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

Granger out indefinetly

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

  • #31
    Re: Granger out indefinetly

    well it seems like the whole season has a concusion....although its to bad JOB doesnt get a concusion and is out indefently....
    I CANT SPELL!

    THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Granger out indefinetly

      Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
      Well, it seems like the whole season has a concussion....although its to bad JOB doesnt get a concussion and is out indefinetly....
      Fixed. Only because you admit it. Also, indefinetly is in the title.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Granger out indefinetly

        Mike Wells isn't the Star's Headline writer. I believe someone else has that job to make the headlines. I know this topic has came up in the past about the headlines being negatively misleading.
        ...Still "flying casual"
        @roaminggnome74

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Granger out indefinetly

          ok since i created the thread........... is there anything wrong with making a thread title a certain way as long as the article states things in the story to support the title?
          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Granger out indefinetly

            The thread title is accurate.
            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Granger out indefinetly

              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
              Mike Wells isn't the Star's Headline writer. I believe someone else has that job to make the headlines. I know this topic has came up in the past about the headlines being negatively misleading.
              This is correct.

              Back in high school (wow I feel old) I emailed "The Bunny" to ask about one of his articles and how misleading the title was, and he informed me he just wrote the article. The Star had another employee who wrote the titles.

              The only exception was his Question and Answer segment with fans (which I actually miss) and even then sometimes they would write the titles for those pieces, though its was normally Mark M's Questions of the Week or something like that......

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Granger out indefinetly

                Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                ok since i created the thread........... is there anything wrong with making a thread title a certain way as long as the article states things in the story to support the title?
                I think my lack of time today and brevity in posting created some confusion.

                No, I didn't click thru the link since it was a RealGM link and I thought the complete text was pasted with it. ...And I was in a rush doing other things on the computer and phone.

                I saw Mike Wells' name mentioned but didn't see him referenced as a source in the original post. I see now if I'd clicked the RealGM link there was a link back to the Star where I could've read the genesis of the RealGM link.

                I agree with the idea that 'out indefinitely' technically could mean out 1 day, 2 days, 10 days, or whatever. Generally though, in sports 'indefinitely' means an extended period of time and not expected back at any point soon. "Day to Day" is usually what is said when an injured player is out for an unknown but not expected to be long period.

                Reading the text of the article, O'Brien put this into the "Day to Day" realm though. So that takes me back to the reference to Wells. I didn't know if the title of the post related to a Wells' Tweet, a blog entry, a mention on TV or radio, or an article he'd written. Or if the report even came from Wells in the first place and a later poster only assumed it did.

                At this point I can see that Wells was the source of the report.

                So....
                If it was an article Wells had written then I had every doubt he had anything to do with the title and either an editor or the OP came up with the phrase. OTOH, if the title related to a Wells' Tweet or blog entry, or a comment from TV or radio he'd made then I could see Wells using the term in it's more proper context for sports (because of his ability to have several sources and being connected to sports) as opposed to whatever O'Brien might've said (which typically I really believe you cannot pay attention to anything O'Brien says).

                I have no problem with the OP's subject title at all. I was only trying to figure out which way to interpret the term and if it was his term, Wells', or someone else's involved in the report.

                Secondarily, I wanted to point out that it's usually doubtful a Star writer/reporter has anything to do with the title put on a piece they've written (unless it's their blog entries).

                The answer to the above just helps shed some light on what we should read into that title... if anything.... since it's contradicted (in sporting terms) by what O'Brien said.

                So IOW... if the title was directly attributed to a comment Wells (or another close to the team had made) it would potentially trump O'Brien's comments. If it was just someone's title (either OP or editor/title writer at Star) then it can be technically read to mean nothing more than just another way of saying what O'Brien said. ...And again... I no longer pay attention to O'Brien's words so all I take away from all of this is Danny is out and may be back sometime soon this season... or not... Or he might contract an ear infection!

                .
                Last edited by Bball; 03-19-2010, 01:21 AM.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Granger out indefinetly

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I think my lack of time today and brevity in posting created some confusion.

                  No, I didn't click thru the link since it was a RealGM link and I thought the complete text was pasted with it. ...And I was in a rush doing other things on the computer and phone.

                  I saw Mike Wells' name mentioned but didn't see him referenced as a source in the original post. I see now if I'd clicked the RealGM link there was a link back to the Star where I could've read the genesis of the RealGM link.

                  I agree with the idea that 'out indefinitely' technically could mean out 1 day, 2 days, 10 days, or whatever. Generally though, in sports 'indefinitely' means an extended period of time and not expected back at any point soon. "Day to Day" is usually what is said when an injured player is out for an unknown but not expected to be long period.

