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

Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I certainly respect you for arguing against the ban. It sounds to me like this ban purely falls into the "we don't like him and want to shut him up" category.

    There are no rules against tooting your own horn. Some may find it annoying, but to say he's a troll is a major stretch. He used to dislike Bird, but he's backed off of that in recent years and has given Bird praise for the numerous recent successful moves. He was against the West signing, but while he'll never be confused with the biggest D-West fan, he has admitted over time that the signing obviously worked out well for the Pacers. There are numerous instances in which he has changed his opinion about something. And you know what? If Granger actually came back and played well consistently, then I think he'd give him credit too. This is clearly different than Olblu, a guy who had an obvious anti-Luck agenda and was never going to change his tune despite being proven wrong by the evidence. Even though the team kept winning, he continuously said that Luck wasn't any good just so he could get a reaction out of people. Now that's trolling.

    If people just would have ignored his CJ comment or given him a friendly jab back, then there would have been nothing else to it and everyone could have moved on with their day. There's no doubt that several people on this forum are clearly responsible for escalating the situation with him. It's a shame that we're dealing with this nonsense while the team is 5-0. Giving him a 30 day ban is completely out of spite and the board should be ashamed of itself.
    Let me start with saying you share 1 or 2 to many ip addresses to many with vnzla to even come close to my comfort zone, but if there was a need (and there isn't) to justify MY infraction of vnzla then here are a few:

    1) Belligerence, hostility, rudeness, abrasiveness and/or disrespect are not wanted here. Discuss without taking shots and without having an attitude or otherwise being unpleasant.
    5) 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.
    Depending on the circumstances, if something strikes us as blatantly offensive or clearly an attempt to cause trouble on the forum, we will ban an account. It's a case by case situation; usually the ban is permanent, but sometimes it's temporary if we believe things can be worked out in the future.
    10) We have a feedback board, and we generally prefer that to be used for the kinds of questions, comments, or concerns that are not "finger pointing" in nature.
    In other words, if you want to call me out or call another admin out over a problem you have, please come to me or whomever with a private message instead of making a thread about it. Anything that might get emotional for you, me, or another admin needs to be done in private to show respect and consideration and to actually get things resolved instead of just making yourself feel better.
    This doesn't always happen the right way (and sometimes that's on our end, by the way), and when it doesn't, it almost always ends badly or at the very least worse that it could have been if everyone had just kept the discussion private to begin with.



    1 being the most important, the #1 rule of this board, the heart AND soul of this community and he has circumvented it enough, the "nice guy if you get to know him" is a 100% arse on these boards, and he is just as disruptive a character at the very least if not a lot worse than olblu ever was.

    if you think I did this because of "ONE" post than you are so far out of your mind, it must hurt. I have warned enough, public and private, to make it 100% clear, enough is enough.
    the 30 days is not just the 30 days, there will be some harsh discussion among admins and with vnzla (if he's not too stupid to try and post through a secondary account) if he is to be let back at all and IF he is, the leash will be so short it may be suffocating.

    free speech ?? talk to GQHC or NSA but whatever the outcome, this is a private board and free speech is not really anymore free than what the admins decide to be free.

    this post is a declaration of where things stand, not an invitation to discuss the matter, outside of the admins none of you are part of this discussion, see #10 above.


    have a nice day


    the grump
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

    Comment


    • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

      Meh, I don't want vnzla banned, but I do think if he just adjusted his posting style even slightly he'd have a lot less issues. Like Sandman I met him at the last forum party and he's a chill, reasonable guy in real life.


      Comment


      • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I certainly respect you for arguing against the ban. It sounds to me like this ban purely falls into the "we don't like him and want to shut him up" category.

