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

Tinsley, Daniels, McLeod on the scene of bar scuffle; they deny involvement

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

  • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

    Originally posted by able View Post
    ROTFL and that is version #XXX

    I am pretty sure those quotes are a lot more accurate then the stories thus far.
    Well, of course they have to say that. They haven't gotten all the bids in for the "If I did it, here's how I'd beat up a club manager" book yet.
    Narf!

    Comment


    • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

      Most people here are saying Tinsley this, Tinsley that, because Tinsley seems to be the blame when this team loses games. But Tinsley doesn't exactly have a history of ghetto-fabulous behavior. All we know is that he was AT Club Rio. Just like Daniels was AT Club Rio. Tinsley nor Daniels were charged for any wrong doing in the Rio incident.

      In this incident each one of them seems to be just as guilty as the other. I'd consider this a first time offense for each of them. Sure, Tinsley was involved in the brawl, but I don't recall him being one of the players that were suspended.

      Though a few people mentioned Daniels, most people are quick to jump on Tinsley. It just shows me that because some people already don't like Tinsley as it is, then they want to be the first to say "I TOLD YOU SO, WE SHOULD HAVE TRADED HIM A LONG TIME AGO! THE BRAWL THE BRAWL THE BRAWL! CLUB RIO CLUB RIO CLUB RIO! BLAH BLAH!."

      I guess since Daniels has played well since the trade then he should be let off the hook. Hell, I bet if we traded for Ray Allen, and he gave us 20 points per night while shooting 45% beyond the arc and helping us win some games, then he got into an incident like this, most people would just brush it off and all would be forgotten.

      My point is, despite how completely stupid the story from Monday sounds right now -- and as of now it really doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, people here are rushing judgment and jumping on Tinsley, and most of it seems like it's because those people just don't like Tinsley.

      Comment


      • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

        Cowherd spent most of his career in Oregon and now resides in Bristol. Ignore his comments about your city, he's a no talent.

        Comment


        • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

          there is a lot here that doesn't add up...

          why do three pacers need to beat up a manager for saying that coats have been stolen? or then two pacers and a pacer cousin?

          first the reports say the manager can't remember if mcleod was involved. next blurb says he was one of four pacers involved. next there were three but mcleods cousin lost a tooth. next...

          then 6 off-duty cops outside didn't get inside the club before they could flee the scene? how does that happen? i mean we know quis is fast but you'd think they'd have caught up to Tinsley at least. once again, something doesn't quite add up.

          also this story as has been mentioned was sat on for 24hrs. certainly didn't happen with the shooting.

          i don't have a problem with them being out, or at the time they were out. i have a problem if this incident actually happened after these two (tins/quis) were involved with the SJax shooting too. so i hope that for everyone's sake, that this isn't what happened but is being blown out of proportion.
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

            Well able, reputations follow us all. Daniels and Tinsley lost the benefit of the doubt 4 months ago.

            I'm sorry I came here today. This whole thing just pisses me off. :|
            “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


            • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              But originally didn't SJAX just fire some shots because he was hit by the car first?
              Not to my knowledge, perhaps the car was driving towards him, no idea, I wasn't there and the truth on that hasn't come out afaik.

              This is somewhat different me thinks, there everybody knew Jax had used his gun, here all the stories were about a guy being beat and threatened and having a brkoen jaw and severed earlobe while being defenseless and helped by 2 people and not needing any hospital help and Tins and Quis fled the scene while they left Mcleod to search his mate's tooth.

              Seems like it wasn't "quite" what was published thus far.

              Coming out with a full denial is something else, knowing that investigations are ongoing, it's different to the silence at the Rio incident.
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


              • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                I hate jumping the gun but it sure looks like this is shaping up as another sign of Jamaal Tinsley's selfishness. Whether on the court or out on the town, he can't put his team first it would appear... let alone his city. And he was with (Pacer) 'friends'...

                He has to know this franchise doesn't need and cannot afford incidents. He has to walk away. Has to!. I can't totally fault him for being out at 2:15AM, altho given the Pacers' (and his) current circumstances it might be a questionable decision BUT he absolutely has to walk away from the first sign of trouble. A part of me does get bothered by the fact that multiple Pacer players would be hanging out at 2:15AM in a bar because maybe collectively they should look to avoid that scenario. And someone should take a bit of initiative for the team's well being at this point and not lead other Pacers into the fire.

                How anyone can defend someone like this as a member of the Indiana Pacers is beyond me. Even if this turns out to be nothing this time I can't believe he could possible still have defenders ready to jump on their sword for the guy.

                -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


                • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I hate jumping the gun but it sure looks like this is shaping up as another sign of Jamaal Tinsley's selfishness. Whether on the court or out on the town, he can't put his team first it would appear... let alone his city. And he was with (Pacer) 'friends'...

