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

I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

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

  • #76
    Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

    Originally posted by Since86
    Take a step backwards, like not suspending Tim for getting off the bench during the second quarter?

    The league defended its decision not to punish him, because there was no altercation. He was off the bench, and on to the floor before one could even start. If one had started, he would have been in violation, but because others kept their head, he came off scot free.

    You can't have it one way and not the other. He left the bench because of the possibility of Elson reacting. He should have been punished too.

    Punishing those who don't even partake does nothing to stop on court violence. Punishing those who do fight with stiffer penalties would be much more effective.
    NBA Rule 12-A-VII-c, "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000.
    The key phrase is "During an altercation."

    There was a blog somewhere else today asking why players aren't suspended when they stand up and cheer during a game.

    This rule is about preventing a fight between two players from escalating into something bigger.

    If there is no altercation, the rule is not violated.

    I guess Tim got lucky. That's all.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

      I agree with Sh4d3 and Jay (and whoever else) that suggested that players already on the court who rush to the 'scene' of an altercation - they should be suspended also. Just cause they're already on the court, does that make them any less guilty than a bench player stepping onto the court? Anyone involved in any sort of 'incident' should be suspended and fined. (That is, if you think the current law of crossing over the line onto the court is just, and should remain black and white with no review).

      Oh, and that might as well extend to all and any team staff and/or coaches...
      :thepacers
      No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

        So now we're advocating a suspension for anyone who becomes part of the crowd during an altercation?

        If you go in to escalate it, then yes there should be a punishment. If you go in and start being a peacekeeper, then you shouldn't have to worry about being suspended and/or fined.

        You can debate all you want about not knowing a players intent when leaving the bench, but I disagree fully.

        You watch Stephen Jackson while Ron was laying on the scorer's table and tell me what his intent was. It's pretty obvious.

        Watch the way Raja Bell reacted during the scuffle and tell me his intent wasn't to go after Horry. Rob knew Raja's intention the whole time he was walking towards him, because as soon as he got there he put his arms up and shoved him away. Then watch Marion go in and see his intent.

        Amare didn't run over there like some have suggested, he walked about 5 steps. Never shouted, never pointed, never pulled out his jersey and put his fists up. He was no threat to the situation.

        Who freaking cares if he got 10ft away from the bench? He didn't do anything to threaten anyones wellbeing, and that should be the bottom line.

        Change the rule and punish those who furthered the situation, I.E. Raja Bell. Don't ruin a great series because of someone took 2-3 steps too far.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

          Change the rule and you'll have a bench-clearing fight again in no time, and you'll have to put the rule back in place.

          The beauty of this rule is that intent doesn't matter - if you aren't in the game at the time then stay out of it. It didn't involve you anyway.

          The DEN/NYK incident this season - how many guys were suspended for leaving the bench? (I don't remember but it wasn't many).

          The Dale Davis - Michael Smith fight shortly after the new rule - the Pacers had so many suspensions (as did the Kings) that it took several games before all the players were back.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

            I doubt there will be a reason for a bench clearing fight.

            The game, and the style which it's played at is very different than it was 10yrs ago. There aren't many DD/Charles Oakley types left, if any.

            I can't think of any team that has that "enforcer." Maybe Ben Wallace is the closest thing to it, but he doesn't scream phsyical play by any means.

            Ron's shoving foul that started the brawl was a common foul during the mid-90s. Rik Smits makes some of these guys look soft.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

              The reason there haven't been bench clearing fights is because of the rule. Not because the teams have gone coft or players have mellowed.
              "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


              • #82
                Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                Originally posted by Jay View Post
                I think Raja Bell should've gotten a game.

                I hate it when players on the court escalate the situations, too.

                The rule is this: Its very, very hard to control the reactions of any of the playes, whether on the court or not. Its impossible to have a rule to prevent what Raja Bell did. At least its possible to ensure that the bench players don't do what Raja did.

                If this rule is eliminated the NBA is taking a step backwards in its efforts to curtail oncourt violence.
                Maybe to prevent it, but not to enforce it:

                Robert Horry - suspended one game for instigating an altercation
                Raja Bell - suspended one game for escalating an altercation

                It's just that simple.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                  I looked it up - Nene and Jerome James each got a game for leaving the bench.

                  The Pacers and Kings - with no history of animoisty whatsoever - cleared both benches.

