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 Thoughts: Tis the season

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

  • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

    Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post

    At least JO never got into any off the court trouble during his time here and he did a lot for the community of Indianapolis. Why there is so much hatred for JO is still baffling to me. He wasn't perfect and he made mistakes (he complained way to much to the officials, IMO) but if you're really looking at the entire situation with a wide angled lens instead of zooming in on one player, it's easy to see that he was given the responsibility to try and lead a bunch of selfish teammates who kept getting into trouble off the court and on the court. While he was doing what he was supposed to do off and on the court, his teammates were:

    *Missing and arriving late to practices (multiple knuckelheads)
    *missing team flights (Artest)
    *getting suspended for bumping Pat Riley, breaking cameras in MSG and pictures at Conseco Fieldhouse (Artest)
    *getting benched in favor of Kenny Anderson for insubordination (Tinsley)
    *arguing with the coach during a game and getting benched (Artest, Tinsley, Jackson on different occasions)
    *hitting Rip Hamilton in the face and earning a flagrant foul during game 6 of the ECF with the game tied at 59-59 and less than four minutes to play - http://www.nba.com/games/20040601/INDDET/recap.html (Artest)
    *Going into the stands, inciting a riot (JO never left the floor), getting yourself and other players into legal trouble, and ruining a promising season (Artest and Jackson)
    *Stabbing the team in the back that loyally stood by you by complaining about needing time off to promote an album and then demanding a trade. (Artest)
    *Were getting into shootouts with thugs outside a strip club (Tinsley and Jackson)
    *Getting into a spat outside a night club, then at a gas station, and then being chased through downtown while being shot at (Tinsley)
    *Getting suspended by the team for being arrested on a charge of possession of marijuana and associating with a known murderer at large (Shawne Williams)
    *Getting suspended by the NBA for marijuana use during the season (Harrison)
    *Getting suspended by the team for destroying property in the Spurs guest locker room (Harrison)

    These are just the confirmed incidents that we know happened. Who knows what other types of buffoonery took place that the media never got wind of.
    Oh, there are a few stories out there about Jermaine getting into it with head coaches, some incident over a cell phone and a few other things too IIRC. He kept his nose clean when it came to the law, but he was no angel.
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

    Comment


    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
      Is it really that difficult to browse thru the thread yourself ??
      I have read it. No one has placed an actual value on it, so I was asking where he thought he saw someone put a value on it. It looks like it's easier to just claim someone is overvaluing something, and then dismiss their point that way, so you don't have to actually address what was said.

      If the claim is that team chemistry is overvalued, I think it would be pertitent to the conversation to measure just how much value has been placed on chemistry and then we can properly evaluate it. But that would take finding where the disagreement lies. So that's my question, who is overvaluing team chemistry, if that's what people are doing?
      Last edited by Since86; 12-27-2013, 04:27 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

        Everyone knows where I stand on DWalsh, so it is rather useless for me to even make the same arguments I've made thousands of times - or even convince people that I really do believe that how players behave and the opportunities they have passed his expertise and expectations by.

        I will, however, point out the irony of excoriating Walsh for trading a discontented Antonio Davis for a high draft pick and therefore being the cause of losing the championship in the 2000 NBA finals and then excoriating Walsh for not blowing up the 61-win 2003-2004 team that reached the Eastern Conference Finals, keeping discontented players and therefore being the cause of the brawl that destroyed the hope of the Pacers winning a championship.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Everyone knows where I stand on DWalsh, so it is rather useless for me to even make the same arguments I've made thousands of times - or even convince people that I really do believe that how players behave and the opportunities they have passed his expertise and expectations by.

          I will, however, point out the irony of excoriating Walsh for trading a discontented Antonio Davis for a high draft pick and therefore being the cause of losing the championship in the 2000 NBA finals and then excoriating Walsh for not blowing up the 61-win 2003-2004 team that reached the Eastern Conference Finals, keeping discontented players and therefore being the cause of the brawl that destroyed the hope of the Pacers winning a championship.
          I havn't really commented on nor do I have particularly strong feelings about Walsh and the post finals rebuild. I think overall he did a decent job taking advantage of the opportunities at hand and getting the team back to relevance pretty quickly. It didn't work out obviously but in my mind that was every bit as much if not more on the coaches and players as it was on Walsh.

          The Bender trade on the other hand still grinds my gears badly. At the time of the trade I was very much for it because the talk coming out of the Pacers camp was that Bender was a Garnett type player. I had just spent 3-years living in MN and watching Garnett develop and at that time Garnett was Paul George on PED's. A huge 3 (who could slide over to 4) that was the single most disruptive & effective defensive force in basketball. In addition to that Garnett rebounded at an extremely high rate. Exactly the type of player that late 90's Pacers team needed.

          A guy didn't have to watch Bender long to see he was nothing like KG. He was a 6' 11" jump shooter whose style of play almost completely negated his athleticism on both ends of the court. He was also a guy who had no concept of what it took to play big time NBA defense. It was one last Walsh reach on an offensive player that was never going address any of the issues that lead to that teams playoff shortcomings.

          The problem wasn't that Walsh traded AD for a high draft pick it was that he traded him for Bender.
          Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 12-27-2013, 05:29 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
            Oh, there are a few stories out there about Jermaine getting into it with head coaches, some incident over a cell phone and a few other things too IIRC. He kept his nose clean when it came to the law, but he was no angel.
            You're right. I forgot about that issue with the cell phone. He took a call from someone in charge with his night club about some emergency. I don't think he was ever disciplined for it though. That's very mild compared to some of the stuff the other guys were doing and unlike the other players he still had a good reputation around the league when he was traded. Getting TJ Ford, Rasho Nesterovic, and Roy Hibbert for him was considered a pretty good haul at the time and 5 years later it looks like a fantastic trade.

