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

Vnzla81

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

  • #61
    Re: Vnzla81

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Because it's was meant to mock those who think West is the heart and soul of the team. You guys are smart enough to know the intent of his sarcasm.
    I understand it was sarcasm. I just don't see how it was 'fightin' words'. It looks like a mighty low bar.

    This just seems like one of those things where I don't think I'm going to be convinced emotion didn't overrule logic and that led to a quick overreaction which got us to this point. If Vnzla was 'bound to get banned' sooner or later (so to speak, as some have implied here) then surely there would be a better place to pick that fight yet to come than this rather pedestrian throw away comment.

    But you can't please everyone. Anyway, it's a good discussion to put this out in the open and hear from some of the mods. I wish others would chime in as well just to get a more complete picture.

    Sometimes I wonder if Able ever thinks about pulling the plug on hosting and just leaving this type of thing behind.
    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


    • #62
      Re: Vnzla81

      Considering V is really the only poster that really has that reputation right now, it's a high enough bar for only one person to continually bash their head against it.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Vnzla81

        Hicks you are the most politically correct and generally patient admins I have ever seen on a forum, so while I can see the point that that post in and of itself wasn't particularly egregious, I can also see that he has been a problem for you for a very long time.

        I went from disliking him a lot to finding him a bit funny, but I understand that you can't allow someone to run a muck all over your board and continually try to make your posters feel stupid.

        No poster is perfect, and all have bad moments, including myself and we have had our own private conversations about that, but when I receive a warning from you I know that I have done something wrong and I try to amend that.

        I support your decision 100% (though really that doesn't mean much does it? xD) as you said you have made multiple efforts to reform him and it has not worked.
        Last edited by khaos01207; 01-12-2014, 03:18 AM.
        #LanceEffect

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Vnzla81

          If any other poster had posted the comment that led to vnzla's infraction and subsequent ban, would it have earned an infraction? Literally--ANY other member of this board. Would any moderator besides Hicks have given vnzla or--literally--anyone else an infraction for that post? And yes I know the history and the backstory and the "I farted daddy" analogies but let's try to break this down from the abstract into the simplest terms possible. If Hicks didn't have a personal problem with vnzla, would these 64 posts worth of discussion have happened? That was only quasi-rhetorical.
          Last edited by cdash; 01-12-2014, 04:18 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Vnzla81

            I despise vague sarcastic one-liners...
            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Vnzla81

              Originally posted by Natston View Post
              I despise vague sarcastic one-liners...
              I despise you. Eh
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Vnzla81

                I'll miss V's contributions to the forum. But at the same time, he's clearly been a problem for some time. Not entirely his own fault I think that he rubs so many people the wrong way, but refusing to play nice with admins is never a winning strategy. It's too bad because I thought V was turning the corner after he got suspended, but it looks like the leopard just can't change his spots.

                I have no opinion on whether the latest incident was really worthy of banning or not. But as BillS says, the admins here (Hicks, et al) have a long, long history of showing tolerance and should have at least earned the benefit of the doubt in forum members' eyes. Accusing Hicks of abusing his power because of a personal vendetta is too far out for me.

                The good news I guess is that if anyone here wants to continue interacting with V, it's easy enough to do it on twitter.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Vnzla81

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I would have to go back to make specific analysis, which I am not going to be able to do while just on my phone, but I recall that being the third or fourth time he had beat that phrase in the threads that day. Never mind that it isn't a comment about DWest as much as it is a slam on people who think he has intangibles, it was a "let me keep making the same dig over and over again" move. While some people are fine with that, others (not just Hicks or admins) have asked that it stop.

                  We're trying to get to a place where we start to respect each other a little more rather than have the forum become a place where making repeated digs at people holding a different opinion is the norm. There may be disagreement with how the admins are trying to do that, but it should be borne in mind that PD was founded because the Star forum had basically degenerated into bullying by the loudest and most frequent posters along with troll bombings that make the troll accusations that float around here seem particularly silly - all with either no moderation or sudden bursts of everyone being slapped with infractions no matter their involvement.

                  It's not easy, and the admins have LONG private conversations, but ultimately it IS privately run rather than public property. It may not seem like we're listening, especially when we've already talked so many of these things to death internally and so get defensive at the idea that it's all abitrary. Please understand we're trying to figure out how to allow leeway and yet make sure this is a place where every level of fan participation is respected AS LONG AS IT RESPECTS OTHER PEOPLE. Our lines are not going to match everyone's, but we really are trying to err on the side of long leashes - which, I suppose, is why when something like this happens it seems like such a surprise.

                  Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

                  Bill, did Hicks give you an infraction for this?

