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

Vnzla81

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

  • #46
    Re: Vnzla81

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    I think that the fact that this post was preceded by several other posts in the past few days that deserved an infraction but didn't got one was the reason that this particular post got it.
    So, it was a make up call?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Vnzla81

      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
      So, it was a make up call?


      Since we're not professionals we don't HAVE to get it right the first time.

      Um, right?



      Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Vnzla81

        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
        So, it was a make up call?
        I dont care who you are, thats funny right there.
        "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


        • #49
          Re: Vnzla81

          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
          I dont care who you are, thats funny right there.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Vnzla81

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            I don't think Hicks should share PM's or parts of them without Vnzla's permission (IMHO). So I'm fine with that. We can safely assume they were two guys entrenched in their positions and both pizzed off by the time this PM exchange took place.
            I agree that he can't just copy and paste the PM's. But IMHO, it's pretty telling that he's being so vague about them. If v had cursed him out or lobbed some ridiculous personal insults at him, then I have a feeling that Hicks would have said as much by now. But instead he's being very vague, and even said that I would have considered it to be "not that bad".

            Sounds to me like v mouthed off a little bit and Hicks snapped by banning him on the spot to make a point. Maybe it's not fair for me to think that, but that's the way I see it until I see evidence to the contrary.

            The fact that people are trying to seriously spin that David West comment as trolling tells me just how biased people are against the guy.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-11-2014, 06:57 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Vnzla81

              I think you don't realize that even paraphrasing what was said would be inappropriate when he isn't around. It's also nobody's business but the admins' and vnzla's. If you choose to believe in spite of the long history of PD that Hicks is the kind of person to just ban people for spite simply because he won't share private conversations in whole or in part, so be it. I think it is extremely unfair, but I guess I would of course think so as one of the admins.

              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Vnzla81

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                The fact that people are trying to seriously spin that David West comment as trolling tells me just how biased people are against the guy.
                I'm not trying to spin anything, my friend. I don't want vnzla banned.

                I'm just clarifying that this sort of post would easily be reported and/or receive an infraction in another forum. It would certainly receive an infraction in the forum that I'm moderating and I wouldn't be the one who would give that infraction.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Vnzla81

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I think you don't realize that even paraphrasing what was said would be inappropriate when he isn't around. It's also nobody's business but the admins' and vnzla's. If you choose to believe in spite of the long history of PD that Hicks is the kind of person to just ban people for spite simply because he won't share private conversations in whole or in part, so be it. I think it is extremely unfair, but I guess I would of course think so as one of the admins.

                  Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

                  I'm just saying that this is by far the most shady thing I've ever seen since joining PD, and I've been here since the beginning as my join date indicates. I can't change how I feel, and after looking at the cards that have been laid on the table, I feel that this was done in a spiteful vengeful manner because of an inherent dislike of a particular poster.

                  I get that Hicks can't copy the PM or even paraphrase it. But he did say that I likely would have found it to be "not that bad". That tells me right there that vnzla likely wasn't cussing him out or lobbing extremely offensive insults at him that could objectively be looked at as ban worthy.

                  But whatever, it is what it is. I'm not going to change any minds, and no one has going to change my mind in light of the cards that have currently been laid on the table. I will never respect the decision and the way it was handled. Fair? Maybe, maybe not, but I can't change the way I feel about it.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-11-2014, 07:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Vnzla81

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    If one of us went into a Heat board after the Knicks game and said "another 6 and 9 and a lot of heart and soul by Chris Bosh" then I can guarantee you that he would receive an infraction.

                    I'm currently moderating a general NBA board and even though I'm very lenient personally and I have not given out an infraction yet (only PM warnings so far) I can definitely see several other mods consider it baiting and thus giving an infraction.

                    PD is really lenient if you take into account some of the rules that other sites enforce.

                    Yes, if I went to a Heat forum as a Pacer fan and starting mocking Chris Bosh, then yes I would likely be reported. But there is a certain message board unwritten rule that it's OK for fans of a team to criticize their own players, while it would be considered in bad form to trash another team's players on that team's message board.

                    For example, virtually everyone here used to complain about the Murphy and Dunleavy contracts. We were people who wanted to see the Pacers improve. But if some fans from another team would have come here and started mocking the Pacers for trading for those guys, then yeah, that would have been in bad form and likely would have led to a ban.