            Comment


            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
              You're right. I forgot about that issue with the cell phone. He took a call from someone in charge with his night club about some emergency. I don't think he was ever disciplined for it though. That's very mild compared to some of the stuff the other guys were doing and unlike the other players he still had a good reputation around the league when he was traded. Getting TJ Ford, Rasho Nesterovic, and Roy Hibbert for him was considered a pretty good haul at the time and 5 years later it looks like a fantastic trade.
              Just think what we wouldve gotten and the team we wouldve had if we traded him instead of Brad Miller....
              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

              Comment


              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                So....are you guys telling me that you think that Artest was better than JO?

                Comment


                • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                  Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                  Just think what we wouldve gotten and the team we wouldve had if we traded him instead of Brad Miller....
                  Brad left because of money.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                    Originally posted by pogi View Post
                    So....are you guys telling me that you think that Artest was better than JO?
                    In a word....yes...even moreso given the salaries...
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                      Originally posted by pogi View Post
                      So....are you guys telling me that you think that Artest was better than JO?
                      Yes, and I have always believed so.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                        I beg to differ, I guess.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Seriously? We are seriously going to start complaining about bringing in players like Rawle Marshall when the Pacers had to scrap the bottom of the barrell to fill out a roster quickly? Might as well start talking about his bad choice of resturants too.
                          Yes. Seriously. There HAD to have been better options than bringing in head case after head case over a long period of time. That's especially true when it's end of the bench guys. It's a FAR bigger mistake to draft a Rawle Marshall or Flight White type of player than a good player like Artest. At least with Artest there was potential upside to having a head case on the roster.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                            Originally posted by pogi View Post
                            So....are you guys telling me that you think that Artest was better than JO?
                            Artest (don't get mad) was my favorite player and I would like to think he was better than JO, but IMO he was only better because he was healthier. I think a 100% healthy JO would have been the more valuable player to the team and considered a better player even if Artest was very good.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Artest (don't get mad) was my favorite player and I would like to think he was better than JO, but IMO he was only better because he was healthier. I think a 100% healthy JO would have been the more valuable player to the team and considered a better player even if Artest was very good.
                              Oh no...I honestly liked both JO and Artest. And if it sounds like I'm a JO apologist, and that he did no wrong, I hope to quell that misconception. My whole argument was that I felt that many here is blaming JO (or, at least, feel he's more the big part of the Pacer's "problem" during that time frame), and it seems many forget how crazy the WHOLE team was. JO did whine, and was a diva....but, everyone else had their part in that demise of a "could-of-been" championship. Someone mentioned that an authority figure would've quelled the fuse, and the brawl wouldn't of happened (at least, that's how I read it), but I'm trying to say that even if West was on that team, there would still be problems. He wouldn't of stopped the brawl. That was, in so many words, destined to happened. No one would've stopped it, at least, not a Pacer. Only the refs and Ben Wallace could've stopped it before it began.

                              I'm also reading that some here feel that Artest was the better player. Now I understand everybody has their different preferences and to each his own.....but, to me, the way I'm reading a lot of posts here are like: "JO sucks, and if we had a competent PF, we could've won...." and that could be the case, although I disagree. The same could be said that if we replaced Ron with a competent SF we could've won, which I also disagree. But to say JO was a waste of money, at least at the time of the signing, I fully disagree. He was one of the top PF's in league at that time. Averaging 20-10 and had decent defense. And I'm willing to bet that if JO would've left for another team, and we tried to build a squad around Artest, Jackson, Tinsley, Baby Al, and Fred Jones, that would've been an epic fail. They needed each other, and Larry knew it. That's why Bird waited about two years and the brawl to figure out it wasn't working and it wasn't going to work. Also, it wasn't like any decent PF's were lining up to come to Indy.

                              And I also disagree with those who didn't feel that that team, on paper, had championship aspirations. We had a double-double power forward, a defensive player of the year with an unorthodox, yet hard to to block shot, and a shooting guard that, even though he was inconsistent, could go off for 20 at any point and still play good defense....with some role players that also played good defense and throw in a future Hall-of-Famer in his twilight years wanting to win one as his personal swan song. It's just that our main pieces couldn't get their heads straight.

                              But, I also feel they realized later in their careers what-could-of-been. As I mentioned before with how JO speaks about Indy, and with Ron's postgame interview after the Laker championship. They knew we had a championship squad, but their immaturity ruined it and our franchise for a long time.

                              Now after saying that, and even though I really did like that squad before the big blowup, I feel it created a domino effect that now gives us this squad, which wouldn't of happened without the chain of events that put us through a period of despair.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Tis the season

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Yes. Seriously. There HAD to have been better options than bringing in head case after head case over a long period of time. That's especially true when it's end of the bench guys. It's a FAR bigger mistake to draft a Rawle Marshall or Flight White type of player than a good player like Artest. At least with Artest there was potential upside to having a head case on the roster.
                                The Pacers even didn't draft Rawle. He was a throw in during a trade to make salaries match, when the Pacers dumped Anthony Johnson for Darrell Armstrong.
                                Last edited by Since86; 12-28-2013, 01:56 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X