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

Seattle might be getting a team?

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

  • #16
    Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

    Is it too obvious to move the Hornets to Seattle?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

      Wait a sec....Sacramento....a city that has a rabid and very supportive fanbase....could lose it's Team to Seattle....whereas the NBA is trying to find an Owner for the Hornets.

      There's no way that the NBA can steer these Owners that could move the Kings to purchase the Hornets instead and move them to Seattle?

      EDIT - or what Hicks said.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Wait a sec....Sacramento....a city that has a rabid and very supportive fanbase....could lose it's Team to Seattle....whereas the NBA is trying to find an Owner for the Hornets.

        There's no way that the NBA can steer these Owners that could move the Kings to purchase the Hornets instead and move them to Seattle?

        EDIT - or what Hicks said.
        The Hornets are staying in NOLA they already have buyers in a bidding war they just cant sell the team until after the season.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Seattle Kings does not sound right in my ears. But yeah, it would be nice for Seattle to have a team.
          Almost happened in the NFL back in the mid-'70s:



          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

            Bah, if the Kings move it should be back to KC. If they move to Seattle, what, the (admittedly, vagabond) history of a founding franchise just disappears into the ether so they can become the Sonics?
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

              Charlotte should get the Hornets name back. It was one of the best and most fitting names in sports.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                Originally posted by ColorWerx View Post
                Almost happened in the NFL back in the mid-'70s:



                Sounds much better than Seahawks.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                  i'm really hoping Seattle doesn't even get a chance at the Kings. The proposed arena in Sacramento looks pretty sweet and I think a deal will be made before the deadline.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                    That is Seattle's fault for not building an arena. They would of stayeed IMO if they did. You cant make empty threats of leaving look what it has got the Kings this year. I personally could never move a team because that is just wrong to the fans of your team and to the franchise.


                    Cdash if the Pacers left tomorrow in the middle of the night for Seattle I would never forgive or never forget that. Would you??

                    I root and support for the Indiana Pacers not the Seattle Pacers. Also getting a new team wouldnt solve anything IMO yes you get a new team but I dont want a new team I want my Indiana Pacers.


                    The Browns were stole also but so were the Colts

                    EDIT at least Cleveland got their franchise back. Baltimore didn't they got an expansion franchise. Indy should be the one who have the Indianapolis Ravens and Baltimore should still have the Colts.
                    Well if the Pacers moved to Seattle, I'd probably consider moving there. I got family up there, and Seattle is one of the nicest cities/areas in the country.

                    As far as the Colts. Baltimore was going to actually steal the team from Irsay via immanent domain. There was going to be a city council vote on it and once Irsay learned of it he never gave them the chance to vote.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                      Screw Seattle, if they had built a new arena the Sonics would not have left.
                      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                        The Colts were not stolen. The City of Baltimore was trying to steal a privately owned institution from the Irsay family. Anyone that thinks they were stolen needs to do some real research on the situation.

                        However, the Sonics were sold under the assumption that they would be kept in Seattle. Perhaps there was nothing binding in those agreements, but that just makes it dirty poker at best.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                          Several thoughts here.

                          First, people here in Charlotte are still very bitter about the whole Hornets situation. So now you have a horrible Bobcats team in the middle of a college basketball state. Bringing the Hornets name back won't fix anything.

                          Those of you who watched Sonicsgate saw how personally the fans of the Sonics took the whole situation. I sure hope they don't want to steal the Kings and put other fans through the same ordeal.

                          Like a few others have mentioned, I think if any team goes there, it should be the Hornets. I never really felt like they were embraced by NOLA anyway...
                          Check out my autographed 1972-73 Topps basketball project

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            That is Seattle's fault for not building an arena. They would of stayeed IMO if they did. You cant make empty threats of leaving look what it has got the Kings this year. I personally could never move a team because that is just wrong to the fans of your team and to the franchise.


                            Cdash if the Pacers left tomorrow in the middle of the night for Seattle I would never forgive or never forget that. Would you??

                            I root and support for the Indiana Pacers not the Seattle Pacers. Also getting a new team wouldnt solve anything IMO yes you get a new team but I dont want a new team I want my Indiana Pacers.


                            The Browns were stole also but so were the Colts

                            EDIT at least Cleveland got their franchise back. Baltimore didn't they got an expansion franchise. Indy should be the one who have the Indianapolis Ravens and Baltimore should still have the Colts.
                            The logic in this statement is very flawed. First, the Baltimore Colts weren't owned by the city of Baltimore. They were owned by Bob Irsay. Every Colt achievement was his and his alone. It was his organization that he built, he hired the staff, who in turned got the players and won games for HIS franchise. None of those wins or championships or records are owned by the city of Baltimore, they are owned by Bob Irsay and his organization.

                            He had every right to pack up HIS team, that he paid for, and move then wherever he wanted to. Was it cold? Probably for the fans. Was he justified? Absolutely. The city of Baltimore was trying to take ownership of his franchise away from him. On what grounds? It was his business, and they were trying to steal it from him. He had every right the move the franchise before it was seized from him.

                            Those records belong with the organization and the ownership and the players who achieved them. The drunk fans who watched don't own any of it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                              I REALLY want Seattle to get a franchise again, the passion that franchise has shown since the Sonics left and the support they've gotten from guys like Payton and Slick Watts is great.

                              But if they relent on building some majorly tax funded arena to get a team back, I gotta admit, I'll be disappointed. Maybe it was always a sort of "little guy sayin F you" kinda deal, but I always really respected that the city told Schultz screw you we're building libraries, not arenas that you'll profit from. I love, LOVE, pro sports, but arena financing bothers me very, very much.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Seattle might be getting a team?

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Nobody really cares anymore.
                                They do. Trust me... I live near Baltimore.

                                Of course, I bring up how they got Cleveland's team, now the Ravens, and there's always a long pause before some stupid reply.

                                It's a generational thing that will phase out over time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X