                    V is a Pacer fan who was never wild about West. He thinks that his "heart and soul" stuff is overrated. I disagree with him because I am a huge West fan, but I see no trouble with what he is saying.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Vnzla81

                      I'm sure he deserved banned after so many times walking the tightrope and poking the bears...and after many PM's. I believe that without the need to see a thing. I would also have to say it's not my business. I don't spend the time to moderate and I'm fortunate someone does. V, as much as I appreciated some of his posts, he was fortunate to have survived that long. So I agree with Hicks on all of that.

                      But my honest impression, without even seeing this thread or any posts since he was banned, was that the loss to the Hawks pushed things over the edge. That and V kept on ripping on Granger and now that Lance doesn't play it's pretty obvious that Lance's presence is critical and Granger didn't seem to come close to helping. V would have rubbed faces in that and kept doing it over and over for days.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Vnzla81

                        I still keep coming back to the same point... What was so bad about the heart and soul comment to lead to all of this?

                        Everybody keeps addressing other aspects and talking about history, etc... but really... all that matters is how did that one post spiral into all of this?

                        The best explanation actually seems to be the joke that was posted that it was a makeup call.

                        It still seems to play like that police analogy I posted earlier. You have a policeman for a neighbor. One day you cut down a tree because it's dropping sap on your car in the driveway. The policeman flies off the handle because he liked the shade from the tree and disputes it was on your property in the first place. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the tree is now gone. Your dog gets loose and tears into his trash. He tells you if he sees your dog again he will shoot it while you are trying to apologize so it escalates into an argument that settles nothing. He forbids his family from associating with yours and then finds out his daughter is seeing your son.

                        He follows you a few times but you're driving is perfect so nothing happens. Then one day you don't use your turn signal as soon as he thinks you should. So he pulls you over even though plenty of other people signaled even later and some didn't signal at all. So when you complain and argue the point that you shouldn't have been pulled over in the first place and he singled you out because he has a personal problem with you, his answer is to accuse you of disorderly conduct. When you protest, turn away and bang your fist on your own hood in frustration he tazes you and then arrests you for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

                        So, at the end of all of that you did act in a disorderly fashion and resist arrest. But because of the past history this policeman had lost his objectivity and had it in for you and was looking for any reason to ticket and/or arrest you. He thinks it's deserved and you had it coming and he would've busted you sooner if he'd had the chance. This was his chance.

                        That is how this situation feels when the post in question is so innocuous yet started this whole 'beginning of the end' process.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Vnzla81

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          V is a Pacer fan who was never wild about West. He thinks that his "heart and soul" stuff is overrated. I disagree with him because I am a huge West fan, but I see no trouble with what he is saying.
                          That's the funny thing... I agree with you and totally disagree with him on this point too! That's partly why I don't see the problem with the post. I'm a West fan and am a person that thinks professionalism and chemistry are very important. And I can easily overlook Vnzla being on the opposite side of that issue.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Vnzla81

                            I normally agree with both of you guys...and I understand you might want an explanation...but I figure he's earned it from so many instances of being annoying. He was like a fly. In most dictatorships, he wouldn't have survived a fraction of the time. I don't think the admins are saying anything other than it was time. No particular post was the tipping point.

                            It was like drinking 72 shots of schnapps. Which one of them made you drunk? Who knows? It doesn't matter because it's clear you are wasted.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Vnzla81

                              Bball, the problem with your analogy is thay you use the phrasing implying you were sorry for the things happening to the policeman. The reality is more like you told the policeman he was stupid for liking the shade and that it was his fault for having trash in the first place.

                              At some point, and meaning no disrespect at all, we have to point back to the history of PD and ask why it means a decision you disagree with has to be interpreted as a conspiracy against a perfectly innocent forum member. That kind of implication of complete and utter unethical behavior is what really hurts in all of this.

                              And no one was forbidding anyone from anything. An infraction is one point that goes away after time. Infractions have even been rescinded on logical discussion. Logical discussion did not happen.

                              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Vnzla81

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                I still keep coming back to the same point... What was so bad about the heart and soul comment to lead to all of this?
                                Because it's was meant to mock those who think West is the heart and soul of the team. You guys are smart enough to know the intent of his sarcasm.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X