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

Roy's comment's

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

  • #61
    Re: Roy's comment's

    There is a big difference between insulting gay people, something that actually exists, and insulting God, a fictitious entity.

    Nobody cares if Santa Claus gets insulted. Why should God be any different?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Roy's comment's

      Originally posted by owl View Post
      Sexuality was created by God and is good. From the beginning it was intended for use between a man and a woman in marriage. It was corrupted early on with polygamy and has been increasingly perverted over time. We are called to holiness. Outside of God's intent
      Is sin. I say these things as a sinner who needs God's mercy and grace through his son Jesus.
      God does not exist. That you believe in a silly fairy tale and call yourself a "Christian" does not make you the arbiter of what is moral behavior. Get off your high horse.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Roy's comment's

        Originally posted by owl View Post
        Sexuality was created by God and is good. From the beginning it was intended for use between a man and a woman in marriage. It was corrupted early on with polygamy and has been increasingly perverted over time. We are called to holiness. Outside of God's intent
        Is sin. I say these things as a sinner who needs God's mercy and grace through his son Jesus.
        You forgot to add this is just your opinion.
        No Jesus!

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Roy's comment's

          Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
          We should. Homophobia is no different than racism- it is fear and hatred of a group of people based on a characteristic (skin color, sexual preference) over which they have no control.
          Race and sexual desire are not the same. You have the ability to control your desire. You cannot do anything about skin color or other physical characteristic.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Roy's comment's

            Originally posted by owl View Post
            Race and sexual desire are not the same. You have the ability to control your desire. You cannot do anything about skin color or other physical characteristic.
            When did you choose to be a heterosexual? When was the defining moment in your life when you stood at the fork in the road and consciously chose to prefer women over men?

            You didn't just like homosexuals did not choose to be attracted to men.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Roy's comment's

              Originally posted by owl View Post
              Race and sexual desire are not the same. You have the ability to control your desire. You cannot do anything about skin color or other physical characteristic.
              You really don't know how ignorant you look in this thread, do you? I almost pity folks like you.

              In any case, not going to get into a debate. You're pushing this thread toward lockdown anyway, and this isn't the place beyond that.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Roy's comment's

                I have stated what is my belief. Just as others have in this thread. I will bow out at this time.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Roy's comment's

                  I'm shocked and disappointed that so few of you object to Roy's implication that members of the national media are engaged in incestuous carnal relations with their own mothers. Actually, "implication" is the wrong word. He didn't imply, he flat-out said it.

                  Parent-child sexual contact is deeply evil, and no one should be accused of it without serious evidence. To trivialize it with a throwaway insult is disgusting.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Roy's comment's

                    I watched the post game interview on NBATV. I just didn't see a big deal with what he said. He merely said he isn't a homo. Glad he didn't say he was a homo.

                    And as far as the MF, he was spot on and many will listen now for the fact he dropped the MF bomb.

                    Love you Roy and I'm no homo.
                    Last edited by Pacer Fan; 06-02-2013, 10:22 AM.
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Roy's comment's

                      So lets all go to work tomorrow and blurt out what Roy said. On second thought I need my job so maybe I won't.
                      Last edited by RWB; 06-02-2013, 10:26 AM.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Re: Roy's comment's

                        Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                        There is a big difference between insulting gay people, something that actually exists, and insulting God, a fictitious entity.

                        Nobody cares if Santa Claus gets insulted. Why should God be any different?
                        So, essentially, because you don't believe in it, it should be okay to insult it? You are aware that this is pretty much the exact definition of bigotry, correct?

                        Bigotry | Dictionary.com

                        bigotry
                        noun, plural big·ot·ries.

                        1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
                        So, basically, you're a bigot rallying against bigotry.

                        Tell me, have you ever taken an IQ test? If so, would you mind sharing the results with the board? I've had a bad day and could use a hearty laugh.


                        On a side note, I'm still waiting for the first argument for atheism that's both based on positive evidence and is subject to testing via the various scientific methods.
                        Last edited by Lance George; 06-02-2013, 10:29 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Roy's comment's

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          No kidding. Routinely people are posting GD and whatever they want. The media freely does it. There is no bigger double standard.

