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

Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

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

  • Originally posted by idioteque;1211661.
    What I never understood about that trade, though, was why we didn't just trade Jackson for Dunleavy and keep Harrington and avoid getting Murphy.
    The prevailing theory at the time was that, although they were friends off the court, Jermaine O'Neal and Al Harrington had such similar games that they couldn't co-exist on the floor.

    Comment


    • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Why would anyone trade for him?
      No kidding.

      So far he's stunk as a PG, his prior rep was massively underachieving at Cincy and several runs with trouble including court time, and now a team that could easily afford to risk quite a bit on trying him out has twice had enough of him in the last few months.


      Seriously guys, listen to yourselves at times. If this was a TWolves or Griz or Knicks board talking about a player just like this and how they were so worth the risk and how the Pacers would love to trade for them you'd rip the comments to shreds.

      Just because he's listed as a Pacer doesn't mean you have to support him and view him as much better than the rest of the world does.

      James White could jump out of the gym and Shawne Williams has had several solid games this year to prove that his talent is at least modestly legit, and I don't think many of us are crying over those losses other than to look at the guys that could have been drafted instead.

      Don't spend as much time waiting on Lance to figure it out as you did Hulk Harrison.

      Comment


      • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        No kidding.

        So far he's stunk as a PG, his prior rep was massively underachieving at Cincy and several runs with trouble including court time, and now a team that could easily afford to risk quite a bit on trying him out has twice had enough of him in the last few months.


        Seriously guys, listen to yourselves at times. If this was a TWolves or Griz or Knicks board talking about a player just like this and how they were so worth the risk and how the Pacers would love to trade for them you'd rip the comments to shreds.
        I don't care if other teams don't want to trade for him. All I care about is know 100% for sure that teams don't want to trade for him. If teams don't want to trade for him then cut him, but don't cut him until you have called up every single team and found out first hand that no team wants to trade for them. An opinion shouldn't trump fact. Right now we have no facts on whether or not teams are willing to trade for him, all we have are opinions of fans who have absolutely no tolerance for any kind of PR mistake.

        Comment


        • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
          I'll cut you some slack since you were probably like 11 years old when the brawl happened, but you do realize that Jackson went up into the stands and fought with Detroit fans and a year later was involved in a situation where he could have been killed or he could have killed somebody? From what I remember, there was a big Pacers sponsor (which I don't think was ever named in the public) that made is very clear to PS&E that if Jackson was not shipped out, they would have to stop sponsoring the Pacers because of the bad vibes the franchise was getting in the city. Jackson absolutely had to go at that time. If the Pacers would have been brought up for a referendum in front of the city at that time, a majority of Indianapolis residents would have voted to burn down the Fieldhouse and sent the team to San Jose.

          What I never understood about that trade, though, was why we didn't just trade Jackson for Dunleavy and keep Harrington and avoid getting Murphy.
          So when we win a title the year after with Ron and Jax and the rest of the so called "thugs" everybody forgets. You do relize if we keep that team together it is very likley we have a title right now. I take winning over all. As long as they dont kill anybod or a few other things. On the court is what matters in winning games. Now we have "the good guys"

          Comment


          • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            Wow school boy losers.

            Now lets look at what these "school boy losers" did while they were in school.

            Hansbrough: 2 state championships, 1 NCAA championship, 2 ACC Championships

            Rush: 1 NCAA Championship

            Collision: 2 Pac10 championships, 3 Final Four appearnaces

            Hibbert: 1 Big East Championship,

            McRoberts: 1 ACC Championship,

            Price: 2 state championships

            Dunleavy: 1 State Championship, 1 NCAA Championship, 3 ACC Championships
            You do realize I'm not the one that initially called them that?


            Comment


            • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              Exactly , thanks for making my point

              All in College, nothing in Pro
              6 of those guys have been in the league for a COMBINED 16 years. So basically an average of 2.5 years each. So your point makes no sense.


              Comment


              • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                So when we win a title the year after with Ron and Jax and the rest of the so called "thugs" everybody forgets. You do relize if we keep that team together it is very likley we have a title right now. I take winning over all. As long as they dont kill anybod or a few other things. On the court is what matters in winning games. Now we have "the good guys"
                You are inventing something that never existed. Ron and JO were not able to co-exist which was at the root of many of the issues. Sure, they had a very good run at the beginning of 2004 and looked dominant, but assuming a championship is a stretch. While we had talent, JO was always injured and Ron cracked in the playoffs. Bender was showing signs that year and amounted to nothing.