                  The only reason these guys need for a bench-clearing fight is a hard-foul and years of misguided coaching that de-facto tells them that backing-up their teammate is a sign of manlihood. So we get this false definition of "teammate" like the one SJax throws around defending his actions in Detroit.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                    Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                    Maybe to prevent it, but not to enforce it:

                    Robert Horry - suspended one game for instigating an altercation
                    Raja Bell - suspended one game for escalating an altercation

                    It's just that simple.
                    Again, Jalen Rose jumped up with a "whoa - look at that" look on his face and then made sure he didn't move.

                    Its a young-player mistake, just like the young-player mistake that Jalen made nine years ago.

                    But just because a young player made a mistake does not make the rule bad.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                      Originally posted by Jay View Post
                      Again, Jalen Rose jumped up with a "whoa - look at that" look on his face and then made sure he didn't move.

                      Its a young-player mistake, just like the young-player mistake that Jalen made nine years ago.

                      But just because a young player made a mistake does not make the rule bad.
                      All you have to do is replace the current rule with one that severely penalizes a player, either on the bench or on the floor, for instigating or escalating an incident, with consideration for steeper penalties for repeat offenders.

                      Hell, if I'm going to get a game anyway for leaving the bench, I may as well go onto the floor and start some ****, with the way the rule is currently interpreted.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                        That's not true - I can't imagine how severe the penalty would be if a player came off the bench and really escalated the problem.

                        The rule states

                        Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000.

                        Just because nobody has left the bench an escalated a fight in years doesn't mean that player would receive the same penalty as somebody who leaves the bench area. Especially in the post-Palace brawl world that the NBA operates in.

                        Notice: the rule is working.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                          Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                          All you have to do is replace the current rule with one that severely penalizes a player, either on the bench or on the floor, for instigating or escalating an incident, with consideration for steeper penalties for repeat offenders.

                          Hell, if I'm going to get a game anyway for leaving the bench, I may as well go onto the floor and start some ****, with the way the rule is currently interpreted.
                          And your interpretation would be correct. Of course, that could result in multiple games.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                            Originally posted by Jay View Post
                            That's not true - I can't imagine how severe the penalty would be if a player came off the bench and really escalated the problem.

                            The rule states

                            Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000.

                            Just because nobody has left the bench an escalated a fight in years doesn't mean that player would receive the same penalty as somebody who leaves the bench area. Especially in the post-Palace brawl world that the NBA operates in.

                            Notice: the rule is working.
                            A player on the floor is just as likely as a player on the bench to escalate an incident. Maybe even more likely, because players on the floor are already running on adrenaline and emotion from playing the game.

                            So, you're okay with living in a black-and-white world? Because the current rule leaves no room for a gray area, regardless of the fact that a gray area exists.

                            Sorry, Jay, but that's just not realistic. And neither is this rule.

                            The NBA has gotten to a point where they're penalizing players for being human and having human reactions. It is the very definition of a dictatorship.

                            The rule is most certainly not working. The Spurs resorted to dirty play, and two important Suns fans that did nothing more than stand up and walk a few feet get penalized. The Spurs win; the Suns, and fans of fair play, lose.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                              Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                              And your interpretation would be correct. Of course, that could result in multiple games.
                              Perhaps. But, at the very least, I'm still going to stay on the floor and head toward the altercation.

                              The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because the players foolishly believe that, if they immediately return to the bench, they can avoid punishment. With all the press this is getting, it is obvious that you're going to be suspended if you leave the bench, regardless of the explanation. Therefore, you may as well stay on the floor and get involved.

                              Once this clicks in players' heads, this rule will be pretty much meaningless.

                              Btw, if a player REALLY wants to fight, they're going to go on the floor and do it anyway. This rule is not going to stop them, just as it didn't during the Brawl. All that ends up happening is the would-be peacemakers remain on the bench while everyone else rushes the floor and fights.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                                I didn't see a bench-clearing situation the other night.

                                The rule worked.

                                You (and Charles Barkely) are trying to make the rule something its not. And yes, Raja Bell should've been suspended longer than Amare and Boris. But that's completely independent of this rule. I have no problem with this rule being enforced as a black-and-white rule because it is working to prevent an altercation between two players from developing into a bench-clearing brawl that we saw all too often prior to about 1993ish.

                                This isn't anything new. Ron only wandered a few feet onto the court and didn't do anything. Ditto for Patrick Ewing. Jalen wasn't close to actually participating in the altercation. They were all suspended. The media firestorm the first time this happened in a playoff game (ten years ago this week, Miami vs. Knicks) was absolutely huge relative to this time around. The NBA has done an outstanding job of applying this rule consistently for almost fifteen years. And the NBA clearly is not a model of consistency for applying any other rules so for once they should be commended for this. If the players actually think that they can return to the bench without punishment then they're not paying attention (and they should start paying attention now.)
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X