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

West declines his player option

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

  • Re: West declines his player option

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Maybe not though. If that's how they intentionally format quotes on WTHR then holy crap that's horrible, but that's a debate for another day.
    That is absolutely standard formatting for multiple paragraph quotes. It's called a run in quotation and distinguishes between a single quotation taking multiple paragraphs vs. multiple one-paragraph quotations.
    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


    • Re: West declines his player option

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Another poster has already revealed who that someone at the forum party was.
      I didn't see that, who did that? They asked for that not to happen I think.


      Comment


      • Re: West declines his player option

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        That is absolutely standard formatting for multiple paragraph quotes. It's called a run in quotation and distinguishes between a single quotation taking multiple paragraphs vs. multiple one-paragraph quotations.
        Interesting. What can I say, I'm a numbas guy. Words are hard.


        Comment


        • Re: West declines his player option


          Comment


          • Re: West declines his player option

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Just so you're clear, David West did not use the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back". That was a phrase that Kravitz chose to insert on his behalf. It is not in quotes and is the writer's words. Not David West's.



            This is why I believe Kravitz felt the need to send out the clarifying tweet.
            But it is in quotes.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: West declines his player option

              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
              Even with West and a healthy Paul George, Pacers weren't going to seriously challenge the Cavs. That core had clearly run its course, and there were major changes needed. If not this year, next.

              However, anyone saying that Bird's pointed comments at Hibbert didn't play a factor in West opting out is delusional. No one's saying it was the primary factor or one of the main factors, but it likely factored somewhere into the decision-making process even at a small level. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?

              I don't know about you, but I normally don't bring up things I don't care about just for the hell of it.
              It's not an actionable factor. He can be mad about it, but to actually factor that into why someone would leave that much cash on the table because of it is incredible. He left because he wanted to be on a contender, that is the only reason that makes any sort of actual sense. Boss being mean is not why you leave 12 mill on the table, it's not even something you consider. Hell, ask Roy Hibbert himself, his boss was mean, but he didn't dare leave 15mill on the table --- you put up with that **** for another year and then move on.

              People have to actually think this through and not just associate it because he brought the subject up in the same interview. It could have been an entirely different topic. It was just mentioned in the same article. That doesn't mean that it was directly attributable to his leaving. It could have literally been two separate questions phrased by Kravitz, simply because he wanted David's stance on a separate topic that interested him while he had David's ear. There's no where in the article that indicates that David directly attributed the Roy scenario to him leaving, that's just an assumption on people's part.
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-02-2015, 12:09 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: West declines his player option

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                That is absolutely standard formatting for multiple paragraph quotes. It's called a run in quotation and distinguishes between a single quotation taking multiple paragraphs vs. multiple one-paragraph quotations.
                You know, I think you're right. But who the heck breaks that statement into 3 paragraphs? The 2nd paragraph is all of one sentence, and the 3rd has 2 sentences.

                I blame the Star's style guide. Could have saved a few pages of arguments here in PD.
                Last edited by wintermute; 07-02-2015, 12:03 PM. Reason: typo

                Comment


                • Re: West declines his player option

                  Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                  However, anyone saying that Bird's pointed comments at Hibbert didn't play a factor in West opting out is delusional. No one's saying it was the primary factor or one of the main factors, but it likely factored somewhere into the decision-making process even at a small level. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?

                  I don't know about you, but I normally don't bring up things I don't care about just for the hell of it.
                  Because he was asked about it? Like, the same reason Bird brought up Hibbert in the press conference?

                  People need to learn how to read stories written based on interviews. Writers very seldom include the question as part of the response unless it matters (like someone had to be asked repeated times, or if something was pointedly brought up without being asked). There is no reason whatsoever to believe West just tossed it in there without Bob asking something like, "How did you feel about Bird's press conference?" - probably trying to get how West felt about the needing to have a quicker front court as well as the Hibbert comments.
                  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


                  • Re: West declines his player option

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    It's not an actionable factor. He can be mad about it, but to actually factor that into why someone would leave that much cash on the table because of it is incredible. He left because he wanted to be on a contender.
                    That was the main factor, but there can still be other lesser factors too. If you make any major life decision, you evaluate many pro's and con's, some more meaningful than others, but that doesn't mean the others don't factor in. Everyone wants to make everything so black and white on here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: West declines his player option

                      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                      The writing has been on the wall for so long (literally years) that I don't think it will matter who says it, or if everyone says it. The blame will always be on anyone but the guy with the smoking gun to some of you guys.
                      The fact of the matter is that no one has said anything negative about Roy's attitude until that guy just now. All "the writing on the wall" stuff is simply your own bias.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: West declines his player option

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        JMO that Paul George if healthy is still the second best player in the eastern conference and that is worth quite bit. That's really what I'm basing this on. Plus, like you, I have an exceptional amount of faith in Frank to maximize the rest of the roster. And like I said at the forum party, I think George Hill is an all star next year if he continues his level of play and is healthy.
                        "if" really is a BIG word there.

                        I think your right about that however the one thing that I do fear is that KD does follow through on his comments about "going home" and ends up with the Wizards after next season. Then Paul drops to a very distant 3rd.


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: West declines his player option

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Interesting. What can I say, I'm a numbas guy. Words are hard.
                          Computer geek but with a mom who was an English and Journalism teacher. Pity me.
                          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


                          • Re: West declines his player option

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe as well but honestly with the absolute lack of talent at our other positions how do you see us in the conference finals again in 16-17? We have free agent money right now and other than making overtures towards Ellis we are not a player at all.

                            Sure if Turner turns into something special maybe I could see us making a run but that is really taking a leap of faith.

                            I think we can rebuild it but its not going to look like it does now and IMO it won't happen for a few years. I hope your right & I'm wrong btw.

                            Also, look at these deals, 11-12 milli is not much. It's enough for one guy maybe and even then we might get out bid for Ellis.


                            Comment


                            • Re: West declines his player option

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              "if" really is a BIG word there.

                              I think your right about that however the one thing that I do fear is that KD does follow through on his comments about "going home" and ends up with the Wizards after next season. Then Paul drops to a very distant 3rd.
                              Could be, but then who knows how next offseason shakes out? I understand Paul's health is a ? but Paul is a hard worker and if Vogel says he's 100% then I'm willing to believe that because Vogel has been as pessimistic as possible about the injury all of last year.


                              Comment


                              • Re: West declines his player option

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Are you serious or intentionally being dense just to start a debate? It is clearly just a formatting thing. That quotation mark is the end quotation to the portion about Roy being a professional:



                                Then Kravitz inserts his own flavor text before going back into West's quote, but the end quotation mark accidentally gets moved.


                                As someone who frequently works on PC and proofreads articles I can say this. No formatting error can make a quotation mark go to the line below.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X