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 Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

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

  • #31
    Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

    You don't think Jack's off court issues are a problem?

    You don't htink Sarunas' terrible play since the mid point of last year is a problem?

    You don't think Tinsley's love affair with the Doctor's office is a problem?

    Yeah, you're sick of me and my kind of post, but these guys get a pass. Right.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

      Originally posted by microwave_oven View Post
      Also essentially you could look at it like we didn't get "nothing" out of the Dallas trade too. We lost those picks (from the draft day trade), but honestly, Rawle and Powell are like two solid draft picks that can contribute immediatly. I for one am glad to see the Pacers put their egos aside, grew some nuts, and did what they had to do.
      I agree
      "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
      Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

        Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
        I'm sure they thought Rawle and Powell were at the same level as Jack and Tinsley. Who exactly would our starting PG be if we traded these "problem children". I am so sick of hearing that, I have never heard once that any of those three were problems. You guys just assume it because you don't like them. It was AJ and Fred.
        No matter who we would've/could've traded you have to remember that we're getting something in return. It's not like if we traded Sjax and/or Tinsley that we'd be without a starting quality PG and/or SG.... we'd get those in return either directly or thru another player trade (if TPTB didn't think they were already on the roster).

        The argument that we can't trade so-and-so because then who'd play ________ is simply not valid.

        And with Tinsley and especially Sjax, it isn't like you're talking about perennial NBA all-stars in the first place.

        -Bball
        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


        • #34
          Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

          Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
          I'm sure they thought Rawle and Powell were at the same level as Jack and Tinsley. Who exactly would our starting PG be if we traded these "problem children". I am so sick of hearing that, I have never heard once that any of those three were problems. You guys just assume it because you don't like them. It was AJ and Fred.
          Last things first,

          It was AJ and Fred.
          I think you're on to something.

          I have never heard once that any of those three were problems.
          Saras and Tinsley - you're right. Tinsley doesn't talk to the press and the Pacers didn't have much to say about Tinsley. All the "bad attitude" speculation around here regarding Tinsley because he doesn't have a smile on his face has troubled me. Saras, I'm pretty sure he's trying hard not to stir up trouble anymore. He certainly made some il-advised comments to the European press last season, and he's underperformed on the court. But I don't think he's considered a "problem child."

          SJax on the other hand, was Public Enemy #1 beginning last season, brought much of it on himself with on-court nonsense such as selfish play, cursing at his coach and teammates, etc., making a jerk of himself during the playoffs, and was the focus of a silly PR-piece on Pacers.com (his "exclusive interview" where he vowed to clean up his reputation) and the primary reason the Pacers' management felt compelled for the whole, "Its up to us" ad campaign. And he followed all that up by another offcourt incident of violence.

          If you don't think he's a problem child, you've got a serious case of denial.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

            Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
            I'm sure they thought Rawle and Powell were at the same level as Jack and Tinsley. Who exactly would our starting PG be if we traded these "problem children". I am so sick of hearing that, I have never heard once that any of those three were problems. You guys just assume it because you don't like them. It was AJ and Fred.
            LOL...

            Like I saw Fred and AJ up in the stands with Ron-Ron in Detroit...or Fred pulling his shirt up picking a fight with the Piston players just before that...or AJ constantly harping at the refs all year (while the guy he's defending is scoring)...or Fred cursing at the coach when he was pulled...

            ...and it wasn't Fred or AJ at club Rio, either.

            Fans are sick of Jax because he's a thug and 'one-trick pony' (who happens to chuck ill-timed and ill-advised shots up regularly...and shoots more than anyone else on the team).

            Fans are sick of Tinsley because he misses 3 weeks for sinus infections, and family problems, or a bruised jaw. Come on, we've all watched BB for years...when was the last time you heard ANY PLAYER at ANY TIME miss games for a bruised jaw???!!!

            The 'problem children' label is there because of only one reason...it's deserved.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

              Originally posted by kellogg View Post
              LOL...

