Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Vnzla81

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

  • #31
    Re: Vnzla81

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Private messages are going to stay private, but what you really want to know is whether or not you would think it was 'bad enough' to warrant a ban. Suffice it to say that you would not have considered it to 'be that bad'. And that would not be the point. I feel that I've explained why it's not the point, and I also feel that I've explained what the point actually is. This was banishment by attrition. I don't know what else to tell you that I haven't already.

    Obviously the way things are handled here isn't always going to happen the way some of you feel it should be done, but that's true of every forum, so at some point it just is what it is, guys. It brings me no pleasure to know it upset or bothered a couple of you, but I have to do what I think is right, and I did.

    I've explained this above and beyond what most admins would normally do (here, or on other forums I'm familiar with), and I don't think there's anything left to say about it.

    It just sounds like he slapped you a little bit in private messages. But instead of slapping him back or walking away, you pulled out your moderator machine gun and executed him on the spot. Now you're trying to claim self defense, but it's hard for me to buy it when the evidence is under lock and key.

    But this tells me a lot: but what you really want to know is whether or not you would think it was 'bad enough' to warrant a ban. Suffice it to say that you would not have considered it to 'be that bad'.

    If what he did was really bad, you'd be at least a little more descriptive about it and let me know.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Vnzla81

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      If what he did was really bad, you'd be at least a little more descriptive about it and let me know.
      Hicks has gone WELL above and beyond what he has to share with users regarding internal matters (which to be honest, he didn't have to share a damn thing).
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Vnzla81

        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
        Hicks has gone WELL above and beyond what he has to share with users regarding internal matters (which to be honest, he didn't have to share a damn thing).

        And why is he going above and beyond? It's because a poster liked by a decent amount of people was offed behind the scenes under some circumstances that appear shady to the naked eye. There wasn't some big public meltdown in which vnzla was insulting a bunch of posters or anything like that. He instead makes a "heart and soul" comment about David West and then is GONE FOR GOOD, seemingly out of nowhere.

        I know that Hicks is the one with the power and that he doesn't owe us anything on "internal matters", but I think the reason he chose to respond in this thread is because he is trying to justify something that looks extremely shady. If it was all out there in the open, like with Olblu, then there would be nothing to talk about.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-11-2014, 02:40 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Vnzla81

          I don't think Hicks should share PM's or parts of them without Vnzla's permission (IMHO). So I'm fine with that. We can safely assume they were two guys entrenched in their positions and both pizzed off by the time this PM exchange took place.

          The question mark is still why the heart and soul post was bad in the first place to lead to the infraction and then the PM's where both people got pizzed.

          If someone complained about the post that might be one thing (though I don't really see anything to complain about myself and that's not been mentioned as an issue), but I just don't see how a mod reads that post and hands out an infraction. It just seems way, way, way too far from the line to have been an issue. Which is then why Vnzla would get pizzed off to get an infraction for that.

          It's like the cop that has a problem with his neighbor so he pulls him over because he didn't signal for a turn exactly 250' before he turned (even though several other drivers did the same or never signaled at all), and then when the guy complains to him about it he gets tazed and arrested for disorderly conduct.

          You don't get to the second point without the questionable decision by TPTB at the first point.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Vnzla81

            Note: I'm not questioning the decision or the process... I'm just explaining how it looks from the outside looking in. If I'm wrong then ignore it or explain it better or whatever feels right. OTOH, if there's something of use in seeing this thru someone else's POV then hopefully this discussion helps.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Vnzla81

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              The question mark is still why the heart and soul post was bad in the first place to lead to the infraction and then the PM's where both people got pizzed.
              Can't quote a closed thread, so I copied and pasted.
              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.
              So basically, Rule 1's examples were exactly Vnzla's posting style. I bet some of those examples were either quoted him verbatim or he was the inspiration for a few.


              I don't understand how he hoodhinked you guys. You might have shared some basic opinions on some level, but your style of presenting your opinions are polar opposite of his.
              Last edited by Since86; 01-11-2014, 03:39 PM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Vnzla81

                I think the problem is that it is being approached as if this came out of the blue like nothing had happened before and suddenly the thunderbolt hit.

                I can assure you that is not the case. I have the make-up work hours to show for the huge amounts of time I've spent in long and detailed conversation trying to explain why other people were having problems with post. Those were private, as they should be, and would be how we treat admin conversations with any poster.