        There are no rules against tooting your own horn. Some may find it annoying, but to say he's a troll is a major stretch. He used to dislike Bird, but he's backed off of that in recent years and has given Bird praise for the numerous recent successful moves. He was against the West signing, and while he'll never be confused with the biggest D-West fan, he has admitted over time that the signing obviously worked out well for the Pacers. There are numerous instances in which he has changed his opinion about something. And you know what? If Granger actually came back and played well consistently, then I think he'd give him credit too. This is clearly different than Olblu, a guy who had an obvious anti-Luck agenda and was never going to change his tune despite being proven wrong by the evidence. Even though the team kept winning, he continuously said that Luck wasn't any good just so he could get a reaction out of people. Now that's trolling.

        If people just would have ignored his CJ comment or given him a friendly jab back, then there would have been nothing else to it and everyone could have moved on with their day. There's no doubt that several people on this forum are clearly responsible for escalating the situation with him. It's a shame that we're dealing with this nonsense while the team is 5-0. Giving him a 30 day ban is completely out of spite and the board should be ashamed of itself.
        Ya, I think 30 days is a little too harsh imho ... .. A month of an NBA season not being able to participate in Pacers discussion here, may as well be 3 months in real time .. lol

        Only thing I can think of , is that it was just a culmination that has built up over the last year , and the banhammer just got too heavy for the admin to keep ahold of , when the last straw fell onto the back of the camel and it was dropped... lol and Vnzla just happened to be the poor schmuck who tossed that latest piece of straw ..
        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

        Comment


        • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I certainly respect you for arguing against the ban. It sounds to me like this ban purely falls into the "we don't like him and want to shut him up" category.

          There are no rules against tooting your own horn. Some may find it annoying, but to say he's a troll is a major stretch. He used to dislike Bird, but he's backed off of that in recent years and has given Bird praise for the numerous recent successful moves. He was against the West signing, and while he'll never be confused with the biggest D-West fan, he has admitted over time that the signing obviously worked out well for the Pacers. There are numerous instances in which he has changed his opinion about something. And you know what? If Granger actually came back and played well consistently, then I think he'd give him credit too. This is clearly different than Olblu, a guy who had an obvious anti-Luck agenda and was never going to change his tune despite being proven wrong by the evidence. Even though the team kept winning, he continuously said that Luck wasn't any good just so he could get a reaction out of people. Now that's trolling.

          If people just would have ignored his CJ comment or given him a friendly jab back, then there would have been nothing else to it and everyone could have moved on with their day. There's no doubt that several people on this forum are clearly responsible for escalating the situation with him. It's a shame that we're dealing with this nonsense while the team is 5-0. Giving him a 30 day ban is completely out of spite and the board should be ashamed of itself.
          Considering I'm the one who directly asked him who was complaining/against going after Scola and Watson, I feel a bit responsible that he now finds himself banned. I still don't feel like he really produced anything from 2013 that supports his statement that there were people against it, but I don't think he was trolling either personally.


          Comment


          • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

            Originally posted by solid View Post
            Don't think I'll ever say "Man, we really could use OJ right now!"
            Back up smalls are plentiful.

            I absolutely do fear losing our only credible substitute center. Big men with some mobility that can protect the rim are definitely hard to come by. I do not think he is over-paid; and if he is it's not by much.

            I dunno, I like Pulp a lot. He frustrates me sometime, but I would lvoe to keep him for as long as we can. I think he can develop into a very consistent backup 2, that can step in and start on the wing if necessary.


            Comment


            • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Considering I'm the one who directly asked him who was complaining/against going after Scola and Watson, I feel a bit responsible that he now finds himself banned. I still don't feel like he really produced anything from 2013 that supports his statement that there were people against it, but I don't think he was trolling either personally.
              Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to seem like I was calling you out. You've always been one of my favorite posters and I could care less if you challenge him and have a debate with him. But then other posters started piling on and a molehill was turned into a mountain. I know that's not what you intended to happen though.

              Comment


              • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                Whoa whoa! You need to re-read the post I was answering. I was answering the idea of having to package OJ with Copeland or Mahinmi. NEVER did I say anything negative about Mahinmi's play. Now did I? This word hate is a label gernerically slapped on those that disagree with something or some player. Should I hate you for disagreeing with me? That's kinda silly now isn't it?

