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

Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by VF21 View Post

    So you'd have no problem if we Sacramento fans lose the Kings and decide to come after the Pacers when our new arena gets built?
    Nope. Just like Sacramento fans wouldn't give a damn if the pistons moved. It's the nature of pro sports.

    No matter who wins, someone gets screwed over on this. Im sure there are people in Kansas city that are still hurting that their team got ripped from them 25 years ago.

    I wont question the loyalty of kings fans, just like I wouldn't question the loyalty of sonic fans. It's a crappy situation for everyone involved. But let's not confuse business with morality. When the time comes that Sacramento is in position to steal an NBA team themselves, you won't give a damn where it comes from either.
    Last edited by Kstat; 01-21-2013, 03:39 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


    • #92
      Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

      Originally posted by VF21 View Post

      So you'd have no problem if we Sacramento fans lose the Kings and decide to come after the Pacers when our new arena gets built?
      Of course KStat wouldn't have a problem with Sac-Town going after the Pacers if they lose the Kings..... He's a Pistons fan.
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

        https://twitter.com/mr_jasonjones/st...61484703465472
        Kings players found out about Seattle deal via social media/web
        Sac Bee writer. Maloofs are cowards.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine


          $525 mil for 65%?! Of the Kings?!
          $525M is the price for 100%. The Maloofs get 53% of that and a minority stockholder 12%.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            Nobody is saying either side is a villain or that either side deserves to be left without a team, all we are saying is that in that same vein neither side is more deserving to have a team, either. Someone loses here, no matter what happens, and neither side deserves to lose. Reality goes that way, sometimes.
            If it's between Seattle and Sacramento, Sacramento is the city that deserves a team more they have done everything they could to keep their team. While Seattle virtually did everything they could to let the team leave. They refused public funding because they thought that there is no way a team would actually leave a good NBA market like Seattle. It's Seattle's policy to refuse public funding which is find but with the way the NBA is setup it isn't realistic to expect to keep your team without having public help. I mean the day the city agreed to the lease buyout with Bennett the mayor was laughing and happy. They clearly didn't want to keep the Sonics they didn't give a ****. If they wanted to keep the team they would of not settled and made that team play in Seattle for 2 more years and hope to make Bennett sell.

            KJ is a former NBA player so it probably helps that he wants and think his city needs a team to help with jobs and economic growth that a team brings. I do feel for Seattle fans they don't deserve it ,but their local government couldn't give a damn about the sonics and the opposite is true about the Kings.


            I know this isnt going to happen but it would be really cool if Seattle gets an expansion franchise and somehow Clay Bennett will give back the history of the team. Then a new expansion franchise starts in a city like Chicago who could support a 2nd team. Or have the guy who wanted a team in Virginia Beach own a team there. I don't know it would just be a travesty if the Kings lose their team after what that city and fans have done to try and keep them.
            Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-21-2013, 04:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

              What you're not grasping here is that Seattle the city, and Seattle Supersonic fans, are not the same entity. I'm sure the majority of Sonic fans said something like, "GIVE THEM ANYTHING I WANT TO KEEP MY TEAM FOREVER." Just as we would if the Pacers were moving... but they don't get to decide what happens. Sure, they could elect different people who feel the same way, but you can't only vote people in based on their favor on a single, mostly unpolitical policy. The Sonics fans never did anything wrong, they just got screwed. They are no less deserving than Sacramento fans, regardless of what Seattle the city vs what Sacramento the city did/does.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                This is like the pacers moving and me telling you "that's okay, you still have the bulls."
                No, this is like you telling me "well it sucks that they are moving, but at least you'll still be able to reasonably drive to see them live a couple times a year...and not Chicago but make it Cincinnati instead."

                So if was the Cincy Bulls and the Pacers moved to Vermont but still played Cincy twice a year, that would beat the living s*** out of what a Kansas City Kings fan had, which was virtually no option at all to see them live or really any NBA live.


                See, I didn't say "switch to rooting for a new team". I said "keep rooting for them and at least a few games will still be played within driving distance which was way better than KC had it".

                But otherwise your analogy was perfect.





                Having made that rant (it just tweeked me the wrong way), it certainly does suck to be a one sport town and to lose that sport. This is just more of the cascade of poor moves made by the NBA. If you look back at the expansions, the Vancouver attempt failed and the Toronto effort is dicey. Meanwhile you had OKC and Memphis that were prepared to accept and support a new NBA team. Had Stern been less "global" focused" and just put teams in those cities instead, then you lose the Raptors but in every other way you hold the NBA in place without some of this pointless shuffling.

