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

A plea for civility....

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: A plea for civility....

    However what you don't see is the myriad p.m.'s I get from people complaining about me closing the threads. Again, what is upsetting and offensive to some is not to others.

    My main goal is to make sure that people can feel safe posting here and not have to worry about people insulting them. Now that does not mean that no one can disagree with them or provide an opposite point of view.

    I believe that a vast majority of the posters do a great job in keeping the flow going. There are just a few who really cause some of the problems. Some of them have already been eleminated.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A plea for civility....

      The topics about Obama in this forum are mostly the same topics that I hear about when I tune into many news programs. It seems to me like the posters here are merely talking about the same topics that are talked about nationally. We aren't the only ones that have talked about and criticized Obama's pastor.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A plea for civility....

        Two things are needed if the News and Politics section of PD is to remain open and enjoyable to the members of this forum. The first, as Peck says, is civility. Everyone should be respectful of others, and remember that their opinions are not necessary.

        But something beyond civility is also needed. We need to be honest in our discourse, making sure we've fairly understood another person's post and their intention in saying it, before we argue. It never hurts to ask, "Do you mean..." or "Please explain that statement." But we seldom see that happen.

        I think misunderstandings happen and tempers flare up because people are sloppy with their thinking. To illustrate this, I'm going to refer to a series of posts yesterday. I hope it is alright to put it in this thread, since my purpose in doing this is to talk about civility, rather than continuing the argument. I've left off the name of the other poster because I don't want to point the finger at him.

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        . . . living in this country is a great privilege, and we are so spoiled by what we have here - it is a joke that anyone is bitter. (go to 98% of the countries in the world for two weeks and come back and try to even suggest you are bitter)
        Originally posted by Putnam
        You're right, Buck. I lived overseas for 10 years. And you are 100% right.

        Poverty here is caused by bad choices and squandered opportunities. Poverty everywhere else in the world is because there really isn't enough food, jobs or land to go around. That is a big difference, and it is ridiculous that people think as they do. But they do think that way.

        Originally posted by another poster
        Umm, I hope this doesn't offend you, but I think the first comment is provincial, and the second is ignorant.

        1) You lived "overseas," so this qualifies you to make judgements about the quality of life in the whole rest of the world vs. the United States? That's a pretty silly statement. Basing your argument on per capita GDP, health care outcomes, surveys of happiness, etc. is flawed but at least makes some sense, but instead you're going to base it on your single experience? I believe this is what foreigners mean when they call Americans provincial, lumping the rest of the world together as though its one, large "non-American" mass.

        2) Please come to my city, Baltimore, and walk around the streets of the projects, and tell the teenagers here with no jobs, no hope, no prospects, and no faith in society that they squandered their opportunities and its their own damn fault. I think they'd beg to differ, and IMHO they would be right.

        You can make generalities about how Americans as a whole have it better than many other countries (and probably have it worse than certain others), but I believe this whole discussion began with the dangers of making generalities.

        1. The critical response is longer than my post that provoked it. It has to be longer, because most of what he disagrees with is in his post rather than mine. I didn't say most of what he disapproves of.

        2. Unclebuck suggested in his post that people should go to other countries for two weeks. I replied to him, noting that I have done as he suggests (and then some). My comment was addressed to Unclebuck and it was not a boast. But the other poster calls me "provincial" and seems to imply that I overestimate the value of my experience. He condemns "so this qualifies you to make judgments..." as a silly statement. He doesn't seem to realize that he and not I made the statement he calls silly. Perhaps that is malice, but I think it is foggy thinking.

        3. He then does me the discredit of assuming that I know nothing more about poverty than my "single experience" has provided. He asserts this without knowing anything about me. He assumes the worst of me, and attacks me on the basis of his false assumptions. It takes a smart person to realize that lack of evidence never proves that something is absent.

        4. He takes literally my use of the word "everywhere." I admit I ought not to have used that word, because I did not literally mean "everywhere else on the entire planet." Still, our common speech is filled with hyperbole and people dismiss exaggerations all the time (!) without distorting the intentions of the speaker. But the other poster would not grant that common courtesy to me.

        5. He suggests that I should visit Baltimore and "tell the teenagers here with no hope, no prospects and no faith in society that they squandered their opportunities and its their own [expletive] fault." I would never wish to make that statement, but he puts the words in my mouth, and hammers me. I said, and I still say, that poverty in American results from bad choices and squandered opportunities. I do not say that only the people who make bad choices suffer from them. Poverty among children is rife because of poor choices made by their parents or other adults.



        Here's my point: foggy thinking is as big a problem as genuine Elgin-like malice. If members of this forum cannot or will not perceive the possibility that the statement:

        Poverty is caused by bad decisions and squandered opportunities


        . . . might be true without necessarily leading to . . .

