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

Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

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

  • #61
    Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
    If the enormous challenge of changing these "segments" of culture and trying to improve impoverished and undeprivileged situations and their accompanying problems are all on the gov't, I don't have a lot of faith.

    I would argue that your assertion that businesses are in it to make money and have no public responsibility is actually a symptom of the broader cultural problem. This really just communicates to the lower class that those with wealth and power don't care and that our culture does not support any shared attempt to help pull up people.

    Of course, it has to be a two way street. People have to do their part to improve themselves, as well. No argument there. But what is the likliehood of someone buying into that when the overarching message is nobody cares they are just out to make money. Everyone should be responsible for public welfare to the extent that we all form the community in which we reside.
    I think you make some good points. It would be nice if the business community took more responsibility. I just completely lack faith that will ever happen...and I don't see that as their role in society...but I do think you make a good argument that it could be a cultural problem of its own.....yet many businesses and people believe they do their part by paying taxes, and to a certain extent I agree with that. Complicated issue here...

    At the same time, businesses lobby our government officials and enact laws against the general public interest. That's where my undies get in a knot.

    It is this bad faith intent that gets my goat, not the good faith intent to compete in the marketplace without the added responsibility to support the general public welfare.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

      Can some one clear this up for me?

      Originally posted by WTHR article
      As they were leaving the club, they say some people outside were looking at their cars. There was an argument, and the Tinsley brothers and their friends left in three cars, all registered to Jamaal Tinsley, who was not present.
      from the Star
      Shots fired at Pacers’ Jamaal Tinsley
      http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...D=200771209001

      Jamaal Tinsley of the Pacers and several companions were shot at in three of Tinsley's vehicles by someone armed with an assault rifle outside the Conrad Hotel in Downtown Indianapolis early today, wounding a person who was with the athlete.

      Police said Joey Qatato, 48, was struck in both elbows as he sat with Tinsley in the player's Rolls Royce. The Pacers' Web site identifies Qatato as the team's equipment manager.
      Sgt. Paul Thompson, a spokesman for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, said two of the vehicles in Tinsley's group followed the shooters in a chase to Monument Circle, and Tinsley's brother, James, returned fire at the attackers. It was unknown whether anyone was hit. Jamaal Tinlsey was not involved in the chase, Thompson said.

      Authorities were called to the hotel where the initial shooting occurred at 50 W. Washington St. about 3:40 a.m.

      Thompson said the incident began at a club called "Cloud 9" on West 38th Street. A group was giving members of Tinsley's crew a hard time about the expensive cars they were driving – a Mercedes, Rolls Royce and a Dodge Charger – and the amount of money they made.

      Tinsley's group left the club but realized that they were being followed by a gray Chrysler and a dark pickup truck, Thompson said, so they pulled into the Conrad instead of going home.

      The shooting began after they reached the hotel, police said. The Rolls Royce was struck by several bullets. The Charger also was struck and was found to have five bullet holes, Thompson said.

      Police said the suspected weapon is a .223 assault rifle.

      Only one person was arrested on the scene -- Antoine Toon, 31, a member of the Tinsley group wanted on an unrelated warrant out of Georgia.

      Thompson said it could be determined later today whether James Tinsley, who had a gun permit, will face charges for returning fire at the other vehicles. Meanwhile, authorities are looking for the two vehicles driven by those who shot at Tinsley's group as they investigate the incident.

      Tinsley is scheduled to stand trial next month. He and teammate Marquis Daniels are due in court Jan. 14 on charges stemming from a bar fight at the 8 Seconds Saloon. A grand jury indicted Tinsley on a felony charge of intimidation, and misdemeanor counts of battery, disorderly conduct and intimidation from the Feb. 6 incident. Daniels is charged with battery and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

        Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
        How would you constitute a "ghetto club?"

        You're obviously a young guy (as am I) and you're trying to tell grown men what to do. What is LB going to do, call all of the Pacers at 10pm and ask them where they are, or better yet install tracking devices into their cars so he knows where they are at all times? That notion in and of itself is silly.

        If LB really thinks Tinsley could cause a major, major problem for himself or someone else he needs to trade him. If he meets with Tinsley and realizes that isn't the case, then he needs to keep him. There is no use trying to tell grown men how to run their lives.
        I don't think anyone should try to tell someone what to do. But if we must keep the hazard that is Tinsley, then give him(and the rest of the team) a curfew...or at least a set of guidlines or LB could go ask the Wizard for a backbone and not support the players that are idiots and have poor judgement. If this was the first time Tinsley was caught up in some scandal on 38th St, I'd let it slide...like I did with Shawne...everyone screws up. But Jamaal obviously has no plans to change his 'hood' lifestyle, which is fine, if he wants to do that it's his issue, over the past year or two he's in an "altercation" every few months. But if he won't change(and the prognosis isn't positive) then he needs to be on the first flight out of Indy.

        And a "ghetto club" is Club Rio...Tremors...Cloud 9. A "Non Ghetto Club" would be something like Six...Ice Ultra Lounge...Gelo Ultra Lounge....All very classy clubs where athletes are a lot of the time. But Tinsley doesn't seem to want to hang with that crowd, which again, is fine, it's his issue. But if he wants to flaunt his riches, he needs to go to the nice clubs so that he's not confronted. When you're driving a Rolls on dubs at 4:30am on 38th St. someone is bound to be drunk and get jealous and start something, you may not start the problems but you're putting yourself out there and not trying to hard to avoid that dangerous lifestyle. It's just stupidity on his part, IMO.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

          But of course, the title of the Star's Pacer article today:

          Shooting accuracy point of concern

          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

            IMO if it's in the best interest of the compnay, a boss has the right to tell an employee what to do in this context. Legally, the employee does NOT have to do it. But if you're willingly doing something that your employer honestly feels hurts his business.....

