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

Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

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

  • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    So players should be banned from working out, driving cars, mowing their own lawns too, etc. that makes sense too, right? They should probably be banned from eating non-nutritional foods as well.

    The players don't have to sign that contract, therefore owners are justified in putting anything they want in there and say "take it or leave it." Need to keep that company property as peak value.

    I'm guessing the owners best interest does not include publicly reducing their players from human beings to shiny possessions and publicly going to war with them over the ability to do so.

    The owners need the players as much as the players need the nba. It's in their best interest not to **** them off over petty stuff like this.
    It is indeed true that the owners should submit a contract that is to their own benefit. If they **** off the players, it may not to their benefit. If it's completely one-sided (on either side) that is fine too...but is irrelevant. People do not contract with each other to provide some kind of charitable gift to another group of people.

    It is a business owned by the owners. The players are assets to the business who also have their own businesses they run, normally in the form of endorsements or marketing their name & image. The player's economic opportunity depends on what they are worth to the market whether that is the NBA or other companies who want them to endorse products. The contract isn't about limiting anyone's rights as much as it is enforcing rights under the contract. It's about making money and that's all it is.

    Comment


    • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      That must be why they've only won it once in the last 20 years.
      They also been winning in the Olympics too. Which is probably more important than the basketball world cup

      Comment


      • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

        Originally posted by LeRyan07 View Post
        They also been winning in the Olympics too. Which is probably more important than the basketball world cup
        Which has nothing to do with your previous statement that thence wins it all the time, which they don't.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          It is indeed true that the owners should submit a contract that is to their own benefit. If they **** off the players, it may not to their benefit. If it's completely one-sided (on either side) that is fine too...but is irrelevant. People do not contract with each other to provide some kind of charitable gift to another group of people.

          It is a business owned by the owners. The players are assets to the business who also have their own businesses they run, normally in the form of endorsements or marketing their name & image. The player's economic opportunity depends on what they are worth to the market whether that is the NBA or other companies who want them to endorse products. The contract isn't about limiting anyone's rights as much as it is enforcing rights under the contract. It's about making money and that's all it is.
          And it doesn't mean they can control their entire lives because they pay them. That's the point you keep missing. They are assets yes, but not property.

          Playing basketball is not an inherently risky activity. It's actually what they do for a living. As a human being I'm insulted that anyone would suggest they should only be allowed to play basketball when their nba team says it's okay. Then again, I have the ability to respect the nba as a business and not see the players on my team as my personal property.

          The players won't support a league that demands that disgusting sort of control over them and I wouldn't either. If the owners want to lose the next lockout, by all means go ahead and try it.
          Last edited by Kstat; 08-15-2014, 10:57 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            And it doesn't mean they can control their entire lives because they pay them. That's the point you keep missing. They are assets yes, but not property.

            Playing basketball is not an inhenremtly risky activity. It's actually what they do for a living. As a human being I'm insulted that anyone would suggest they should only be allowed to play basksetball when their nba team says it's okay. Then aingain, I have the ability to respect the nba as a business and not see the players on my team as my personal property.
            QFT
            Last edited by immortality; 08-15-2014, 10:54 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

              Jesus that's a lot of typos. Fing iPad

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                And it doesn't mean they can control their entire lives because they pay them. That's the point you keep missing. They are assets yes, but not property.

                Playing basketball is not an inherently risky activity. It's actually what they do for a living. As a human being I'm insulted that anyone would suggest they should only be allowed to play basketball when their nba team says it's okay. Then again, I have the ability to respect the nba as a business and not see the players on my team as my personal property.

                The players won't support a league that demands that disgusting sort of control over them and I wouldn't either. If the owners want to lose the next lockout, by all means go ahead and try it.
                No one is being forced or controlled without them submitting to an agreement. They are free to sign OR not sign. IF they submit to it, THEY are making the decision to agree to a particular business relationship. You seem to think they have to sign, which just isn't true. They could go get a job like everyone else on the planet. 100% free to do that. NOBODY is forcing them to sign a single piece of paper.

