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

Defending Jamaal Tinsley

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

  • #16
    Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    It doesn't matter how "innocent" he truly is. The fact that he and other Pacers even allow themselves to get involved in these situations is the real damage. Guilty in the eye of the public can be much worse than real guilt.
    It should matter to you if our guys are innocent. The fact is that being at a bar isn't illegal. Heck every 20 something I know goes to the bars. If they are innocent it would mean they are victims of a lying manager, shotty journalism, and a quick to judge public. I hope they are innocent, and if they are I hope they get a public apology.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

      Sadly Sam, it does not work that way. When they become Pro athletes they forfeited what we regular people get. They have a greater responsibility to the Pacers and the fans than they are showing. It is not fair, but then it is not fair how much money they make vs the rest of us. So I really don't feel all that bad for them. It is what it is, and Quis and JT need to wake up and understand they will always be under greater scrutiny than others, because of the past.
      No matter how much success Larry Bird attains in Indiana he'll never top that first command to fire Thomas. -Peter Vecsey. NY Post 12/4/07

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

        Originally posted by Shack80 View Post
        Sadly Sam, it does not work that way. When they become Pro athletes they forfeited what we regular people get. They have a greater responsibility to the Pacers and the fans than they are showing. It is not fair, but then it is not fair how much money they make vs the rest of us. So I really don't feel all that bad for them. It is what it is, and Quis and JT need to wake up and understand they will always be under greater scrutiny than others, because of the past.
        Thats just plain unreasonable. Professional athletes aren't some subclass of citizen that is required to surrender the rights everyone else enjoys. What the heck are you talking about?

        Frankly they don't owe you anything but effort on the court. Thats their job. If you aren't happy with their effort you don't have to buy tickets. If they break the law, its a matter for the police. (note: they haven't been arrested for breaking any laws.) Thats how it works. They aren't indentured to you.

        Because they make more money than you you are going to place restrictions on their personal lives? Please.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

          Calm down Sam, this is not about me. It is about the reality of our society. Celebs are held to a higher standard. I agree it is not fare, but it has been that way for decades. Going into it any current player should be aware of that reality, if they aren't then the NBA and there agents are letting them down. If I screw up i pay the fine or go to jail. If an NBA player does it they get drug threw the press for weeks first. It costs the team, it hurts the fans, It is what it is. Life is not Fair Sam, but then even the lowest payed NBA baller makes 10x what I ever will in a year. So sorry but I just don't feel sorry for them, and I feel that with that money comes some responsiblity to represent the franchise well.
          No matter how much success Larry Bird attains in Indiana he'll never top that first command to fire Thomas. -Peter Vecsey. NY Post 12/4/07

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

            Originally posted by Shack80 View Post
            Calm down Sam, this is not about me. It is about the reality of our society. Celebs are held to a higher standard. I agree it is not fare, but it has been that way for decades. Going into it any current player should be aware of that reality, if they aren't then the NBA and there agents are letting them down. If I screw up i pay the fine or go to jail. If an NBA player does it they get drug threw the press for weeks first. It costs the team, it hurts the fans, It is what it is. Life is not Fair Sam, but then even the lowest payed NBA baller makes 10x what I ever will in a year. So sorry but I just don't feel sorry for them, and I feel that with that money comes some responsiblity to represent the franchise well.
            k.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

              Originally posted by kellogg View Post
              Is there any scenario where it's OK that Tinsley shoots 24 and 26 times?

              NO
              I agree.

              I understand that he might need to put up 14-16, especially with JO out, but at some point enough is enough. All year long he's had this habit of starting pretty hot and then driving his PCT into the dirt with some awful FORCED attempts in the 2nd half, esp the 4th.

              Tonight he tried to go right at a baseline double team. Why? That's not Rick at that point, any player is supposed to know when to get the ball away from the defense.

              I think he had 7 first half assists and 1 in the 2nd half. That falls right in line with his change in shooting when he ramped it up.


              But let me also say that the Pacers already took one punch to the gut in moving Jack for PR reasons. They just can't afford to keep downgrading talent in order to "solve" these problems...speaking of who keeps showing up, let's also note that this time Jackson was nowhere to be found. Hmmm, maybe it wasn't just him, or Ron for that matter.

              All the more reason to be conservative when it comes to making some sure fire PR solution trade. Your PG gets worse and 3 weeks later it's Murph, Dun and Foster in a fight down in the Grove and you have to start all over again.


              In the meantime we need to drop the expectations for this year after these 2 losses. Very telling IMO. There's no quick fix, so it's time to build and develop a team. If they can get in enough other established creators and talent then they can move Tinsley, but don't make it drastically worse by jumping the gun. Have you seen DA's FG and 3P rate lately? (40/20 ugh)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                Originally posted by Cobol Sam View Post
                Thats just plain unreasonable. Professional athletes aren't some subclass of citizen that is required to surrender the rights everyone else enjoys. What the heck are you talking about?

                Frankly they don't owe you anything but effort on the court. Thats their job. If you aren't happy with their effort you don't have to buy tickets. If they break the law, its a matter for the police. (note: they haven't been arrested for breaking any laws.) Thats how it works. They aren't indentured to you.

                Because they make more money than you you are going to place restrictions on their personal lives? Please.