                I know other admins (and non-admins) have done the same. We've ridden herd (also in private) on those who attacked him as well, including one another because we were also aware we weren't setting a good example. All of this to try to prevent the constant thread derailments and sniping that took place.

                It makes it very difficult to not feel insulted by the idea that people think this was an off-the-cuff action motivated solely by malice engendered by a single silly issue.

                Being an admin here is not easy, and none of us get anything out of it - in fact, it costs able money - but we do it because we care about this community of fans. We know we're not perfect and that we make mistakes. The worst disrespect we can get is the insinuation that it's all done just for a power trip of some kind.

                Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                BillS

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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Vnzla81

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I always appreciated how Vnzla was Johnny on the Spot in posting new tweets and relevant NBA articles.
                  I agree. I always appreciated these posts.

                  Too bad that that he made a lot more of those other posts, though
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Vnzla81

                    I do not have a dog in this fight (perhaps because I have stayed away from the Pacers board for the most part) but I do want to chime in briefly. First let me say if you go back far enough (and maybe google still has my "I retire" "I am done with this site" posts from back in like 05 or 06) you can see I often do not agree with many of the moderation decisions on this site. I wish I had handled it better back then, but I also think others could have handled things better. Regardless, the past is the past.

                    With that said, I would like to comment on a few thing using other sites (and a big Washington Pro football franchise board, extremeskins.com, which is actually owned by the Washington Pro Football franchise)

                    - I have literally seen folks banned, permanently, for not following proper formatting of titles. Normally the accepted format is SOURCE: BRIEF TITLE and then a brief snip (one or two paras max). I have legit seen people banned for posting a whole article.

                    - If things go off topic, I have seen mods come in and say "stop". The next person not to, regardless of 10 seconds or 30 minutes, gets a ban

                    - With the exception of one Madden board I used to frequent back in high school (so almost 10-15 years ago), I have never seen mods come in and explain why a decision was made.

                    Now without inserting my foot in my mouth, I can understand people get angry. And I have even seen other sites come out and admit to hidden forums, hidden chat rooms, and I think one site even had a hidden group (before facebook, some small chat setup) for the first like 100 members before EA came in and bought the fan site and it grew to be huge. I understood why these issues were addressed, but I was also kind of surprised to see them addressed. That said, I actually think it was awesome (and maybe awesome is a bad word) because in the past I have felt admins acted with emotion in my situations and were not willing to hear my out. So I respect the fact he gave an explanation, although I think that may have opened up another can of worms in and of itself

                    TL/DR: I do not know enough here, and I doubt I ever will, but sometimes you have to look at the big picture. And while I certainly agree that the comment seems rather tame, I also think its important to remember that you have to keep the whole situation in perspective.

                    Of course, I say all of this and I think the other thing important to remember is it is hard to read emotions on the internet.

                    I do not know if it will ever happen, but I think a cool thing would be if we ever get to the point where we have video messages left instead of text messages. Because then instead of someone getting upset at a comment that says "You are an idiot! We overpaid for player X" you could see that really what they said was "haha, your an idiot. We overpaid for player X (while laughing and being merry about it)".

                    Then again, I probably am dreaming a bit (if for nothing else bandwidth reasons)

                    Just my .02
                    Last edited by vapacersfan; 01-11-2014, 04:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Vnzla81

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I say this as nicely as possible: Why should he have given you any respect for giving him an infraction to this post?

                      12mil for 12 and 6 and a lot of heart and soul.

                      I've read multiple sports message boards over the years, and I feel pretty confident in saying that this is the only place where such a tame post would get an infraction.
                      I'll have to disagree with it. The "heart and soul" part was obviously ironic and given the poster's history it could easily be considered as baiting.

                      Recently, I became a moderator on a board that has much stricter rules than PD has and I can definitely say that a comment in this vain could definitely earn an infraction over there as well. So, this really isn't the only place.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Vnzla81

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        I understand Sollozzo's point that is getting lost here.... What was so wrong with the heart and soul post that it rated an infraction?
                        I think that the fact that this post was preceded by several other posts in the past few days that deserved an infraction but didn't got one was the reason that this particular post got it.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Vnzla81

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          I'll have to disagree with it. The "heart and soul" part was obviously ironic and given the poster's history it could easily be considered as baiting.