                Don't get me started on some of the NBA ownership - Shinn, Maloofs.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-21-2013, 04:44 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                  One thing about Seattle fans not supporting the Sonics arena, as well as they "yes but they get to have lots of pro sports". That's what hurt them. They had just paid for 2 new stadiums (both very nice) and with the Key Arena update in its recent history (94-95) they just were struggling to get public support for a 3rd new pro stadium in a decade.

                  So imagine Sacto buying THREE stadiums where the other 2 were more expensive than the BBall arena. Sacto is a one team town so they can focus on just that. It doesn't make them a better fan base as a city, it's just a different situation. Seattle residents and sports fans gave up quite a bit to support their teams, they were just facing a bigger total task.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    Having Indy lose the Pacers is one of my nightmares, so I can only imagine what Kings fans have gone through over the past few seasons. I hope they're able to find another team some day because they had one of the most loyal fanbases for a long period of time.
                    And lets be realistic, the only reason we don't lose the Pacers is Herb (and was Mel too). Money aside, deals aside, Herb could be getting $30m for exclusive negotiating rights and other sweeteners that would make it very financially pleasing to sell to a freaking Italian group that wanted to have a team in Rome, and what could we do about it? Jack and squat.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                      The REAL villains in this situation are David Stern and Clay Bennett. No Bennett=Sonics and Kings intact, and nobody wanting to move to OKC. Bennett and Stern started this entire mess five years ago.
                      Senior at the University of Louisville.
                      Greenfield ---> The Ville

                      Comment


                      • Stern works for the owners. Any good commissioner in his place would be doing what he's doing. Sorry, you can't blame him for this.

                        If stern didn't care about the cities losing their teams, he wouldn't have worked so hard to get franchises back in places like Seattle and Charlotte. But he cannot get in the way of owners moving their teams. They do not work for him.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 01-21-2013, 05:24 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: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                          Of course KStat wouldn't have a problem with Sac-Town going after the Pacers if they lose the Kings..... He's a Pistons fan.
                          Ah crap, thanks for the reminder. I used to know that.

                          Of course he doesn't have to worry. Who'd want the Pistons anyway?
                          NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                            CWebb, Kenny and Shaq chime in on recent events: http://www.nba.com/video/channels/tn...1-inside-5.nba
                            NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                              Kevin Johnson has a big announcement in 15 minutes the presser will be streamed here http://tunein.com/radio/CBS-Sports-1140-s33038/#


                              Im excited hope it's a group or something big that will help them keep the Kings.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rumors coming from Seattle that the Maloofs have sold the Kings

                                David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Local developer David Taylor, who helped put together the arena plan last year: "...we have a venue & a way forward to keep the team here."
                                Expand

                                David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Local investor Phil Oates: "it's time to fight...somebody wants something of mine...it's time to go down swinging."
                                Expand
                                5m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson: "there's a sense of urgency in this committee. And the time is ticking." Says he cancelled plans to attend Obama Inauguration in DC
                                Expand
                                9m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson: "As long as there's time on the clock, our community always finds a way to stand up for itself."
                                Expand
                                9m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson says he wanted to get 3 to 5 people to come in as local owners. In three days, he says 19 people have committed at least $1 million.
                                Expand
                                11m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson says the Kings "help shape and brand our entire region, the Sacramento region, not just the city of Sacramento."
                                Expand
                                11m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson says he can't disclose the names of the major equity partners today, perhaps by the end of the week.
                                Expand
                                12m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson: "we're going to do everything we can to put forth a competitive offer..."
                                Expand
                                12m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson's plan: identify local owners and equity partners, commitment for new arena, demonstrate the viability of the Sacramento market.
                                Expand
                                13m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Johnson says Sacramento's model is similar to San Francisco's that kept the Giants there instead of moving to Florida.
                                Expand
                                15m David Aldridge David Aldridge ‏@daldridgetnt

                                Watching Sacramento CBS 13 live feed of Mayor Kevin Johnson's press conference detailing plans to keep Kings in Sacramento.
                                Expand
                                Last edited by Sandman21; 01-22-2013, 05:22 PM.
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X