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

How dumb is David West?

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

  • Re: How dumb is David West?

    Originally posted by Romsey31 View Post
    Applaud his ring chasing while we despise the decision of others. I wonder how you would've taken it if Reggie did the same
    It would have had mixed emotions. I would applaud him (or anyone) for being in a position where money did not factor into his decision, but would have been disappointed in his lack of loyalty to the Pacers after being with them for so long.

    Comment


    • Re: How dumb is David West?

      I don't actually despise ring chasers? The only reason they're called ring chasers is because they used to be good. Usually by the time they're called ring chasers they're only good enough to be journeymen level guys anyway. I much prefer that over whatever you want to call what Kobe did while making $30 million last year.

      Sent from my Nexus 5X
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • Re: How dumb is David West?

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        lol, you are posting in a thread called "How dumb is David West?"
        And if you read even one of my posts in this thread, let alone the one seven posts up, you'd realize I don't subscribe to that theory.

        Comment


        • Re: How dumb is David West?

          Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
          And if you read even one of my posts in this thread, let alone the one seven posts up, you'd realize I don't subscribe to that theory.
          when I'm on PD at work I don't usually go back and reread older posts. And threads like this I typically have a short attention span in the first time around, so it's quite possible i never did read your opinions. I bet you don't know my post history in every thread either though :P
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: How dumb is David West?

            I don't get why some hate on guys for "chasing a ring" towards the end of their career. Sometimes, that's the final thing to accomplish for a veteran that's pretty much done everything else in their career.

            Wanting a chance to experience winning at the highest of levels shouldn't be something to hate on.

            Comment


            • Re: How dumb is David West?

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              I don't get why some hate on guys for "chasing a ring" towards the end of their career. Sometimes, that's the final thing to accomplish for a veteran that's pretty much done everything else in their career.

              Wanting a chance to experience winning at the highest of levels shouldn't be something to hate on.
              It is amusing considering LeBron did the same exact thing in his prime(which apparently wasn't acceptable) go after the ring which he knew he wasn't getting in Cleveland(and at this rate probably never will) people hated that as well(beyond the Decision special)

              I don't fault him for thinking the Spurs had a better shot at getting a ring than the Pacers you would be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks otherwise. However I admit I do find it dumb to give up $10 million because its still $10 million.

              Originally posted by sav View Post
              It would have had mixed emotions. I would applaud him (or anyone) for being in a position where money did not factor into his decision, but would have been disappointed in his lack of loyalty to the Pacers after being with them for so long.
              Seriously? This is professional sports loyalty is rather nonexistent(although there have been exceptions but very very few) The Pacers would dump Reggie without a second thought if he was no longer useful fortunately he was still good to the very end of his career for the Pacers to keep him his entire career. Fortunately for us he loved the Pacers as much as the fans wanted him to stay.
              Last edited by Basketball Fan; 06-13-2016, 06:07 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: How dumb is David West?

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                It is amusing considering LeBron did the same exact thing in his prime(which apparently wasn't acceptable) go after the ring which he knew he wasn't getting in Cleveland(and at this rate probably never will) people hated that as well(beyond the Decision special)

                Wake me up when David West declares himself "King" and then runs to join another player's court. We're talking about the difference between "the best player on the planet" and a 35y/o David West here. I think the differences are blatantly obvious for anyone wants to put forth the minimal effort in looking.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: How dumb is David West?

                  I mean, I don't remember anybody having problems with Andrew Bynum choosing the Pacers when we had the best record in the league. If that wasn't ring chasing, I don't know what is.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: How dumb is David West?

                    West obviously had the right to do whatever he wanted with his life and his decision certainly made sense. What bugged me was his holier-than-thou sanctimonious tone on the way out. It kind of rubbed me the wrong way after watching him mope around with one foot out the door as soon as PG went down.

                    Comment


                    • Re: How dumb is David West?

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      I mean, I don't remember anybody having problems with Andrew Bynum choosing the Pacers when we had the best record in the league. If that wasn't ring chasing, I don't know what is.
                      Wasn't that a "Pacers were the only ones to offer him a spot" situation?
                      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: How dumb is David West?

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Wasn't that a "Pacers were the only ones to offer him a spot" situation?
                        The main team I remember as competition was the Heat. I remember there being more as well, not clearly though. Here's a source, it's a little down the page:

                        Andrew Bynum considered playing for both the Heat and the Lakers before signing with the Pacers, tweets Tom Moore of Calkins Media. The Lakers were viewed as a potential trading partner for the Cavs when Cleveland was looking to move him, but were not linked as a suitor once he hit free agency after being traded to and waived by the Bulls.
                        http://www.hoopsrumors.com/andrew-bynum
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • Re: How dumb is David West?

                          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                          The main team I remember as competition was the Heat. I remember there being more as well, not clearly though. Here's a source, it's a little down the page:



                          http://www.hoopsrumors.com/andrew-bynum
                          If I recall, Pacers won out because their contract had more guaranteed dollars.

                          Comment


                          • Re: How dumb is David West?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Wake me up when David West declares himself "King" and then runs to join another player's court. We're talking about the difference between "the best player on the planet" and a 35y/o David West here. I think the differences are blatantly obvious for anyone wants to put forth the minimal effort in looking.
                            So what is the difference? Look I thought LeBron's decision special was obnoxious and in bad taste(along with his not 1, not 2 etc) but beyond that he was within his rights to go wherever he wanted. At the time he didn't think Cleveland was built to win a title so he went to a competent franchise that did(and for some reason left 4 years later thinking the Cavs would be better for some reason). If he was okay with sharing the spotlight with Wade/Bosh I never saw the issue. I hated the Heat before that anyways for Wade alone.

                            LeBron went for the rings not the money he apparently took less money with the Heat to make it possible. At that point he didn't have any championships.

                            LeBron was drafted to a franchise that was rock bottom at that point its not as if he was Michael Jordan who yes was considering leaving the Bulls if they didn't build a team around him which they did.

                            Or Bird and Magic who were drafted into storied franchises that knew how to build winners. Its easy for them to say that they would never leave. Why would they? Look at where they played. If they had to carry mediocre teams every year to the Finals they would be singing a different tune.

                            I don't get why its so much more acceptable when an aging star goes for the ring but not one in his prime. They both are doing the same thing except the aging star isn't a threat to people.

                            Comment


                            • Re: How dumb is David West?

                              He's actually really, really intelligent. One of the most intelligent players on our roster when he was with us. People are bashing him for ring chasing, but I think taking a considerable pay cut to help a team win a championship isn't morally wrong or anything. And consider this: do you think his decision to leave Indiana was partly due to Bird's desire for us to play faster? He obviously didn't fit into our future plans, and he realized that.

                              What people on here don't realize is that he is likely the main reason why we rose to contention. Once we signed him, our culture changed. Our attitude changed. And then once he's not on our team any more people say stupid **** about him.

                              Comment


                              • Re: How dumb is David West?

                                this is the most pocket peeper thread in PD history.

                                West moving on didn't prevent us from winning a title or something. if you thought he'd be the "missing piece" to a team like that, OK, I can see getting mad from the view of a fan. he, very, very much wasn't, and I don't think any of you would argue he would have been. soooo....what are you arguing about? a guy took less to try to get in a better situation that made him happy, him being in the situation you support would have made no difference because you clearly don't support HIM, so I mean, shut the hell up. this is the dumbest argument ever.

                                this boils down to HOW CAN YOU TURN DOWN ALL THAT MONEY?! and that's a whole other thread, and sure as **** doesn't make West stupid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X