                Edit: BTW, the NBA is treating the NBA players better than typical employees. Most employees can be fired for no reason. These players have guaranteed contracts. They are paid incredible amounts of money to play a child's game. Do they have highly sought after skills? Most definitely, but the NBA isn't abusing them. They are employees of the league who have greater rights and financial rewards than most people in the entire world. These are not commodities that may be replaced easily. They are highly valuable to the NBA franchises, no different than a factory in terms of business value. They will try to protect that asset and quite frankly they have a business need to do that. Does it restrain the player's rights to do anything they want? Maybe if that is the agreement. But to say the NBA does not have a business interest in their players being healthy and able to perform is pure fantasy. If they didn't protect their assets they would quickly go out of business. None of this is personal and the players already understand that.
                Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-15-2014, 11:41 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                  Pacers have 23 games next season where the other team is on the second half of a back to back. That's tied for 8th with TOR and MEM. Utah has the most with 27 games and OKC the least with 10. CLE has only 11. Given the expectations of this season, having a soft spot [or 23] in the schedule has to help.

                  Link
                  Last edited by xIndyFan; 08-15-2014, 11:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    I'm not missing anything. They are free to sign OR not sign. IF they submit to it, THEY are making the decision to agree to a particular business relationship. You seem to think they have to sign, which just isn't true. They could go get a job like everyone else on the planet. 100% free to do that. NOBODY is forcing them to sign a single piece of paper.
                    They aren't allowed to put that on the paper, thankfully. It's called collective bargaining. Fortunately the players have enough clout where the nba cant treat them like things.

                    The arrogant mentality of "I dare you to not sign it and get a regular job" doesn't apply here.

                    Paul George is not and will never be anyone's property, no matter how much you might wish he was. He's an asset but he's also a human being and playing basketball is what he does for a living.

                    The hypocrites who whine about players playing basketball in their off time are the same type of people that whine when a player isn't spending his summers working hard and getting better. But that's perfectly okay, just don't get hurt while doing it. Then we have to punish you for damaging company property.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 08-15-2014, 11:52 PM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                      If teams can't keep players from playing, how did the Spurs do so with Manu? I really don't care either way, but if I was a contender ready to go for a ring I might ask the player to consider not playing.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                        Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                        If teams can't keep players from playing, how did the Spurs do so with Manu? I really don't care either way, but if I was a contender ready to go for a ring I might ask the player to consider not playing.
                        Because Manu is already injured, thereby playing basketball while recovering poses a serious health risk. That's the only circumstance where NBA teams have a say.

                        the NBA/FIBA agreement states that NBA teams can not prohibit their players from playing except under circumstances where they're recovering from an injury.

                        Cuban's tried asking Dirk to not play for Germany for the last decade. Dirk has told Cuban to go **** himself every time.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 08-16-2014, 12:15 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post

                          Simon isn't hurting for cash either.

                          This is nothing but BS mentality just b/c Simon is a billionaire doesn't mean a 10-12 million loss isn't of value to him. Too many people view someone elses wealth from a poor man's view, b/c they don't have wealth themselves.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            This is nothing but BS mentality just b/c Simon is a billionaire doesn't mean a 10-12 million loss isn't of value to him. Too many people view someone elses wealth from a poor man's view, b/c they don't have wealth themselves.
                            yeah, and just because Paul George gets paid to play basketball doesn't means he's Simon's property. In case of paying his salary, that's what insurance companies are for.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              yeah, and just because Paul George gets paid to play basketball doesn't means he's Simon's property. In case of paying his salary, that's what insurance companies are for.
                              That's right. Nobody owns anyone. Paul doesn't have the right to participate in the NBA either unless he signs a contract. He is also completely free to walk away and never come back. The NBA isn't some kind of charity to make the players rich.

                              Edit...and who pay the rising insurance premiums? Somebody else, right?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                That's right. Nobody owns anyone. Paul doesn't have the right to participate in the NBA either unless he signs a contract. He is also completely free to walk away and never come back. The NBA isn't some kind of charity to make the players rich.
                                Not getting into the circular "if they don't like it they can go work regular jobs" argument again. Guess what? They can't put it into the contract. Sorry.

                                The NBA isn't a charity, and it's also not a circus, and the players are not animals that only get let out of their cages when its time to perform. The NBA cannot, should not and will never be able to prevent players from non-risky activities, especially playing basketball. The sooner you accept this and face reality the better off we'll all be.

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Edit...and who pay the rising insurance premiums? Somebody else, right?
                                Yeah, I'd love to see you chastise George Hill at his next round of paintball for gambling with his health and explain to him how he's the reason insurance rates are too high....

                                Your original point was that nobody owns anyone. Clearly, you don't actually believe that.
                                Last edited by Kstat; 08-16-2014, 10:49 AM.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X