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

My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

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

  • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Accidents happen....I feel like someone with a kid should understand that better than most.

    Don't get me wrong I understand the desire to protect your child, but if someone apologizes and even it sounds like he hung around for a while, what else could he do?
    TJ, have you had a kid? If not, can you actually speak to this with any context?
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      1) I hope you guys responding to me actually have a young son. Your perspective will change a lot.
      2) I don't know if the guy was drunk. But let's be real. You guys know what was probly goin' on.
      3) You knock my son's tooth out on his first trip to see his favorite team, one of two things are going to happen: 1) if you aren't visibly drunk and it truly appears to be accidental, I'll let you by with a light scolding. 2) if you've been tipping back a few and you fell on my son because you're feeling good, you are going to get a large earful from me.

      If you don't like that, then this is what I suggest for you --- I suggest you don't get drunk and fall on my son and knock his tooth out. I don't know what else to tell ya. Lol.

      I'm going to defend my son.

      That said, I've taken my boy to Pacer games, and I've never had an incident or felt threatened.
      I don't have a young son, no.

      But I do have a 13, 11, and 10 year old sisters. They have attended Pacer games with me. I would protect them with my life if I felt they were actually threatened, but this honestly just seems like an accident.


      Comment


      • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I'm not as irritated at the lady as much as I am at The $tar. I expect the lady to be emotional after her son got hurt, but the newspaper should be a bit more rational when deciding whether or not to run it on their front page.
        Yeah agreed.


        Comment


        • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

          I'm really not one to bag on the Star, but that's just bad writing in any paper. Where's the call to action? Without a call to action, the writer's ultimate solution in addressing a problem he/she points out, there's really no point for the article to exist other than to complain about something that apparently can/will happen again without meaningful change.

          (Not saying there is meaningful change to be had, necessarily, but that it's on the author to call for it if he/she is going to make the effort.)

          Comment


          • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            This guy said, "Gee", and poofed.
            Actually, the article said that he started saying "Gee, I'm sorry" but the mother wasn't interested in any apology and completely ignored him.

            I have no dog in this fight but I just want to clarify what happened according to the article.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              First, that is another assumption, taht she wasn't listening to apologies.
              Actually, she said it herself in the article:

              But we were not interested in his feeble apologies.
              She ignored the man as he was apologizing.

              Again, just clarifying what the article actually said.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Dudes, I understand this, I've already stated it multiple times that this didn't need to be a published article. I completely agree. What I took issue to were people's responses saying the lady's actual response to the guy and the situation was handled poorly BY HER.
                Parts of the situation WERE poorly handled by her. Obviously her utmost concern was the welfare of her child, assessing his injuries, etc. However, she didn't see what happened (maybe he was drunk, maybe he tripped, maybe another drunk guy pushed him). She didn't attack or berate the guy or threaten to press charges, all of which would be reasonable response by a momma bear protecting her cub. No she ignored the guy, his apology, and didn't get any clarity of the situation whatsoever. And what most people here have the biggest issue with, she doesn't go vent her frustrations to her family and friends, but to the tens of thousands of readers of the Indy Star. All while admitting she doesn't know what exactly happened.

                Comment


                • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                  I blame the parents, why did they have their kid sit on the isle? Have the kids sit in the inner seats and the parents sit in the isle to avoid anything remotely like this happening.

                  Comment


                  • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                    I feel bad for the kid, his mom is bonkers. He lost a baby tooth, you're hurting the kid more by treating him like he lost both legs to an IED in Fallujah.

                    Comment


                    • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                      Well, anyway, I've said my piece, clearly not in the majority.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        First, that is another assumption, taht she wasn't listening to apologies.
                        No, it's not an assumption. She says it herself.

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                        Meanwhile, the man who had tumbled down stood awkwardly at the end of the row with his buddy, staring at us.

                        “Gee, I’m sorry,” he started to say.

                        But we were not interested in his feeble apologies. We tended to our son, and by the time I looked up again, he had disappeared and security was there.
                        EDIT: Should always read the whole thread first, Nunt beat me too it.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                          This article just reminds me of the one a couple years ago complaining that the rookies had to wear pink backpacks and how awful the "hazing" was.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            What's weird to me is that you're almost defending this (likely drunk) dude instead of this 7-year old kid at his first Pacer game who unfortunately will probly never forget this.
                            Not meant to be a slam on you KM as I found this rather funny because of one thing. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times BillS is that guy who catches all those tee-shirts that Boomer shoots our of the cannon. And from my seat I get the greatest pleasure seeing BillS (everytime) walk over and hand it to some young fan nearby. I've told him personally before that's a really neat thing he does. In his humility he just says he enjoys helping to make possible life time Pacer fans.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • Re: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              You're over-thinking this with all the scenarios. This isn't Law And Order. If you don't think I'm not "aware" of what's goin on around me, you are extremely funny.
                              Seriously, I never meant for you to think I was saying you were not going to be aware of what is going on. It just did not come across when the use of the word "defended" only was applied to doing something after the fact.