                I've been watching basketball since before you were born and while I recognize the team had a lot of talent there is more to winning basketball games than talent. I presume you don't remember the team with Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Gary Payton 7 or 8 years ago. Three maybe 4 HOF'ers. They had their fair share of talent and couldn't co-exist either. ...and they never won a championship with that group because of it. ...and our Pacers were not remotely close to being that talented.

                Comment


                • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  I don't care if other teams don't want to trade for him. All I care about is know 100% for sure that teams don't want to trade for him. If teams don't want to trade for him then cut him, but don't cut him until you have called up every single team and found out first hand that no team wants to trade for them. An opinion shouldn't trump fact. Right now we have no facts on whether or not teams are willing to trade for him, all we have are opinions of fans who have absolutely no tolerance for any kind of PR mistake.
                  Let's say I'm the GM of a team that's not the Pacers. Sell me on sending you anything for Lance Stephenson. Try to do it so you have some credibility the next time you actually want to have a serious discussion about a serious trade.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                    Why is this matter being discussed so much? It has nothing to do with the rest of the season. It must be a slow night

                    Comment


                    • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                      So when we win a title the year after with Ron and Jax and the rest of the so called "thugs" everybody forgets. You do relize if we keep that team together it is very likley we have a title right now. I take winning over all. As long as they dont kill anybod or a few other things. On the court is what matters in winning games. Now we have "the good guys"

                      It doesn't happen that way. Because they wouldn't have won. You can't win with a bunch of cancers and poor team chemistry.

                      Heck, even Kobe and Shaq couldn't win when their chemistry was at it's poorest.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        You are inventing something that never existed. Ron and JO were not able to co-exist which was at the root of many of the issues. Sure, they had a very good run at the beginning of 2004 and looked dominant, but assuming a championship is a stretch. While we had talent, JO was always injured and Ron cracked in the playoffs. Bender was showing signs that year and amounted to nothing.

                        I've been watching basketball since before you were born and while I recognize the team had a lot of talent there is more to winning basketball games than talent. I presume you don't remember the team with Shaq, Kobe, Malone and Gary Payton 7 or 8 years ago. Three maybe 4 HOF'ers. They had their fair share of talent and couldn't co-exist either. ...and they never won a championship with that group because of it. ...and our Pacers were not remotely close to being that talented.
                        dont presume

                        Comment


                        • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I don't care if other teams don't want to trade for him. All I care about is know 100% for sure that teams don't want to trade for him. If teams don't want to trade for him then cut him, but don't cut him until you have called up every single team and found out first hand that no team wants to trade for them. An opinion shouldn't trump fact. Right now we have no facts on whether or not teams are willing to trade for him, all we have are opinions of fans who have absolutely no tolerance for any kind of PR mistake.
                          I mean this even toned and sincere...

                          Since all those teams passed on him in the draft, what has Lance done this year to change their minds?

                          He's shown slop on the court and off the court to convince them to avoid him, but what was his sales job that says "you should pay a price to acquire me"?


                          And on top of that, those teams also know he's straining his situation with the Pacers and might become a "free" risk if they just wait out the Pacers. Why go for Lance when you can get Aaron Brooks or DJ Augustin or even go cheaper with Patty Mills? Why would you trade for Lance over Bayless even? Surely Bayless has to still have plenty of potential and might be viewed as a guy that hasn't been in the right situations (and I'm not one of his fanboys, just talking about his rep as a player).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                            Exactly. No one will trade for Lance Stephenson. MAYBE we can toss him in a deal MAYBE. However, if they really wanted him why wouldn't they just wait for him to be cut?


                            Comment


                            • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              dont presume
                              Why not? If you remembered that team, certainly you wouldn't be jumping to conclusions with a far less talented team. Also, you are the one making the big-time presumptions.

                              Surely a strong November by a team isn't enough to stamp them a contender. The same team that folded the prior year when they faced Fatoine and Pierce in the playoffs with JOb coaching them.

                              Fact is, JO and Bender would have fell apart by the end of the year. In fact, JO did fall apart shooting 36% from the floor in the playoffs. People were all excited about Bender at the beginning of that year too...and he played a total of 7 games. He didn't even sniff the playoffs. Jack and Ron wouldn't have been enough. That team needed a lot to come together and all it did was fall apart.
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 04-11-2011, 11:08 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Mike Wells: Lance done for season, violating team rules

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Exactly. No one will trade for Lance Stephenson. MAYBE we can toss him in a deal MAYBE. However, if they really wanted him why wouldn't they just wait for him to be cut?
                                His market value is low even among the most foolish GM's. He makes Marbury's attitude look good. Last post because I hope this thread dies and is one of the last Lance Stephenson threads on this board.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X