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

  • Re: Roy's comment's

    Originally posted by rock747 View Post
    Haven't read through this thread but could what Roy Hibbert said even be considered a slur?
    You should read through the thread so we don't have to go 'round about this again.
    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

    Comment


    • Re: Roy's comment's

      Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
      Think about the many reasons this is dumb/wrong/unnecessary though...

      1. Why even need to clarify? Because the media would have assumed Hibbert meant LeBron had gay sex with him during the game? Think about how stupid that is, and how wholly unnecessary it would be to "clarify" anything there.

      2. Think about the process of "othering" then, specifically with the slur "homo". It's synonymous with me saying "I was [activity an ethnic group might be stereotyped for], no [ethnic slur]!" What he's essentially saying is "please don't confuse me for a homosexual for having said that", through a slur (yes, "homo" is a slur), as if he needs to distance himself from a "perceived" (in his mind) homosexual act. The process of othering = how we arrive at bigotry, however subtle or non-subtle it might be.

      I don't believe Hibbert had any negative intent. I personally was not offended. But I wouldn't blame anyone who was, and it's their right to be offended if a culture which perpetuates the practice of othering and offers a word like "homo" as an accepted figure of speech (better yet, a punchline) is just deemed acceptable or applaudable. If a gay man or woman is offended by this, they have every right to be, because it's part of a culture which acts to diminish their presence.

      All that said, again, my biggest personal gripe here is that it just wasn't funny/appropriate anyway. Even if you're into "no homo" jokes -- and those died 2 or 3 years ago, now it's just lame to keep bandying them about -- that was a really dumb one. Hibbert is a professional basketball player, not a boy in a junior high cafeteria. We should expect more.
      Well said.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
        Think about the many reasons this is dumb/wrong/unnecessary though...

        1. Why even need to clarify? Because the media would have assumed Hibbert meant LeBron had gay sex with him during the game? Think about how stupid that is, and how wholly unnecessary it would be to "clarify" anything there.

        2. Think about the process of "othering" then, specifically with the slur "homo". It's synonymous with me saying "I was [activity an ethnic group might be stereotyped for], no [ethnic slur]!" What he's essentially saying is "please don't confuse me for a homosexual for having said that", through a slur (yes, "homo" is a slur), as if he needs to distance himself from a "perceived" (in his mind) homosexual act. The process of othering = how we arrive at bigotry, however subtle or non-subtle it might be.

        I don't believe Hibbert had any negative intent. I personally was not offended. But I wouldn't blame anyone who was, and it's their right to be offended if a culture which perpetuates the practice of othering and offers a word like "homo" as an accepted figure of speech (better yet, a punchline) is just deemed acceptable or applaudable. If a gay man or woman is offended by this, they have every right to be, because it's part of a culture which acts to diminish their presence.

        All that said, again, my biggest personal gripe here is that it just wasn't funny/appropriate anyway. Even if you're into "no homo" jokes -- and those died 2 or 3 years ago, now it's just lame to keep bandying them about -- that was a really dumb one. Hibbert is a professional basketball player, not a boy in a junior high cafeteria. We should expect more.
        1. Why does ANYONE correct or clarify themselves in mid-conversation? Logically speaking, we know that the media wasn't going to believe he had sex on the court with Lebron. However and very whatever reason, Roy decided to clarify himself. Do you give thought to every single word that comes out of your mouth?

        2. You're over analyzing the situation, plus who defined "homo" as a "slur" anyways? Isn't it just short for homosexual? If a gay person says "no hetro" in the media, should I be offended?


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • Re: Roy's comment's

          This really did not need a thread, people are blowing this out of proportion

          Comment


          • Re: Roy's comment's

            Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
            Like Sookie said... unless you are gay, you have no right to define what is or isn't offensive to that particular group of people. If a white male said the N-word, then they would have absolutely no right to say to an African-American that shouldn't be offensive because of the negative connotation that exists with using that word outside of actually being African-American. I'm sure if I went to some other country I would probably say something that ended up offensive to someone because I simply was ignorant about that particular subject within that culture. I would apologize, learn from that experience, and make sure that I never used that offensive phrase again. It really is simple people.
            Someone in this thread just said I don't need to be offended as a Christian by G-D. Don't I get to decide for myself, or is the dominant culture not allowed to be offended?
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • Re: Roy's comment's

              This whole thing is frustrating for numerous reasons. The last reason, for me at least, is that I feel I should not continue this discussion here because I realize I've gone way too far with it already, given that we're on a Pacers board, but in another setting I would like to have continued. So I'm going to do what I should have done earlier and just stop discussing it.

              And given some of the other stuff that's been said here, I wouldn't be surprised if this is locked soon anyway.

              I just hope I was able to at least partially make my point / give my point of view without upsetting anybody.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                You've completely missed my point. I don't want to spend too much time on this but take some time and read the details of what happened to Matthew Shepard and then explain to me why a term like "homo" which has been regularly used in a derogatory way to dehumanize an entire class of people, should ever be used in any context.

                This doesn't mean that people who use the term mean it in that way, but any word which helps us to see people as objects, not people, needs to be done away with.
                Roys use of the word described an action, not people. It was the equivalent to saying the weren't actually playing with my butt. Not horribly offensive to anyone, although also pretty unneccesary

                Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
                Last edited by spazzxb; 06-02-2013, 01:16 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Roy's comment's

                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                  1. Why does ANYONE correct or clarify themselves in mid-conversation? Logically speaking, we know that the media wasn't going to believe he had sex on the court with Lebron. However and very whatever reason, Roy decided to clarify himself. Do you give thought to every single word that comes out of your mouth?