                          Recently, I became a moderator on a board that has much stricter rules than PD has and I can definitely say that a comment in this vain could definitely earn an infraction over there as well. So, this really isn't the only place.
                          What's baiting about it? It was in the heat of a game thread when the Pacers were getting waxed and West had another single digit scoring night. Often people (such as myself) say that West's intangibles make him worth his contract, but vnzla was simply pointing out that those intangibles weren't worth that much against the Hawks. It was just a heat of the moment sarcastic remark, the likes of which have been made a billion times on this forum.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Vnzla81

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            What's baiting about it? It was in the heat of a game thread when the Pacers were getting waxed and West had another single digit scoring night. Often people (such as myself) say that West's intangibles make him worth his contract, but vnzla was simply pointing out that those intangibles weren't worth that much against the Hawks. It was just a heat of the moment sarcastic remark, the likes of which have been made a billion times on this forum.
                            If one of us went into a Heat board after the Knicks game and said "another 6 and 9 and a lot of heart and soul by Chris Bosh" then I can guarantee you that he would receive an infraction.

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

                            PD is really lenient if you take into account some of the rules that other sites enforce.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Vnzla81

                              I think some of you are still failing to realize that vnzwla has a history of doing things like this, and so therefore he's not going to get much slack. Everyone should realize that.

                              If I had his history I would be very tame with anything I did after I was given so much slack and slaps on the wrists and second chances. Granted, he did tame it down a tad, but going into a game thread, and which I REALIZE, there is going to be a lot of comments during a loss or close game that are probably not really what the posters mean, I think we are all guilty of that, and that's fine. It's fine.

                              But, if I have a history of being suspended and banned, generally annoying a large percentage of the board with comment after comment like that. "Ha remember when you guys thought Danny was going to be starting? LOL LOL LOL LOL" Which is just mocking people for their opinions and clearly against the rules, I might add, if I don't want to risk getting an infraction or something, I'm probably going to avoid posting a lot of the heat of the moment stuff like that.

                              I've EARNED my reputation and I think the only way to get some slack back is probably to be on my best behavior.

                              Hell, I've generally avoided posting in the Pacers board because it really did just turn into posters mocking each other for different opinions. "LOL U THOUGHT NETS WERE GONNA BE GOOD. IDIOT" Stuff like that.

                              I've just stayed in the Colts board and other boards.

                              With all that being said, we probably have it too good here, with what va just posted about the Redskins forums. On those forums you probably wouldn't even get your chance to complain because you're banned instantly. I know about how bad the official Colts.com forum is. You basically aren't allowed to say anything negative about the team. Even if it's warranted and you're just offering your opinions. Yet, some want to basically say Hicks is drunk with power.

                              He's on here explaining why something was done, repeatedly and repeatedly, while being somewhat disrespected during all of it.

                              I'd be pretty pissed off if I were him.
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Vnzla81

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                What's baiting about it? It was in the heat of a game thread when the Pacers were getting waxed and West had another single digit scoring night. Often people (such as myself) say that West's intangibles make him worth his contract, but vnzla was simply pointing out that those intangibles weren't worth that much against the Hawks. It was just a heat of the moment sarcastic remark, the likes of which have been made a billion times on this forum.
                                I would have to go back to make specific analysis, which I am not going to be able to do while just on my phone, but I recall that being the third or fourth time he had beat that phrase in the threads that day. Never mind that it isn't a comment about DWest as much as it is a slam on people who think he has intangibles, it was a "let me keep making the same dig over and over again" move. While some people are fine with that, others (not just Hicks or admins) have asked that it stop.

                                We're trying to get to a place where we start to respect each other a little more rather than have the forum become a place where making repeated digs at people holding a different opinion is the norm. There may be disagreement with how the admins are trying to do that, but it should be borne in mind that PD was founded because the Star forum had basically degenerated into bullying by the loudest and most frequent posters along with troll bombings that make the troll accusations that float around here seem particularly silly - all with either no moderation or sudden bursts of everyone being slapped with infractions no matter their involvement.

                                It's not easy, and the admins have LONG private conversations, but ultimately it IS privately run rather than public property. It may not seem like we're listening, especially when we've already talked so many of these things to death internally and so get defensive at the idea that it's all abitrary. Please understand we're trying to figure out how to allow leeway and yet make sure this is a place where every level of fan participation is respected AS LONG AS IT RESPECTS OTHER PEOPLE. Our lines are not going to match everyone's, but we really are trying to err on the side of long leashes - which, I suppose, is why when something like this happens it seems like such a surprise.

                                Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                                BillS

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X