                          Now...I don't think it's right to insult a homosexual either. But the fact is, for those Christians with a firm understanding of their faith (specifically the Bible), homosexuality is unquestionably a sin. It's not even a debate except for people who want to make their own rules...
                          The problem is that not everyone is religious, and therefore doesn't share your belief that it is a sin. I choose to base my beliefs on rational thought and proven facts because to me that makes sense. I have nothing against Christianity; however, my issue is when people use their religious beliefs to try to oppress and belittle another group of people. I thought religion was about loving and accepting thy neighbor, not the hate, hate, hate attitude that I hear so often. And you really can't say that those who accept homosexuality and are Christian are "making their own rules" without acknowledging that there are so many things in the Bible that are universally ignored because of how absolutely ridiculous those "rules" are. Everyone picks and chooses things to believe and not believe out of the Bible, and that is a fact.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Roy's comment's

                            Originally posted by RWB View Post
                            So lets all go to work tomorrow and blurt out what Roy said. On second thought I need my job so maybe I won't.
                            So, if you go to work and say your a homo and you get fired, then you are discriminated and a law suit could happen, so, you probably won't be fired. But you'll lose your job if you say your not a homo cause why?

                            Double standard there.
                            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Roy's comment's

                              It's just about consciousness.

                              Those who don't understand it probably haven't thought of what it actually means. I've laid it out before. It's not different than saying "that's gay." Aka..gay is bad. Most people who use the phrase don't realize it because people haven't really analyzed the meaning too deeply.

                              It's different from "that's what she said" because despite them both referencing sexual innuendos, "That's what she said" isn't saying anything negative about women. It's similar to the phrase "If you know what I mean."

                              Those who think Christians are discriminated against in this country... Is there is a war on Christmas and straight white men too? Christians, and straight white men..are the dominant group in society. So, in general..poking fun of a minority group versus poking fun of the group in power is very different. (and don't ***** about the "double standard." Seriously. Straight white Christian men are on the better end of the double standards by a long shot.) That being said, if Roy Hibbert said anything negative about Christians..people would have been upset.

                              He didn't though. He swore and he used a phrase that is associated with gay bashing.

                              I don't think Roy let the win go to his head. I think he's candid and excited in "after game interviews." The swearing was hilarious, and spot on. Obviously, the media is upset with it. They don't like it when people call them out. But they deserve it. And they'll watch next year.

                              The "no homo" thing. Despite my comments above, this seemed very much like a 13 year old who makes everything into a penis joke. He said "no homo" because "that's what she said" and "if you no what I mean" didn't fit the sexual joke. I don't think he meant it in a negative light. Honestly, it's more of a "uneducated" thing to say than a hate filled thing to say.

                              I hope Roy doesn't become discouraged from the attention though. I want him playing at his highest level of confidence. I also hope he doesn't apologize for what he said to the media. It was true.

                              On the other side. This really could be a benefit to us. Them discussing Roy's comments means the Heat don't get to hear about how they looked out classed and might lose. (Which motivates them. They don't like not having the attention.) And Lance doesn't have to hear about how he hasn't shown up on the road, and Paul George doesn't have to hear about how he needs to be superman. (A lot of game 7 pressure, they don't have to hear about..even if they are feeling it.)

                              Roy should just educate himself, apologize, move on. The way he talks in interviews..this won't be the last time he says something he shouldn't have. It's all right though, people like that.
                              Last edited by Sookie; 06-02-2013, 10:39 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Roy's comment's

                                Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                                So, if you go to work and say your a homo and you get fired, then you are discriminated and a law suit could happen, so, you probably won't be fired. But you'll lose your job if you say your not a homo cause why?

                                Double standard there.
                                Actually it is more like HR calling me in behind closed doors and asking "what is your Fing problem and are you Fing nuts". Of course this is followed by "would you like to put in your resignation".
                                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

                                Working...
                                X