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

Paul George sucks at the Internet

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

  • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Larry isn't the one in the crosshairs though. That's going to be my next life endeavor: Starting a PR firm that deviates from the script.
    Deviating from script increases the chance of saying something that would offend someone. Of course, now that we have people complaining about standard form apologies...

    Anyway, hope Paul would volunteer at a charity for abuse victims. Putting a human face to the victims might be a better learning moment for him than an apology forced out by the Pacers/NBA. Didn't Hibbert do similar after his homophobic comments (last year? 2 years ago?). I've forgotten.

    Comment


    • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

      About PG's intelligence... I'm pretty sure I said plenty of stupid things too at his age, but I'm not a public figure so no one cared.

      Comment


      • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        Deviating from script increases the chance of saying something that would offend someone. Of course, now that we have people complaining about standard form apologies...
        Because it's not an apology. I don't see it that way. Besides, PR people are professionals. It is literally their job to decrease the chances of the apology offending someone. There's a middle ground between hollow, scripted apologies and digging the hole deeper. I suspect these professionals should be able to toe that line and work with the person apologizing to hit that ground.

        Here, to me, is a real apology:

        http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/11/13/n...shows-the-way/

        “…Today people with cognitive disabilities and their allies are asking members of society to refrain from using the word “retarded” (along with all mutations of the word)… My question to you: Is it ethical to contribute to the denigration of the vulnerable? I am particularly interested because you, Chuck Klosterman, are The Ethicist for the New York Times” and the author of the following [examples of denigrating or mocking references to the mentally handicapped]…. Mr. Klosterman, you appear to be an unrepentant hater of people with cognitive disabilities. You are not using the word in an “I don’t mean it like that way…” sort of ignorance which I think would be much easier to redress. You are using the word in a “Those people are exactly who I am talking about” way.

        Please enlighten me: What are the ethics of using the R-word? I am the mother of a seven-year-old son who has Down syndrome. I believe your response to my question could make all the difference in the world.”

        Here is Klosterman’s remarkable response:

        “I have spent the last two days trying to figure out a way to properly address the issue you have raised on your web site. I’ve slowly concluded the best way is to just be as straightforward as possible: I was wrong. You are right.

        I should not have used “retard” pejoratively. It was immature, hurtful, and thoughtless. I have no justification for my actions. I realize the books that contain those sentiments were published over 10 years ago, but that is no excuse; I was an adult when I wrote them and I knew what I was doing. I feel terrible about this and deeply embarrassed. I take full responsibility for my actions and understand why this matters so much to you. I’m truly sorry.

        Feel free to re-post this message on your web site. I deserve the criticism I am receiving, and I want other people to know that I realize I was wrong. I would also like to donate $25,000 to whatever charity you feel is most critical in improving the lives of people with cognitive disabilities…I have done something bad, so help me do something good.

        Again, I apologize — and not just to you and your son, but to anyone else who was hurt by this.– Chuck Klosterman”

        Comment


        • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Because it's not an apology. I don't see it that way. Besides, PR people are professionals. It is literally their job to decrease the chances of the apology offending someone. There's a middle ground between hollow, scripted apologies and digging the hole deeper. I suspect these professionals should be able to toe that line and work with the person apologizing to hit that ground.

          Here, to me, is a real apology:

          http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/11/13/n...shows-the-way/
          100%. an apology that actually mentions the person who he described as "trippin" would have been a good start.

          Comment


          • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            About PG's intelligence... I'm pretty sure I said plenty of stupid things too at his age, but I'm not a public figure so no one cared.
            I have said dumb things as well, no doubt about it. But at 24 years old I was not sending questionable photos pictures, justifying domestic abuse or knocking up strippers. I am far from perfect, and I am never the smartest person in the room, but I guess I had enough sense/intelligence to stay away from the mistakes PG has made lately.

            Again, I am not criticizing him, just observing that based on his decisions he just might not be too sharp.

            Comment


            • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              That's pretty nice. But I don't think that's the sort of work that can be done in 10 mins or however long it was to push the cookie cutter apology out.

              I'm pretty sure there will be an interview or feature with PG in the not too far future, where you can read him apologize in his own words. That's pretty standard form too, isn't it?

              Comment


              • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                I am sort of surprised Paul is this dumb, his parents seem like good people and it seems like he had a good upbringing - I guess a lot of money and hangers on at a young age can make anyone dumb.
                Do you think that's it? It's possible to be a good person (like Paul and his parents) and just not know better (dumb).

                As crazy as it sounds, there just haven't been consistent and strong consequences for domestic violence. When public people like Chris Brown beat their girlfriends (Rihanna) and the girlfriend gets back with him, it sends mixed signals to a wide audience. Only now, imo, is it starting to feel like domestic violence is unacceptable.

                As for Paul, he may have a good heart but just really bad judgment. I don't know. What I know is that I see his play and sometimes think 'he could make better decisions'. And it wouldn't surprise me if that carried over to non-basketball life.
                Last edited by imawhat; 09-11-2014, 01:34 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                  This goes back to the Ron Artest argument that I used to have with many people about it being age and immaturity. I'll say now what I said then.