                I like OJ plain and simple. IMO, he's a player going forward with in the future. I don't see Mahinmi as such. There is no guarrantee that the Pacers can re-sign Lance, but it's been proposed to jettison OJ in a trade. I voiced my opinion against it.
                Well you implied by stating that you are not support of a guaranteed contract for Mahinmi. Currently there is alot more value for a backup 7'0 center who can defend at an elite level at 4 million than just another guard.

                OJ is interesting and he could develop a better game, but you still need a solid backup center and it takes a while for bigs to develop.

                Comment


                • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to seem like I was calling you out. You've always been one of my favorite posters and I could care less if you challenge him and have a debate with him. But then other posters started piling on and a molehill was turned into a mountain. I know that's not what you intended to happen though.
                  If that's the case, there's probably about 15,000 posts of 'other' posters turning vnzla's molehills into mountains then.

                  With that said, I'd like to devote the rest of my post to the OP. I didn't get to watch anything but most of the last quarter. When I tuned in, the score was 69-67 I think and Scola's steal and score was the first or second play I saw. So I didn't even witness our bad 2nd quarter, I got to watch straight Pacers dominance

                  I was incredibly surprised when they took Scola out with 6 mins to go because of how well he was playing nad how little he had actually played so far, but when I saw that West was rebounding well I understood it. West always seems to have "power" games against big opponents. Even if his shot is off that night, normally he rebounds well or plays exceptionally great defense. He's probably our 1 guy who has a switch that he can just turn on when we need him.

                  And though I'm not sure it would ever happen, I think it would be interesting to throw George Hill and Paul George out there with a three big lineup and have West and Scola control the offense out of the high post. If you try and help out of that offense, you're going to give one of of our best scorers a shot in his favorite spot. You would , however have to make sure there's 1 guy out there you can hide either West or Scola on defensively. But I think that offense would be incredibly difficult to stop.

                  It looks like Deng and Paul George neutralized each other tonight. Paul looked so happy when he got to isolate on Derrick Rose. And impressively, he blew right by him.
                  Last edited by aamcguy; 11-07-2013, 09:57 PM.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    I dunno, I like Pulp a lot. He frustrates me sometime, but I would lvoe to keep him for as long as we can. I think he can develop into a very consistent backup 2, that can step in and start on the wing if necessary.
                    I agree completely. I think we will need him next year when we lose either Granger or Lance. He is still a bit too inconsistent right now to be a reliable scorer, but I think that could change if he focuses less on shooting. He is already good at getting to the line, which is why he has the third highest PPS on the team (1.421) only behind Sloan(1.5) and George(1.449) even though he has a lackluster eFG% (50%).

                    He is also a really good rebounder for his size, mostly because he puts more effort into it than most back-up SGs. At times he might try too hard, like last night when he tried to get a rebound over Hibbert. His defense also seems to be coming along quite well. Struggles a little getting around screens, but he is always putting in the necessary effort.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      If that's the case, there's probably about 15,000 posts of 'other' posters turning vnzla's molehills into mountains then.

                      With that said, I'd like to devote the rest of my post to the OP. I didn't get to watch anything but most of the last quarter. When I tuned in, the score was 69-67 I think and Scola's steal and score was the first or second play I saw. So I didn't even witness our bad 2nd quarter, I got to watch straight Pacers dominance

                      I was incredibly surprised when they took Scola out with 6 mins to go because of how well he was playing nad how little he had actually played so far, but when I saw that West was rebounding well I understood it. West always seems to have "power" games against big opponents. Even if his shot is off that night, normally he rebounds well or plays exceptionally great defense. He's probably our 1 guy who has a switch that he can just turn on when we need him.

                      And though I'm not sure it would ever happen, I think it would be interesting to throw George Hill and Paul George out there with a three big lineup and have West and Scola control the offense out of the high post. If you try and help out of that offense, you're going to give one of of our best scorers a shot in his favorite spot. You would , however have to make sure there's 1 guy out there you can hide either West or Scola on. But I think that offense would be incredibly difficult to stop.