                This isn't a matter of idealism. And it has nothing to do with reason. You don't think guilt in the eye of public is real? Go read about our declining attendance numbers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                  BTW, I think people forget that the Pacers work the 2nd shift, not the day shift like many fans do. If you've ever been a 20 something (or younger) working a regular 3-11 job you know that going out for a few drinks is not outrageous and easily takes you to 2-3 am. That's your "happy hour", just the same as any joe at the Pacers BLR having a couple of drinks after all day at the law office.

                  And plenty of those power players not only get out of jail free, but also avoid the press coverage too. So they are ahead of both us and the Pacer players.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    This isn't a matter of idealism. And it has nothing to do with reason. You don't think guilt in the eye of public is real? Go read about our declining attendance numbers.
                    That's quality of product.

                    No one said tonight or Monday night "well they lost....but at least that no-goodnick Jackson isn't on the team anymore". And they never will.

                    If his shooting stays cold Dunleavy and his contract is going to start catching some of the heat Croshere got from fans. And the same fans that booed Tinsley when he was announced were later cheering when he made the go-ahead layup. Awful strange how their moral fiber flip-flopped like that.

                    The most immoral thing a player can do in fans eyes is play poorly. Being a nice fellow has very limited cache with fans.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                      Originally posted by Shack80 View Post
                      Calm down Sam, this is not about me. It is about the reality of our society. Celebs are held to a higher standard. I agree it is not fare, but it has been that way for decades. Going into it any current player should be aware of that reality, if they aren't then the NBA and there agents are letting them down. If I screw up i pay the fine or go to jail. If an NBA player does it they get drug threw the press for weeks first. It costs the team, it hurts the fans, It is what it is. Life is not Fair Sam, but then even the lowest payed NBA baller makes 10x what I ever will in a year. So sorry but I just don't feel sorry for them, and I feel that with that money comes some responsiblity to represent the franchise well.
                      There's a lot of truth to what Shack wrote. I know a cop who participated in a wet t-shirt contest off-duty. Her time, she can what she wants, right? What did she get for her activities? A suspension and her name drug through the press. Matter of fact, when she got married and she changed her first name, too because of the grief she got.

                      There is a higher standard and an obligation to watch your conduct in public due to your occupation. It's not fair and no one's saying she doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants off-duty. She doesn't have any responsibility to the police department on her own time, but that's just the reality.

                      I don't think it's a matter of viewing athletes as a sub-class of citizen, who has to surrender the rights everyone else enjoys. While they may have to watch their back doing certian things we all enjoy, they also have innumerable added perks to replace any perceived lack of rights: Free meals, VIP treatment, heavily discounted cars, clothes, you name it.

                      The way I take it, they do give up some rights, that's just the nature of the beast, but those same "rights' are replaced by just as many "rights" that most of us DON'T get to enjoy.
                      Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        And the same fans that booed Tinsley when he was announced were later cheering when he made the go-ahead layup. Awful strange how their moral fiber flip-flopped like that.

                        Rhetorical, but were they cheering for Tinsley or the team (or both)?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                          SportsNation Chad Ford: (12:18 PM ET ) I wonder if the Lakers would take Tinsley ... because his chances in Indiana seem all used up. Tinsley says he's innocent of the latest charge ... but once again he's in a bar at 2:15 a.m. on game night in a bad situation. He's played better this year, but he's terribly inconsistent (I wonder if it has to do with what's he's been doing the night before) and isn't much of a floor leader. He doesn't bring energy to the team and the Pacers don't really have anyone else (with the exception of reserve Darrell Armstrong) who does. If they can't move him before the trade deadline, I think you'll see a concerted effort to dump him this summer. Looks like the Pacers should have grabbed Marcus Williams or Rajon Rondo instead of Shawne Williams in the draft.
                          Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                            Originally posted by odeez View Post
                            SportsNation Chad Ford: (12:18 PM ET ) I wonder if the Lakers would take Tinsley ... because his chances in Indiana seem all used up. Tinsley says he's innocent of the latest charge ... but once again he's in a bar at 2:15 a.m. on game night in a bad situation. He's played better this year, but he's terribly inconsistent (I wonder if it has to do with what's he's been doing the night before) and isn't much of a floor leader. He doesn't bring energy to the team and the Pacers don't really have anyone else (with the exception of reserve Darrell Armstrong) who does. If they can't move him before the trade deadline, I think you'll see a concerted effort to dump him this summer. Looks like the Pacers should have grabbed Marcus Williams or Rajon Rondo instead of Shawne Williams in the draft.
                            I'd love it if the Lakers took Tinsley. I said back in the summer that Smush Parker was high on my list of points that the Pacers could get for Tinsley and he still is.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                              Phooey, Jamaal Tinsley's straight up beaten most of the guys mentioned as upgrades this season. He blows by them just as much as they get past him. That in itself eliminates them as defensive upgrades. This team just doesn't play the kind of basketball many of you want to see. This whole dribble til JO is open is by design as is Jamaal taking it to the hole. Outside of a handful of role players (who should come off the bench on a winning team), there is little to no experience on this Pacer team. There are 10 players with 4 or less years in the NBA on the roster. If you take away Tinsley, Foster, JO, Daniels and Armstrong, the other 10 guys have played 12 playoff games (Granger and Harrison each appeared in 6 last year).
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Defending Jamaal Tinsley

                                I want to thank Chad Ford for reminding me that we passed up on Marcus Williams. I don't think I'll ever get over that decision regardless of how well Shawne Williams' carreer goes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X