Pacer fan and I am proud.

                        Again, I turn 21 in May and I have been a Pacer fan before I was 10 and have never stepped in Indiana...I have given a lot up for the Pacers and I do not regret it one bit....but I have never started to backstab them even some of the players I was not too fond of...there really comes a limit, if I didn't know any better and just by reading the posts I would think some on here hate the Pacers.

                        A couple of things.

                        1. No, my bad. I was 27 when we started posting together so I was still a little older than you are now. God that feels like a lifetime ago.

                        2. Ok, now that you've said that I'm a Pacers fan how do we reconcile the fact that I am Ron Artest biggest detractor on here. You think Jay is bad? I've been on his @ss since the day he punched Andre Kirlinko in the back of the head two seasons ago. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a wonderfull baskteball talent & I would love for nothing more for than the guy to be able to get it together & help the team. But I've just seen to much. To me the fight on the 19th was not the end with him. That came a long time ago.

                        But having said all of that, I love the Pacers. We both know that. Trust me I know you love the Pacers to, but I just don't support Ron.

                        3. What school are you going to now? I know you used to go to a high $$$ private blue ribbon prep. school. Where did you get into?


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                          Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                          Since this thread had gone to hell, I would like to say something. Something strange has happened to the chair I sit in, previously amazingly comfortable, it has been now robbed of that necessary "comfort" factor. It is like I am being punished here, this thing is bound to hurt me. Sassoon I am blaming you for this strange occurance.

                          When you betray Ron...you betray me...so I cast a curse on you...lol i'm joking. Sorry about your chair.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                            It seems interesting, doesn't it????

                            The poll had it supporting Ron 26-10 and all of a sudden 6 people voted against Ron and the PACERS??? You're telling me they had only 10 votes but all of a sudden 6 people jumped in against Ronnie...i'm telling you, the anti-Ron crowd organized their efforts or a poster made various usernames to do this...but regardless even with their tactics, even Pacers Digest members clearly favor Ron and support him.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                              Originally posted by Peck
                              A couple of things.

                              1. No, my bad. I was 27 when we started posting together so I was still a little older than you are now. God that feels like a lifetime ago.

                              2. Ok, now that you've said that I'm a Pacers fan how do we reconcile the fact that I am Ron Artest biggest detractor on here. You think Jay is bad? I've been on his @ss since the day he punched Andre Kirlinko in the back of the head two seasons ago. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a wonderfull baskteball talent & I would love for nothing more for than the guy to be able to get it together & help the team. But I've just seen to much. To me the fight on the 19th was not the end with him. That came a long time ago.

                              But having said all of that, I love the Pacers. We both know that. Trust me I know you love the Pacers to, but I just don't support Ron.

                              3. What school are you going to now? I know you used to go to a high $$$ private blue ribbon prep. school. Where did you get into?
                              Peck,


                              Time truly has gone by so fast...it really is scary...i'm going to be 21 soon...it is frightening when you think about how short life really is.

                              You don't have to support Ron 100% to love the Pacers...but there comes to a limit which boundaries are drawn. Even if you want to trade Ron, I do not see how you can put 100% of the blame on Ron for what happened on 11/19 and I do not see how a rational person can justify the season long suspension of Ron based on precedence or any factor you want to look at! Ron was attacked on 11/19 twice and a year before he had coins thrown at him so he snapped...he should have been punished but a year long suspension was clearly overboard and was not just an insult at Ron but was an insult on the Pacers franchise.

                              I do support Ron, and we must look at how much his behavior had improved before 11/19....Ron is a interesting individual and we must look at all the factors...but I believe he will return next season and help our team dramatically.

                              Peck,

                              I never went to a "private prep. school"...I am not sure where you got that one at but I did go to a Blue Ribbon High School...I am going to a j.c. and working and will transfer to UCI hopefully soon...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Supporting Ron Ron= Supporting PACERS

                                LOL!111!!!!!1111!!!11!!!
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X