                  Reading the text of the article, O'Brien put this into the "Day to Day" realm though. So that takes me back to the reference to Wells. I didn't know if the title of the post related to a Wells' Tweet, a blog entry, a mention on TV or radio, or an article he'd written. Or if the report even came from Wells in the first place and a later poster only assumed it did.

                  At this point I can see that Wells was the source of the report.

                  So....
                  If it was an article Wells had written then I had every doubt he had anything to do with the title and either an editor or the OP came up with the phrase. OTOH, if the title related to a Wells' Tweet or blog entry, or a comment from TV or radio he'd made then I could see Wells using the term in it's more proper context for sports (because of his ability to have several sources and being connected to sports) as opposed to whatever O'Brien might've said (which typically I really believe you cannot pay attention to anything O'Brien says).

                  I have no problem with the OP's subject title at all. I was only trying to figure out which way to interpret the term and if it was his term, Wells', or someone else's involved in the report.

                  Secondarily, I wanted to point out that it's usually doubtful a Star writer/reporter has anything to do with the title put on a piece they've written (unless it's their blog entries).

                  The answer to the above just helps shed some light on what we should read into that title... if anything.... since it's contradicted (in sporting terms) by what O'Brien said.

                  So IOW... if the title was directly attributed to a comment Wells (or another close to the team had made) it would potentially trump O'Brien's comments. If it was just someone's title (either OP or editor/title writer at Star) then it can be technically read to mean nothing more than just another way of saying what O'Brien said. ...And again... I no longer pay attention to O'Brien's words so all I take away from all of this is Danny is out and may be back sometime soon this season... or not... Or he might contract an ear infection!

                  .
                  I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                  Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                  Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Granger out indefinetly

                    I am sorry, is titling articles a funciton of a copy editor instead? I assumed that as the author of articles for use either in print or online that the author would have been responsible for the title. If not, doesn't he at least have input as to what it should be? If not the responsibility of the author or copy editor, I can definitely see where Gannett could save lots of money in staffing, and after the staff cutbacks that occurred last year for them nationwide, not just here in Indy, it is difficult to believe that there are positions for people whose specific function is to hyperbolize article titles. As a Gannett shareholder myself (not many but I do have a position), this is surprising.

                    Also, seriously, if there is such a position, how can I and thousands of underemployed like me, apply for that position as supplemental income during these rough economic times? That could easily be done from anywhere with decent web access.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Granger out indefinetly

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      The only thing we have to play for the rest of this season is a higher draft pick, lol... don't rush back Danny, just get better, and we'll get this ship righted next season.
                      we are starting to see a greater utilization of young players. while we aren't in the hunt, you completely ignore the value of players playing together. With the season all but lost the coaches can mix up line ups more and get the starters accustomed to playing with our younger guys. Personally I still believe Danny and Rush need to learn to play well together. Rush seems a lot better when he gets to play Danny for a night( in our offense).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Granger out indefinetly

                        Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
                        well it seems like the whole season has a concusion....although its to bad JOB doesnt get a concusion and is out indefently....
                        Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                        Fixed. Only because you admit it. Also, indefinetly is in the title.
                        it's



                        And while I'm fooling around with unnecessary corrections of EmCeE's corrections of jaddler's spelling mistakes, Spazzb produces a great new Psychadelic Roy avatar!

                        Well done!
                        Last edited by Putnam; 03-19-2010, 10:33 AM.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Granger out indefinetly

                          Love the Roy avatar Spazz
                          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Granger out indefinetly

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            it's



                            And while I'm fooling around with unnecessary corrections of EmCeE's corrections of jaddler's spelling mistakes, Spazzb produces a great new Psychadelic Roy avatar!

                            Well done!
                            Good get (!) Putnam!

                            So, while you are making unnecessary corrections, how does "it" compare with "bad" with respect to the sentence you referenced? Perhaps EmCeE intended the phrase to be "it's too bad", as in "it is a shame" or something similar?

                            Perhaps you may have even intended to use "Psychedelic" instead of "Psychadelic" with respect to the Roy avatar produced by Spazzb, which I agree is great!

                            Groovy, man...

                            Peace

                            Keep on Truckin'!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Granger out indefinetly

                              I read somewhere that Danny is ready to get back on the court and is hoping to be cleared to play tonight.

                              I hate him rushing back

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Granger out indefinetly

                                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                                No joke. I doubt he's out a week, let alone a month.
                                Called it.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X