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

Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

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

  • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

    Originally posted by indy0731 View Post

    As far as the Duncan thing, the big argument for suspending Amare has been, "A rule has to be enforced at all times." So why doesn't that apply to Duncan altercation or not? He stepped onto the court during play about 4 feet out onto it. I am pretty sure that violates the rule.

    I'm not saying there is a conspiracy at all. I am just saying this is merely another dumb decision it was become a pattern of dumb decisions by Stern and Stu. I am of the opinion that if ESPN hadn't jumped all over this like a 5 year old going after some candy that the NBA would have let it go without an eye blink.

    No, the rule clearly states "during an altercation".

    If they didn't do it only during an altercation -there would be players suspended almost every game. A player steps onto the court during a dead ball to talk to a teammate - suspension. A player ives for a loose ball and falls into a teams bench and players attempt to get out of the way "onto the court - suspension.

    The idea behind the rule is to keep the court as clear as possible during an altercation and as someone who grew up watching the NBA in the 80's and first half of the 90's - the way it used to be was whenever there was a fight of any kind - bench would clear and instead of 1 fight there would be 3 or 4.

    This rule (or as Barkley calls it "rue") has been a great beneift to the NBA and it has significantly cut down on the fighting

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Garbage.

      First of all Horry is not a thug, and he is a very important to the Spurs - he almost always is on the court in the fourth quarter of playoff games. Plus all Amare and Diaw had to do is stay on the bench - it isn't that hard to do.

      The difference with Duncan is when he stepped onto the court there wasn't an altercation.

      Last, the Suns are a significantly better ratings draw than the Spurs, so what reason could the NBA have for "wanting the Spurs to win. The NBA would have loved a Warriors vs Suns WCF.


      PtsRebAst
      3.9
      3.4
      1.1

      Important?



      Come on Buck, at least do some research before makeing such statements.
      and he is a very important to the Spurs - he almost always is on the court in the fourth quarter of playoff games.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

        Jazz deservedly wins series, although the Warriors put up a valiant fight.

        IMO, the only difference between their play between the two teams is their three point shooting. Had they been as hot against the Mavs, they would have stretched this series. Conversely, had they been as cool from the 3's against the Jazz, the Mavs would have won the series. It all goes back, to win and die by the three.

        The Warriors are only one or two pieces from being one of the West elites.
        .

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          No, the rule clearly states "during an altercation".

          If they didn't do it only during an altercation -there would be players suspended almost every game. A player steps onto the court during a dead ball to talk to a teammate - suspension. A player ives for a loose ball and falls into a teams bench and players attempt to get out of the way "onto the court - suspension.

          The idea behind the rule is to keep the court as clear as possible during an altercation and as someone who grew up watching the NBA in the 80's and first half of the 90's - the way it used to be was whenever there was a fight of any kind - bench would clear and instead of 1 fight there would be 3 or 4.

          This rule (or as Barkley calls it "rue") has been a great beneift to the NBA and it has significantly cut down on the fighting
          Then I ask you this what defines an altercation? It's nearly as bendable a term as intent. Is an altercation two players talking to each other after a foul that involved the two of them? Is it a legitamate fight?

          The rule has at times been fine. This time it is going to quite possibly ruin an otherwise fantastic series. Why not enforce the rule at the start of the regular season? That makes more sense to me than this lunacy. If the Spurs win game 5 and go on to win the series, its a cheapened victory and thus the NBA championship this year will probably be cheapened.

          As far as Horry being important to the Spurs, I am going to have respectfully disagree. I doubt they miss him that much. The Suns however have lost 2 of the 4 frontcourt players they play on a consistant basis. Who is going to give Thomas or Marion a rest? James Jones?


          Comment


          • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

            Originally posted by Roferr View Post
            Jazz deservedly wins series, although the Warriors put up a valiant fight.

            IMO, the only difference between their play between the two teams is their three point shooting. Had they been as hot against the Mavs, they would have stretched this series. Conversely, had they been as cool from the 3's against the Jazz, the Mavs would have won the series. It all goes back, to win and die by the three.

            The Warriors are only one or two pieces from being one of the West elites.
            They need a guy who specializes in rebounding. Really Foster would probably work quite well on that team.


            Comment


            • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Also...I'm really impressed by Paul Milsap......that guy's a bulldozer.
              I keep hoping that with the right coach, Ike becomes our Milsap and Murphy becomes Okur-lite. Maybe JO even becomes a bigger Boozer. Just find us a Deron Williams equivlent and things get interesting.

              But Jerry Sloan probably isn't available.