              Like I saw Fred and AJ up in the stands with Ron-Ron in Detroit...or Fred pulling his shirt up picking a fight with the Piston players just before that...or AJ constantly harping at the refs all year (while the guy he's defending is scoring)...or Fred cursing at the coach when he was pulled...

              ...and it wasn't Fred or AJ at club Rio, either.

              Fans are sick of Jax because he's a thug and 'one-trick pony' (who happens to chuck ill-timed and ill-advised shots up regularly...and shoots more than anyone else on the team).

              Fans are sick of Tinsley because he misses 3 weeks for sinus infections, and family problems, or a bruised jaw. Come on, we've all watched BB for years...when was the last time you heard ANY PLAYER at ANY TIME miss games for a bruised jaw???!!!

              The 'problem children' label is there because of only one reason...it's deserved.
              No not all fans are sick of them. Just a few.

              But anyway AJ and Fred were involved in the brawl, not that it matters. Remember Fred in the stands with Ben's brother and AJ was the 4th Pacer suspended. I'm talking about being problems with the other players.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

                A lot of fans seem to be upset about this move but frankly I'm not sure why. The fans didn't invest a couple of draft picks and quite a bit of hype in White. The franchise did. And if the franchise was willing to ignore those factors and let basketball ability alone determine the roster decision, it actually speaks quite well. Fans should want management to make decisions based on ability, not name or contract status. That's what happened in this case. It wasn't White's failure, it was Marshall and Powell's surprising success.
                Well, the fans are the ones who invest the $$$ which enable the franchise
                to invest draft picks or whatever (unless the wealthy owner is willing to
                just eat the expense out of his own pocket - which will still likely get
                passed along to the fans).

                It's ok though Conrad... I, for one, will "stfu" now and go along with the
                program. Being one who was initially shocked and upset over White's cut,
                have resigned myself to the fact that while White may be a tremendously
                gifted athlete, he must not have displayed the pure fundamental basketball
                skills which we covet right now.

                Rawle may not have the athleticism to take off from behind the foul line
                and soar like Dr. J on his very best day (like White can), but apparently
                did exhibit a higher level of fundamental basketball skills and IQ. For this,
                I am very happy for Rawle, and glad we have him.

                And while sorry to see White did not make our roster, am sure he will be
                highly successful and appreciated for what he can do wherever he ends
                up.

                Am reminded in a way of a former Pacer - Terrence Stansbury. He, like
                White, was a great athlete with unparalled in-flight artistry skills, and
                spectacular dunking abilities. On the other hand though, was a bit shakey
                when it came to pure fundamental basketball skills, and he never did seem
                to harness his full potential while in the NBA. After a couple seasons with
                the Pacers, I beleive he went to Seattle for a couple more seasons, then
                eventually ended up somewhere in Europe. In Europe he was a star with
                great success, and last I heard was even still over there coaching.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

                  I wonder if the people mad about Marshall over White actually WATCHED some preseason games. Frankly the choice wasn't close. Marshall brutalized the lane, attacking effectively and drawing a ton of fouls. He also was the BEST Pacer when it came to breaking out on the change of possession. If you want to run, he looked the most capable of doing just that. And he had a great shot from the field to go with all this.

                  While we are at it, Marshall also outplayed Daniels though that probably has a lot to do with the injury.

                  I don't think White in any way looked like a guy who could "only dunk" BTW. The reason they were excited about him is that he showed a toughness on defense and an overall maturity for a guy coming out of college. He'll adjust and maybe by next year he'll be right where Marshall is at, he just didn't show that when it came to real NBA talent that he was there right now.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: How Can Pacers Justify Cutting White?

                    Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                    Am reminded in a way of a former Pacer - Terrence Stansbury. He, like
                    White, was a great athlete with unparalled in-flight artistry skills, and
                    spectacular dunking abilities.

                    Kenny Williams, Harold Minor, Fred Jones, I'm not saying Fred isn't good, I'm not saying White won't BE good, but I agree it doesn't guarantee anything. The thing that struck me about White and I'm not an expert on him, but he didn't seem to translate all that athleticism into a game situation.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X