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              It doesn't matter if I'm aware or not. If a guy falls down from who knows how many rows and lands on my son, knocks his tooth out, stands up, says, "Gee", and then completely disappears with no other interaction, he's not getting the benefit of the doubt.

                              If I had fallen and landed on another person's child, I would've immediately become profusely apologetic, and then I would've stayed around for however long it required to make sure the kid was alright, the situation was under control and then I'd probly go buy the kid a souvenir. This guy said, "Gee", and poofed.
                              And this is the thing I don't get. Even assuming the article was written in a completely unbiased fashion, it was clear the guy was there, with his buddy, for some time, trying to apologize. They chose not to pay attention to it (for whatever reason). What more is he supposed to do? As someone who has been in a similar situation, a guy standing around trying to distract me in order to apologize is actually pretty annoying - as soon as I was sure things were pretty OK, I'd tell him to move on and we'd deal with it later if needed. It sounds like they didn't even do that - and, because of that, we DON'T know if the guy offered to do anything - finding the boy later to do so sounds like it wasn't going to happen because, per the article, they left as soon as the boy was cleaned up. Maybe he was waiting for them to get back to their seat, but they never came back. Was the guy supposed to stalk them?

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              How his tooth got knocked out is irrelevant. Let's just say there was an impact of some variety, one hard enough to knock a tooth out. Going into the why's and how's and where's and was he facing backwards ---- doesn't matter. The kid was in his seat, next to his mom, and had his tooth knocked out.

                              What's weird to me is that you're almost defending this (likely drunk) dude instead of this 7-year old kid at his first Pacer game who unfortunately will probly never forget this. You're making all kinds of assumptions about this guy and the situation instead of just calling it for what it is --- he fell on a kid and knocked his tooth out. Then he poofed.
                              Notwithstanding the "poofed" again, why is it irrelevant? The guy must have been drunk to fall down, because no one ever falls down for any other reason, and that explains everything? Only if every incident is always solely one person's fault and if a child or a parent never has ended up in a situation that contributes to an accident.

                              I have a tendency to defend the person whose side of the story we don't know, and I don't change that just because the side we have is of a mother whose child had a bad experience. That's why I look for clues in the story being told - not to do some "law and order" analysis but to make sure we know what went wrong. It can't be fixed unless the facts are there - and a rant from one point of view is not a very good source of facts. I also hate convenient assumptions that make one side look aggrieved while any other side is at fault - that is just simply so seldom the case that it rings all kinds of alarm bells.

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              I wouldn't be happy about this, as a father. If you would've handled this differently, I don't know what else to tell ya. That is your own prerogative. The "giggle" thing for me isn't enough for me to say, "Hey, you know what pal? My son giggled after you knocked his tooth out, so... we're good, man. Don't worry about it." To me, this article wasn't about "how dangerous it is" at a Pacer game, rather than just a commentary on lack of conduct by some people.
                              No one says you're supposed to ignore it, just that there's a perspective other than "my kid lost a tooth, everyone else is at fault and you've Ruined His Life". Could it have been worse? Sure, but if you spend your life worrying about how things that happen with your kids Could Have Been Worse you'd never let them get out of bed in the morning. If the boy never forgets it it will be because his dad and mom remind him of it every time he talks about the Pacers. I've been 7, I've had kids who were 7, they're pretty resilient. He may remember he lost his tooth at a Pacer game (it's pretty memorable), but he's likely not going to associate it with a trauma. So much with young kids is not in the occurrence, it is in the reaction. It's why a lot of times when something happens they look at Mom or Dad before they start to react.

                              And this is NOT a "commentary on people's actions". She spends more time talking about how bad it is at games than she does about the guy who did it.

                              Ultimately, I agree with the idea that if it had been me, Mom would have taken him to get his mouth washed while I talked to the guy responsible. Like you said, that might range in vehemence, but I don't think ignoring the guy and then essentially calling him out in public is at all the right thing to do.

                              Look, it wasn't fun, it wasn't a happy ending for the evening, I wouldn't be happy as a dad, but I wouldn't start acting like just because I and my child had the experience it was somehow usual and that it would be a permanent problem. Giving the kid $20 for his tooth? Granted I don't know the going Tooth Fairy rate these days (our kids always got a 50-cent piece), but $20 seems like overreaction parenting to me.
                              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: My son’s first Pacers game was ruined by carousing bozo

                                I think the question is: What percentage of kids are being sat on in any given Pacer game?

                                Then: Is that percentage greater than that at a Colts game?
                                Lock up your kids. Home school them and put a helmet on them. In fact we have to protect those helmets with dust covers. Strap leashes and GPS devices to them.

                                God forbid we have another World War, because we are raising some sissies and we are afraid of everything.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X