              I wish one of his assistants were, assuming things have rubbed off. They are growing on me in a supurb execution/aggressive rebounding/smart shooting/tough defending sort of way. I had figured that I would be enamored with the run-and-gun teams this postseason, but Utah has won my support.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                4-1 Utah. Stick a fork in GS. This series has been particularly interesting due to the contrast in styles. One that is inherently flawed, the other is tried and true. It is nice to see reality play out here.

                The Jazz brought the winning strategy to the table once again. Stronger, bigger players with a strategy will almost always beat great athletes playing the fast break 3-pt playground ball. I do not believe the NBA has changed nearly as much as some.

                BTW, I am no RC fan but his style is more akin to Utah's than GS's. If the players had been less selfish and willing to play for him, things could have been very different.
                Rick coached nearly three completely different teams in his time here, and the fault lies on all of those players being "selfish?"

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Garbage.

                  First of all Horry is not a thug, and he is a very important to the Spurs - he almost always is on the court in the fourth quarter of playoff games. Plus all Amare and Diaw had to do is stay on the bench - it isn't that hard to do.

                  The difference with Duncan is when he stepped onto the court there wasn't an altercation.

                  Last, the Suns are a significantly better ratings draw than the Spurs, so what reason could the NBA have for "wanting the Spurs to win. The NBA would have loved a Warriors vs Suns WCF.
                  Amare & Diaw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Horry

                  No, Horry isn't a "thug"...he only takes cheap shots at people he thinks he can actually handle (Nash, Croshere).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                    Obviously I'd rather Amare and Boris on the court but I'd rather Horry in the final two minutes than Dirk. He's a winner and clutch. Those are always important things to have on the court.

                    The whole situation is just how it goes. There's no conspiracy. Do people really think that the league wants the Spurs to win over the Suns? That's just goofy. The Suns are more popular, have bigger stars, and are more exciting.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                      Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                      Rick coached nearly three completely different teams in his time here, and the fault lies on all of those players being "selfish?"
                      I am not even a RC fan, but it's flat out obvious he took the bullet and was the least deserving to take it.

                      Early on in RC's tenure, the team did not have as many idiots...and (pre-brawl) the idiots they had were not acting as badly. As a result, the team wins 61 games. There was no fault at all there.

                      Slowly but surely, we acquired the wrong players and at the same time RC began to lose control of the players who were not mature enough to act professionally. The fact RC was "losing the players" had much more to do with the players and their immaturity and selfishness than anything at all to do with RC or his system which had proven to be highly successful both in Detroit and Indy.

                      So, the fault lies not with RC but at the feet of management (Bird, Walsh and the Simons) and their poor personnel decisions and at the feet of a few highly paid, undisciplined, immature and selfish players like Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson.

                      Remember the quote; "We don't want any milk drinkers around here?" That is the root cause right there. It's not that you need milk drinkers only, its the mentality of not considering character when acquiring players. Bird et. al. got what they were asking for.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                        I miss Pacers Playoff Basketball

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          I am not even a RC fan, but it's flat out obvious he took the bullet and was the least deserving to take it.

                          .
                          Least deserving? I don't know about that. Most deserving? I don't know about that. However I do know that we had two straight seasons of .500 ball and then a season of severely under .500 ball. Coach has to take a lot of the blame. Rick had 4 years thats a lot more than a lot of other coaches have been given.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                            The Cavs crowd is pathetic. This whole series has been pathetic really.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                              NJ is absolutely raping the Cavs, in Cleveland.

                              Looks like there'll be a Game 6.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I am not even a RC fan, but it's flat out obvious he took the bullet and was the least deserving to take it.

                                Early on in RC's tenure, the team did not have as many idiots...and (pre-brawl) the idiots they had were not acting as badly. As a result, the team wins 61 games. There was no fault at all there.

                                Slowly but surely, we acquired the wrong players and at the same time RC began to lose control of the players who were not mature enough to act professionally. The fact RC was "losing the players" had much more to do with the players and their immaturity and selfishness than anything at all to do with RC or his system which had proven to be highly successful both in Detroit and Indy.

                                So, the fault lies not with RC but at the feet of management (Bird, Walsh and the Simons) and their poor personnel decisions and at the feet of a few highly paid, undisciplined, immature and selfish players like Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson.

                                Remember the quote; "We don't want any milk drinkers around here?" That is the root cause right there. It's not that you need milk drinkers only, its the mentality of not considering character when acquiring players. Bird et. al. got what they were asking for.
                                Are you serious? We had RON ARTEST and STEPHEN JACKSON, and they were nearly as insane then as they are now.

                                What does it say about Rick that we got rid of those headcases, only to have him coach them to one of the worst records ever?

                                Both Rick AND TPTB are to blame for this mess.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X