        All poor people are guilty of bad decisions and squandering opportunities.


        then amicable discourse is not possible on this forum.
        Last edited by Putnam; 04-15-2008, 11:27 AM.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A plea for civility....

          In defense of how that string of posts actually turned out, that was a really easy sentence to read in that particular way. When I first read that post, I had the same reaction as the other poster, but kept from replying because it generally didn't seem like something you'd say. But I could see how someone who wasn't even interested in assuming the worst of your argument could think that's what you meant.

          But I agree that we could really work on being more gracious to each other as a community, if this board were to be kept together.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A plea for civility....

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Here's my point: foggy thinking is as big a problem as genuine Elgin-like malice. If members of this forum cannot or will not perceive the possibility that the statement:

            Poverty is caused by bad decisions and squandered opportunities


            . . . might be true without necessarily leading to . . .

            All poor people are guilty of bad decisions and squandering opportunities.


            then amicable discourse is not possible on this forum.
            i agree with soup.

            look this is a messageboard -- meaning there is no tone typically or context for everyone to fully comprehend. the best most can to is to make their best guess. i don't think misinterpreting something that has been written is necessarily "foggy thinking" as much as it is a simple miscommunication. now repeated instances of being seemingly unwilling to have worldviews overlap is another problem itself.

            messageboards breed laziness for both the writer and the reader (see: lack of capitalization) which when combined with lack of tone or context in many cases leads to tons of miscommunication. i really don't see any way of changing that. i'm sure he or she that read what you typed thought they understood what you were trying to say just as i'm sure you believed that what you had typed wouldn't be misinterpreted. it doesn't mean it is foggy thinking just the normal fun with e-communicating.

            soup is also correct in his final point.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A plea for civility....

              Originally posted by atc
              i don't think misinterpreting something that has been written is necessarily "foggy thinking" as much as it is a simple miscommunication.
              There is a discipline called logic that prevents the sort of miscommunication you speak of. Few of us study it anymore, but logic would prevent those miscommunications. The rules of logic constrain the reader/thinker from drawing too much of a conclusion from any statement or series of statements. Now, someone who reads this may know more about logic than I, but for those who don't, let me just say that the first italicized statement in my earlier post CANNOT be confused for the second by anyone who thinks logically.

              Thanks to atc and Soup for their reasonable replies. I'm done.
              Last edited by Putnam; 04-15-2008, 06:48 PM.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A plea for civility....

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                There is a discipline called logic that prevents the sort of miscommunication you speak of. Few of us study it anymore, but logic would prevent those miscommunications. The rules of logic constrain the reader/thinker from drawing too much of a conclusion from any statement or series of statements. Now, someone who reads this may know more about logic than I, but for those who don't, let me just say that the first italicized statement in my earlier post CANNOT be confused for the second by anyone who thinks logically.

                Thanks to atc and Soup for their reasonable replies. I'm done.
                I'm a little confused. What sort of logic are you speaking of? Formal logic, or the natural-language argumentation/rhetoric ("this is a fallacy") sort of stuff?

                I'm studying formal logic right now--in fact it's sort of my full-blown academic thing, I 'm crazy for it--and what it does for me is it makes me realize just how easy it is to miscommunicate within natural language, if anything. Never once have I gotten the impression that my study of logic will lead to some sort of newfound expressiveness and clarity within English (though I sure wouldn't mind! ).

                How is it that those two statements can not be confused? What do you mean by "someone who thinks logically?"
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A plea for civility....

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  Two things are needed if the News and Politics section of PD is to remain open and enjoyable to the members of this forum. The first, as Peck says, is civility. Everyone should be respectful of others, and remember that their opinions are not necessary.

                  But something beyond civility is also needed. We need to be honest in our discourse, making sure we've fairly understood another person's post and their intention in saying it, before we argue. It never hurts to ask, "Do you mean..." or "Please explain that statement." But we seldom see that happen.
                  More civility from everyone will help here, however as you say, that will not be enough. Something more is needed. Asking for explanations is probably a helpful suggestion. I would only add that I think some statements, even if they are true, will result in escalating things.

                  Maybe more tact (or sensitivity) is what I'm talking about...maybe that means a little less honesty in fact. I cannot say I'm innocent on this subject btw... That is, there have been times I have been unintentionally insensitive, but generally I have simply attempted to support my side of the debate with the best logic I can bring to the table.

                  As for the existance of this board, there's a strong argument that the topics of race and religion may be too volatile for an internet message board...and a stronger argument it is too volatile for a certain percentage of posters to debate in a civil manner. IMO, this is to be expected and whether the forum continues as-is is probably not the best idea. Changes need to be made and I think it's obvious. Hopefully the PD gurus with appropriate feedback can figure something out.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X