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
              ...and you were appointed as the supreme opinion on this by whom?
              Jesus.



              na wtf everyone else states their opinion, but when i state mine i'm all of a sudden "the supreme opinion"..?
              if we were undefeated or we had superstars on our team like the Celtics we'd have plenty of attendance
              who doesn't go to a game because a team has "thugs" on their roster?
              a racist that's who
              yall concerned w/ everything BUT basketball
              but i'm not from Indy maybe i don't think like you all

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                I imagine it was not the greatest decision to be where Tinsley was at the time. But, these men are grown adults and I'm not about to tell them what they can and cannot do.

                My biggest concern was whether he was okay...and I'm glad he is.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                  Originally posted by The Jumpshot Still Money View Post
                  Jesus.



                  na wtf everyone else states their opinion, but when i state mine i'm all of a sudden "the supreme opinion"..?
                  if we were undefeated or we had superstars on our team like the Celtics we'd have plenty of attendance
                  who doesn't go to a game because a team has "thugs" on their roster?
                  a racist that's who

                  yall concerned w/ everything BUT basketball
                  but i'm not from Indy maybe i don't think like you all

                  Ummmm......I was not under the impression "Thug" had anything to do with race.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                    Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                    My biggest concern was whether he was okay...and I'm glad he is.
                    That was the only thing I thought about when I read about this.

                    The reports on this seem sketchy though. In the same article they say that Jamaal was involved in a shooting with his brothers, and then they say that he wasn't there. Was he there or was he not? It doesn't make a difference to me either way, as long as he's ok, but it still seems like the reporters are not sure if he was there or not.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                      Originally posted by IndyFan032589 View Post
                      Ummmm......I was not under the impression "Thug" had anything to do with race.
                      well w/ all do respect
                      you're naive and/or ignorant

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                        Originally posted by The Jumpshot Still Money View Post
                        well w/ all do respect
                        you're naive and/or ignorant
                        So white people can't be thugs??? Hispanics can't be thugs??? You think black people can only be thugs and that's why people don't like Jamaal. Jamaal acts like a thug: Fact, and he is black: Fact. But people don't like him b/c he thinks with his *** not b/c of his race. When do people complain about Granger or O'Neal off court?? Never, b/c they have class. To think that thug means black is in fact naive/ignorant.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                          Hey, not to interrupt this fascinating discussion of socioeconomic racial politics, but Mile's question is a good one. The article seems to contradict itself... was Tinsley present, or were his brothers just borrowing his car?
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                            Originally posted by IndyFan032589 View Post
                            Ummmm......I was not under the impression "Thug" had anything to do with race.
                            Yeah, usually when the word "thug" is thrown around like it is in the modern context of the word... there are usually racial overtones that are implied. The same with throwing the word "Ghetto" around. Look, west 38th street is not the upper north side, but it is far from a "ghetto". I get really irritated with how loose that word is tossed around when it comes to neighborhoods that are lower income areas. Look, the area where Shawn Williams had his run-in with the law is pretty close to "ghetto", but an area where there is a large shopping mall, a Best Buy, and a Red Lobster hardly qualifies as Ghetto.

                            Look, just because a pro athlete comes into money doesn't change what he believes and most of the thoughts of "staying in suburbia" just because you have money isn't going to wash. It's just going to sound ignorant and insensitive.

                            Originally posted by IndyFan032589
                            a "ghetto club" is Club Rio...Tremors...Cloud 9. A "Non Ghetto Club" would be something like Six...Ice Ultra Lounge...Gelo Ultra Lounge....All very classy clubs where athletes are a lot of the time.
                            How would you even begin to know, you are not even old enough to be in a club.

                            Hell, by the way you are going about this. You hardly sound like you even know what a ghetto is, let alone can qualify what is Ghetto and what is not.
                            Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 12-09-2007, 01:50 PM.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                              Originally posted by The Jumpshot Still Money View Post
                              well w/ all do respect you're naive and/or ignorant

                              With all do respect, I love the IGNORE feature on this forum.
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Jamaal & The Tinsley brothers involved in shooting

                                Originally posted by IndyFan032589 View Post
                                So white people can't be thugs??? Hispanics can't be thugs??? You think black people can only be thugs and that's why people don't like Jamaal. Jamaal acts like a thug: Fact, and he is black: Fact. But people don't like him b/c he thinks with his *** not b/c of his race. When do people complain about Granger or O'Neal off court?? Never, b/c they have class. To think that thug means black is in fact naive/ignorant.
                                So then your definition of a thug is a "classless" person? And Tins has no "class" b/c he chooses not to hang out with the rich crowd at "classy" clubs as opposed to "ghetto" clubs?

                                I'll grant that people may question his judgment, although it is his perogative. However, it seems difficult to assign terms like classy to DG and JO if you don't know them personally and likewise thug or classless with Tins. Or maybe you are good friends with all three.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X