                      It looks like Deng and Paul George neutralized each other tonight. Paul looked so happy when he got to isolate on Derrick Rose. And impressively, he blew right by him.
                      Not that I believe in luck, or superstition, but I'm giving the game ball to you for turning on the game and the basketball gods smiling upon your eyes.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Considering I'm the one who directly asked him who was complaining/against going after Scola and Watson, I feel a bit responsible that he now finds himself banned. I still don't feel like he really produced anything from 2013 that supports his statement that there were people against it, but I don't think he was trolling either personally.
                        Yea, I really don't think he's a "troll." To me that suggests that he comes here just to irritate everyone. I think he comes here to "win."

                        I just think he can be annoying. And has a tendency to use strawman arguments.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                          Originally posted by able View Post
                          Let me start with saying you share 1 or 2 to many ip addresses to many with vnzla to even come close to my comfort zone, but if there was a need (and there isn't) to justify MY infraction of vnzla then here are a few:

                          1) Belligerence, hostility, rudeness, abrasiveness and/or disrespect are not wanted here. Discuss without taking shots and without having an attitude or otherwise being unpleasant.
                          5) 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.
                          Depending on the circumstances, if something strikes us as blatantly offensive or clearly an attempt to cause trouble on the forum, we will ban an account. It's a case by case situation; usually the ban is permanent, but sometimes it's temporary if we believe things can be worked out in the future.
                          10) We have a feedback board, and we generally prefer that to be used for the kinds of questions, comments, or concerns that are not "finger pointing" in nature.
                          In other words, if you want to call me out or call another admin out over a problem you have, please come to me or whomever with a private message instead of making a thread about it. Anything that might get emotional for you, me, or another admin needs to be done in private to show respect and consideration and to actually get things resolved instead of just making yourself feel better.
                          This doesn't always happen the right way (and sometimes that's on our end, by the way), and when it doesn't, it almost always ends badly or at the very least worse that it could have been if everyone had just kept the discussion private to begin with.



                          1 being the most important, the #1 rule of this board, the heart AND soul of this community and he has circumvented it enough, the "nice guy if you get to know him" is a 100% arse on these boards, and he is just as disruptive a character at the very least if not a lot worse than olblu ever was.

                          if you think I did this because of "ONE" post than you are so far out of your mind, it must hurt. I have warned enough, public and private, to make it 100% clear, enough is enough.
                          the 30 days is not just the 30 days, there will be some harsh discussion among admins and with vnzla (if he's not too stupid to try and post through a secondary account) if he is to be let back at all and IF he is, the leash will be so short it may be suffocating.

                          free speech ?? talk to GQHC or NSA but whatever the outcome, this is a private board and free speech is not really anymore free than what the admins decide to be free.

                          this post is a declaration of where things stand, not an invitation to discuss the matter, outside of the admins none of you are part of this discussion, see #10 above.


                          have a nice day


                          the grump
                          I have always loved able...

                          Its moments and posts like these that remind me why.
                          The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                            So, this 5 game winning streak is not mythical like the one during Satan's reign?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                              5 game winning streak and no Odd Thoughts. Now we have an Odd Thoughts AND Vnzla has been banned. If we lose the next game it's gonna to be harder to figure out which thing threw Karma out of balance....
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Odd Thought's: Running of the Bulls

                                I can't believe this thread. Vnzla a good poster on here, he keeps things lively and fresh. Many of you just can't stand to let somebody say something you don't agree with. You love to argue and be contentious just has much as him, then you wonder why he is so annoying to you. We got a handful of posters who literally have to respond to anything he says with condescending and dismissive remarks, egging him on and piling on your vitriol. Ridiculous over reach here. Alot of people have been plenty disrespectful to him over the same period of time and they're still posting.

                                I will support that Vnzla was right that he had been lobbying hard to get CJ Watson back in the 2011 FA. I was right there with him on that one. Watson had just got done helping to lead the Bulls to best record in the league that season with Rose missing so many games before his Injury in the Playoffs. I was plenty pissed when he signed with Brooklyn for less than a Million.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X