                  Yes it is possible that some people take time to mature and grow. Sometimes the age is 18 others its 38 or even older.

                  Age and maturity are not co-equals.

                  Oh btw, for those of you who are arguing with me back then I will point out that Ron is as immature today as he was then and it had nothing to do with age. The only thing age did to him was take away his skills on the court so that he is no longer relevant, however if he were still relevant you would still be hearing the same dumb stuff today that we did 10+ years ago.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    This goes back to the Ron Artest argument that I used to have with many people about it being age and immaturity. I'll say now what I said then.

                    Yes it is possible that some people take time to mature and grow. Sometimes the age is 18 others its 38 or even older.

                    Age and maturity are not co-equals.

                    Oh btw, for those of you who are arguing with me back then I will point out that Ron is as immature today as he was then and it had nothing to do with age. The only thing age did to him was take away his skills on the court so that he is no longer relevant, however if he were still relevant you would still be hearing the same dumb stuff today that we did 10+ years ago.
                    Yea, with Ron there's something else there goin on, he'll never grow up. He's a 12-yo in a 34 yo's body (gosh, he's younger than I thought). I never expected him to grow up... but with PG, I see it. And frankly, nothing PG has done is anywhere close to the craziness Ron-Ron exhibits.
                    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: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      That's pretty nice. But I don't think that's the sort of work that can be done in 10 mins or however long it was to push the cookie cutter apology out.

                      I'm pretty sure there will be an interview or feature with PG in the not too far future, where you can read him apologize in his own words. That's pretty standard form too, isn't it?
                      Here, I'll write one for PG right now:

                      I want to apologize to all victims of domestic abuse for my insensitive tweets. They were obviously without proper understanding of the seriousness of the situation and I sincerely regret my poor choice of words...wait, let me start over. Truth be told, those two sentences were written by a professional associated with myself and the Pacers organization. It would be be disingenous of me to apologize without really apologizing. I know what I tweeted, I know it was only a few hours ago that I tweeted them, so if a rapid fire apology comes off as a scramble for PR, then I apologize. My intention, which I admittedly went about in an insensitive manner, was to spread some of the outrage from the Ray Rice ordeal into other issues that I feel are very serious and deserve more attention than I feel they have been getting. It was an extremely short sighted series of tweets that I compounded and made worse by my backpedaling, which, admittedly, was due to the backlash I have received from them. But my intent was not to belittle victims of domestic abuse, I was not condoning domestic violence in any way, and I absolutely, unequivocally was not trying to insinuate that it is okay to hit a woman, ever. I sincerely apologize to all those who I have offended and feel that it is my responsibility, as a public figure and a role model, to learn more about domestic violence and the pain it causes it's victims. I will attend meetings on my own volition so I can better understand why my comments were received the way they were. I would also like to make a donation to a charity that is devoted to the cause. I realize that throwing money at the issue is not a band aid for the wounds I have opened, but truthfully, it is the best I can do right now. I understand and accept any and all criticism that I have and will receive, but I want to make sure that my apology and actions going forward touch the victims of domestic abuse and show my absolute sincerity.

                      - Paul George

                      (This is off the top of my head, I'm sure holes can be poked in this and that's my point about the PR people: they can clean the language up and tighten the message, but at the same time leaving the human element and sincerity in there.)

                      /endrant

                      Comment


                      • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                        Paul George is an immature jackass. Great basketball player. Total ****ing idiot.

                        I would argue that last year we had a whole team of them save D West. It makes a lot more sense why the team imploded like it did.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                          Now write one for Roger Goodell cdash. (I'm kidding, but the PG one was good).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet




                            Damn PG, you messed up the man's vacation? Seriously though, that's kind of an unprofessional tweet.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              This goes back to the Ron Artest argument that I used to have with many people about it being age and immaturity. I'll say now what I said then.

                              Yes it is possible that some people take time to mature and grow. Sometimes the age is 18 others its 38 or even older.

                              Age and maturity are not co-equals.

                              Oh btw, for those of you who are arguing with me back then I will point out that Ron is as immature today as he was then and it had nothing to do with age. The only thing age did to him was take away his skills on the court so that he is no longer relevant, however if he were still relevant you would still be hearing the same dumb stuff today that we did 10+ years ago.
                              I will argue that you are confusing maturity and people just being ********.
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment


                              • Re: Paul George sucks at the Internet

                                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                                This does not condone their horrible comments and views. But please understand that they aren't their poor comments or choices. People make mistakes. I am willing to bet that you don't want your whole life to be judged by the bad moments. Why is okay for you to do that to to others?

                                Should an apology by Roy and Paul be discredited so easily? Can they not learn from their mistakes in their youth?
                                Completely disagree. We are the choices and comments me make. That is exactly what we are. Can we grow and change and mature? For sure. Can we apologize and learn? Definitely. But right now we are mired in patterns of repeated mistakes from both of these players. In fact, I would go so far as to say that both of these players have started acting and saying things that are much worse since they were signed to essentially max guaranteed deals.
                                Danger Zone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X