                  He has to know this franchise doesn't need and cannot afford incidents. He has to walk away. Has to!. I can't totally fault him for being out at 2:15AM, altho given the Pacers' (and his) current circumstances it might be a questionable decision BUT he absolutely has to walk away from the first sign of trouble. A part of me does get bothered by the fact that multiple Pacer players would be hanging out at 2:15AM in a bar because maybe collectively they should look to avoid that scenario. And someone should take a bit of initiative for the team's well being at this point and not lead other Pacers into the fire.

                  How anyone can defend someone like this as a member of the Indiana Pacers is beyond me. Even if this turns out to be nothing this time I can't believe he could possible still have defenders ready to jump on their sword for the guy.

                  -Bball
                  You are doing worse then that.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                    This whole story does not meet the smell test for me. It just doesn't sound right. Why would the players just start beating on the manager. And the fact we don't hear about it for 36 hours. There has to be something else that caused the pacers players to get involved.


                    OK, so the manager comes tells the Pacers players that their coats may have been stolen. So are we then to believe that they immediately start beating up the manager and making death threats.

                    The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me


                    I dislike Tinsley as much or more than anyone, but I'm not going to crucify him for this incident

                    Comment


                    • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      ROTFL and that is version #XXX

                      I am pretty sure those quotes are a lot more accurate then the stories thus far.

                      Yes... Just like the initial 'Pacer' version of Club Rio was accurate.



                      -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


                      • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                        I don't care if they were there collecting donations for the Salvation Army.

                        Someone mentions a bar and a fight and adds in the words Pacer players.

                        As someone mentioned earlier....Perception = Reality.


                        Once again the entire organization will be remembered as thugs and mentioned in the same breath as the Jailblazers. Like it or not it will take a complete overhaul of the team to eliminate the tarnished image.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                          Originally posted by Frank Slade View Post
                          Oh great, Thank you Tins and Co. Now ESPN Cold Pizza is treating it as breaking news right now. Colin Cowherd is back to bashing this team again saying were still just a mess, like the Bengals .

                          And proceeds to put down our city as part of the reason, a nothing to do cold weather city. Gee thanks we finally win a (NFL) Championship and can't even make it a week without bad pub for our city.
                          This coming from a Portland guy? Do yourself a favor, don't listen to Cowherd. Better conservation of brain cells.
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                            Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
                            Most people here are saying Tinsley this, Tinsley that, because Tinsley seems to be the blame when this team loses games. But Tinsley doesn't exactly have a history of ghetto-fabulous behavior. All we know is that he was AT Club Rio. Just like Daniels was AT Club Rio. Tinsley nor Daniels were charged for any wrong doing in the Rio incident.

                            In this incident each one of them seems to be just as guilty as the other. I'd consider this a first time offense for each of them. Sure, Tinsley was involved in the brawl, but I don't recall him being one of the players that were suspended.

                            Though a few people mentioned Daniels, most people are quick to jump on Tinsley. It just shows me that because some people already don't like Tinsley as it is, then they want to be the first to say "I TOLD YOU SO, WE SHOULD HAVE TRADED HIM A LONG TIME AGO! THE BRAWL THE BRAWL THE BRAWL! CLUB RIO CLUB RIO CLUB RIO! BLAH BLAH!."

                            I guess since Daniels has played well since the trade then he should be let off the hook. Hell, I bet if we traded for Ray Allen, and he gave us 20 points per night while shooting 45% beyond the arc and helping us win some games, then he got into an incident like this, most people would just brush it off and all would be forgotten.

                            My point is, despite how completely stupid the story from Monday sounds right now -- and as of now it really doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, people here are rushing judgment and jumping on Tinsley, and most of it seems like it's because those people just don't like Tinsley.
                            i think tinsley is getting most of the blame because he was also a part of the palace brawl. this is a third strike for violence as a pacer you know. daniels this is strike two, so i think people are okay with it. there weren't calls for tinsley to be immediately traded following Rio as he wasn't the main guy he was just there.

                            but if both these guys were equally involved i would seriously consider trading both. i've already been on the trading tinsley bandwagon but that was for on the court reasons.

                            but right now, i don't think any one needs to jump to any conclusions (though we all love to on messageboards) lets just wait and discuss
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                              This coming from a Portland guy? Do yourself a favor, don't listen to Cowherd. Better conservation of brain cells.
                              I know, I know he usually throws stuff out just to get reactions etc.
                              I try not to listen, but it's like a bad car accident.

                              Why Not Us ?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Jamaal Tinsley involved in new incident (link on post 16)

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                You are doing worse then that.
                                No... I've been finished with Tinsley for a while. This incident makes no difference to me one way or another.

                                I just can't believe someone like you can still be a defender of Tinsley.

                                -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

                                Working...
                                X