                  There are times I think some people won't be happy until we have a big public burning of the Fieldhouse, with everyone cheering that those drains on the public coffers have finally been destroyed and rejoicing in the economic boost that the new parking lot will bring. Maybe a video of everyone singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" as the flames spread to Circle Centre, casting a beautiful glow on Lucas Oil Stadium, would go viral.

                  http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1764723

                  Now, you don't have to defend this post to me. I enjoy sarcasm and thought what you said was pretty funny. But technically speaking, it was a sarcastic mocking of the post I made in that thread, was it not? It's just amazing to me how vnzla's "heart and soul" post was infraction worthy, but I could literally go through every other member's posts and find multiple posts that are 1000 times more mocking than that.

                  I would have a lot more respect for the justification of this if the mods could just admit that v got an infraction because he is v. Literally every other poster on the board would have gotten away with that "heart and soul" comment. That's why some of us feel that this was a vendetta-driven witch hunt.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-12-2014, 12:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Vnzla81

                    Bill has Vnzla's posting reputation now?

                    Hicks HAS admitted V got the infraction because its V. When you're constantly causing problems, your leash s shorter. Seriously this is hard to figure out? What does him being banned matter to you anyways? Not like you're being silenced or they have a naughty list and you're next.
                    Last edited by Since86; 01-12-2014, 12:55 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Vnzla81

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Bill has Vnzla's posting reputation now?
                      So if you have a good reputation, you can have a paragraph's worth of sarcasm.......but if you have a bad reputation, you get an infraction for a one liner that would no doubt be considered tame if it were made by any other poster?

                      Didn't realize it said that in the rules. But it does look like we're getting closer to admitting that there are different rules for different posters. I do think it's clear that vnzla was at the point where him simply giving his opinion was going to be considered infraction-worthy.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Vnzla81

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Bill has Vnzla's posting reputation now?

                        Hicks HAS admitted V got the infraction because its V. When you're constantly causing problems, your leash s shorter. Seriously this is hard to figure out? What does him being banned matter to you anyways? Not like you're being silenced or they have a naughty list and you're next.
                        A shorter leash to the point where he basically couldn't give his opinion any longer. A leash so short that he got an infraction for a tame one line post that would be glossed over if it were literally any other poster. When you start basically making up new rules for a specific poster, then it crosses into vendetta territory.

                        Why does it matter to me? I liked the guy and enjoyed talking with him. I'm not saying that he was perfect, but I do feel that he was definitely done wrong here.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Vnzla81

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          If any other poster had posted the comment that led to vnzla's infraction and subsequent ban, would it have earned an infraction? Literally--ANY other member of this board. Would any moderator besides Hicks have given vnzla or--literally--anyone else an infraction for that post? And yes I know the history and the backstory and the "I farted daddy" analogies but let's try to break this down from the abstract into the simplest terms possible. If Hicks didn't have a personal problem with vnzla, would these 64 posts worth of discussion have happened? That was only quasi-rhetorical.
                          In this board? Probably not. PacersDigest is more lenient than most sites I have been through.

                          In most other boards? Probably yes.

                          In the board that I'm moderating? Absolutely. I woudn't give an infraction but half of the mods that I know would consider it baiting and a warning would be sent at the very least.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Vnzla81

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            A shorter leash to the point where he basically couldn't give his opinion any longer.
                            He could freely give his opinion. But this comment wasn't his opinion. That's the point. V preferred to mock other people's opinions instead of giving out his own.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Vnzla81

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Yes, if I went to a Heat forum as a Pacer fan and starting mocking Chris Bosh, then yes I would likely be reported. But there is a certain message board unwritten rule that it's OK for fans of a team to criticize their own players, while it would be considered in bad form to trash another team's players on that team's message board.

                              For example, virtually everyone here used to complain about the Murphy and Dunleavy contracts. We were people who wanted to see the Pacers improve. But if some fans from another team would have come here and started mocking the Pacers for trading for those guys, then yeah, that would have been in bad form and likely would have led to a ban.

                              V is a Pacer fan who was never wild about West. He thinks that his "heart and soul" stuff is overrated. I disagree with him because I am a huge West fan, but I see no trouble with what he is saying.
                              The Murphy and Dunleavy examples are not that relevant because those guys weren't helping the Pacers win. David West, on the other hand, helps us at winning.

                              A comment varies based on who player it is referring.

                              If someone is calling JR Smith a chucker in a public forum then I doubt that anyone says anything. JR is obviously a chucker and has deserved that reputation and thus no one would consider it baiting.

                              However, if you call Kevin Durant a chucker then that would certainly be an attempt to bait OKC fans. Why? Because Durant is not a chucker and your statement is obviously false. Therefore, the only reason to make a false accusation publicly would be to bait fains of said team.

                              That's why V's comment was considered baiting.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Vnzla81

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I get that Hicks can't copy the PM or even paraphrase it. But he did say that I likely would have found it to be "not that bad". That tells me right there that vnzla likely wasn't cussing him out or lobbing extremely offensive insults at him that could objectively be looked at as ban worthy.
                                My friend, it's well known that you like conversing with Vnzla. You have been one of his biggest supporters in this forum for as long as I have been here. Personally, I cannot think of anything that Vnzla could post and that you'd find it to be "bad enough" in order to lead to a ban.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X