                  2. You're over analyzing the situation, plus who defined "homo" as a "slur" anyways? Isn't it just short for homosexual? If a gay person says "no hetro" in the media, should I be offended?
                  1. Roy decided to "clarify" himself for cheap laughter. There really is no mystery there. And there really is no justification for supporting it or in any way suggesting it was an intelligent/sensible/necessary thing to say.

                  2. Really?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Roy's comment's

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    Someone in this thread just said I don't need to be offended as a Christian by G-D. Don't I get to decide for myself, or is the dominant culture not allowed to be offended?
                    Which NBA player has sat at the podium after a game and used the word G--d---? When is that happening?

                    And, again, all references to God, be they positive or negative, are not aimed at Christianity. Christianity does not have sole ownership of the concept of God. But, regardless, the use of that curse word is not a slur aimed at an individual.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Roy's comment's

                      What I've learned: anti-homosexuality is so deeply embedded in the subconscious of mainstream culture that when someone uses a phrase that 1) includes a term ("homo") that, based on its history, is inarguably a slur, and 2) makes a joke intended to assure the audience that he is not part of the group he is slurring, many of us are genuinely surprised the comment is considered offensive by anyone.

                      I love the Pacers. I love Roy. His statement about Jason Collins tells me he doesn't have anything against gay people. But as a public figure and a role model, it would behoove him to use better judgement when a microphone is in front of him.

                      Finally: To those who complain about how incredibly sensitive our culture has become, and how you can't say anything anymore without a bunch of liberal crybabies crying foul: You're wrong. You can say whatever you want. But if you're representing a franchise, a city, and an international, multi-billion-dollar corporation, you have to be mindful of the responsibility that comes with that.

                      Bottom line: What Roy said was ignorant. He's obviously figuring that out. Hopefully some of you who think there was nothing wrong with what he said will figure it out someday, too.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Roy's comment's

                        I actually think it is healthy to have these conversations we're having here, even if this maybe isn't the most ideal place for them.

                        Regardless, I think we can agree Roy made a dumb mistake, which he is clearly for. He should and will be fined, probably significantly. The best thing that can happen from here? NBA appropriates that fine to LGBT youth groups, charities, "It Gets Better" campaigns etc. And maybe Hibbert considers working with some LGBT groups this offseason.

                        He's a good/smart guy who made a dumb mistake, but I'm sure he can learn from it, and it's a good cultural teaching point. Maybe everyone actually comes out of this a winner in the long haul.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Roy's comment's

                          Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                          Which NBA player has sat at the podium after a game and used the word G--d---? When is that happening?

                          And, again, all references to God, be they positive or negative, are not aimed at Christianity. Christianity does not have sole ownership of the concept of God. But, regardless, the use of that curse word is not a slur aimed at an individual.
                          I'm offended by G-D. Does that matter? Or not?
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Roy's comment's

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            I'm offended by G-D. Does that matter? Or not?
                            Of course it matters. And I would go out of my way not to use it while in your company.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                              1. Roy decided to "clarify" himself for cheap laughter. There really is no mystery there. And there really is no justification for supporting it or in any way suggesting it was an intelligent/sensible/necessary thing to say.

                              2. Really?
                              1. Agree to disagree.

                              2. Really... Answer the question. Should I be offended if a gay person says "no hetero" in the media? Both words are used in the classification of sexuality. How one word became a slur over the other is beyond me, but this sounds like a classic case of people trying to be "sensitive" to a group.


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Roy's comment's

                                I haven't yet posted in this thread, but I was actively involved in a good portion of the original back and forth about the topic last night in the game thread.

                                My major theme last night can be summed up as follows. I thought Roy's choice of language (both NH & MFs) was simply inappropriate for the context in which he was speaking as a public figure and a professional. I though it came off as flippant, disrespectful, sophomoric, and highly unprofessional. I was disappointed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was how it reflected on Roy, and by extension all he represents as a member of the Pacers (team, organization, city, state) etc.

                                However, I did recognize (like everyone) he isn't perfect, he made a mistake, and he certainly is not at all the type of person/player who regularly employs such low levels of tact and sensitivity publicly. To be fair, those sentiments came in multiple posts.

                                I felt it fair to post this point of view because some of the initial posts reporting the incident seemed to be laughing about it and cheering it on. This is a perfectly fine response and anyone who has it is free to defend it. At the same time, I think responses critical of Roy's comments are equally legitimate and defensible.

                                What's sad is that both individually and as part of a group of posters being critical of Roy's comments, I was told to "effin chill", "STFU", and that responses critical of Roy made those posters seem like "real dicks".

                                If you look at any of my posts, I included no direct or indirect attacks with this type of disrespect and name calling. I'm sure some of the critical of Roy posts did. And I'm also sure emotions were running high following the glorious victory. Still, you would think that people on all sides of this issue could refrain from base name calling and direct insult/foul language, at least when communicating with fellow posters.

                                Left a really bad taste in my mouth about the board in general. I get that this is why we're always trying to keep certain "taboo" topics out. While I don't disagree, they even underlie sports whether we like it or not. So when something of this nature comes up, we should be able to engage in civil debate.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X