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

is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

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

  • #46
    Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

    Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
    Was it strange that Dallas let Daniels go? No. Dallas had Stackhouse ahead of him in the same position off the bench. Daniels couldn't get minutes because of that. They took Croshere because 1.) he was an expiring contract and 2.) he could easily replace Keith Van Horn.

    As for the Simons cutting a check to the policement and prosecution spokesmen, I think you're trying a little too hard to support your argument.
    Dude hes gonna ask you how old you are cause you disagree with him. I'd watch out.


    Comment


    • #47
      Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

      Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
      No i'm not....but what are you talking about the Pacers are squeaky clean. They are the only team that is full of role models.
      I'm not suggesting the Pacers team or any other pro sports team is squeaky clean. If you read my thread about being fed up, you'll know how I feel about this team as a whole. I'm just saying I think basing whether or not someone smokes weed on their body language is completely bogus. Sure, some weed smokers will give it away in body language, but not all of them.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

        I didn't ask you that cuz you disagreed, it was because you thought they fingerprinted a bag of weed which was described as a very small amount. Apparently the newspaper said the did, which to me is absolutely hysterical.
        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
          They did fingerprint it.

          And Jamaal's friend confessed to owning it.

          And it was Jamaal's car, and it was left in the door panel.
          It was in the passenger side door panel.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

            Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
            I'm not suggesting the Pacers team or any other pro sports team is squeaky clean. If you read my thread about being fed up, you'll know how I feel about this team as a whole. I'm just saying I think basing whether or not someone smokes weed on their body language is completely bogus. Sure, some weed smokers will give it away in body language, but not all of them.
            We aren't deciding if anyone lives or dies with these opinions here. Nothing is absolute...there is and always will be exceptions to the rules.

            Anyways, I think you all are way out of line for calling me "stupid" for owning my opinions about these players.

            I apologize about clowning on Indy for the DNA/Fingerprint thing...but COME ON thats hysterical to think they did that, even if they did.
            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

              Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
              I didn't ask you that cuz you disagreed, it was because you thought they fingerprinted a bag of weed which was described as a very small amount. Apparently the newspaper said the did, which to me is absolutely hysterical.
              It wasn't the newspaper. It was a direct quote from a Marion County spokesmen. I know the standard op with the cops and marijuana and how they won't test small amount, but it was an election year and it was a high profile case and Brizzi had made a point in his campaign that he was cracking down on drugs and violence. They didn't just fingerprint it either, they did some DNA test on it.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                Someone please agree with me that it's hilarious that they actually DNA/Fingerprinted a tiny bag of weed and I will go to bed.

                election year or not...HYSTERICAL.
                *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                  Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                  We aren't deciding if anyone lives or dies with these opinions here. Nothing is absolute...there is and always will be exceptions to the rules.

                  Anyways, I think you all are way out of line for calling me "stupid" for owning my opinions about these players.

                  I apologize about clowning on Indy for the DNA/Fingerprint thing...but COME ON thats hysterical to think they did that, even if they did.
                  Ok stupid was out of line, I apologize. However, I will say that just because a certain group of weed smokers has a certain way they act does not make it a rule. People from all walks of life smoke weed. From guys that wear suits to work to people who the clothing of your favorite fast food joint. The stereotypical lazy stoner may fit Quis on the cover, but I don't think that is anywhere near a good enough reason to believe Quis does it. Nor is him hanging out with Tins. We have just about zero real reason to believe Quis smokes weed. When they turn up an 1/8th in his locker, home, or car then I will listen.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                    Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                    Someone please agree with me that it's hilarious that they actually DNA/Fingerprinted a tiny bag of weed and I will go to bed.

                    election year or not...HYSTERICAL.
                    Dude I never said it made any sense, I am just saying they did it.


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                      Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                      Ok stupid was out of line, I apologize. However, I will say that just because a certain group of weed smokers has a certain way they act does not make it a rule. People from all walks of life smoke weed. From guys that wear suits to work to people who the clothing of your favorite fast food joint. The stereotypical lazy stoner may fit Quis on the cover, but I don't think that is anywhere near a good enough reason to believe Quis does it. Nor is him hanging out with Tins. We have just about zero real reason to believe Quis smokes weed. When they turn up an 1/8th in his locker, home, or car then I will listen.
                      Me either, I have plenty of other suspicions that when combined with that one reason....provide ample basis for me to believe what I believe. I don't expect anyone to agree, but my opinion is as valid as anyone elses.

                      I am 100% sure on Tins and i'd say even the majority of people who don't want to think about such things probably will at the very least entertain the idea that he probably does.

                      Quis and Tins have been caught TWICE now in sketchy scenarios. That is more of a reason for me to think that quis smokes. guilt by association they all were in the same car right? So he associates with smokers..I KNOW I KNOW sober people associate with smokers too.

                      Dallas letting him go for cro (stackhouse is old, if they were thinking about the future and really thought quis was a winner they keep him)

                      Marquis is considered injury prone which is a lot of times the result of poor conditioning.

                      So i wasn't banking on Marquis LOOKS. i guess i should of been more clear. If i was basing it on looks I would think about 95% of the league smoked and i don't think that at all...i am guessing it is probably about 15-20% regular basis....and prob 50% have at some time.
                      *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                        Oy! As much as I hate to defend Jon Theodore, I should chime in.

                        The prosecutor said the had fingerprinted the bag, and said they "would" DNA test it when they couldn't lift a fingerprint on it. There's a big difference there.

                        To put it simply, CSI is BS. Fingerprinting takes all of 10 minutes of some field officer's time, and is relatively cheap. DNA testing, however, requires lab time, equipment, supplies, etc. It's not like it's a couple grand to do it or anything, but if you DNA tested for every misdemeanor drug possession charge, the police would soon be bankrupt. If you want an example of how tight the budget is on law enforcement agencies, because I work 8 hours instead of 7.5 for the state police, they have to compensate me special. It's not in the budget for them to pay me cash for the extra 30 minutes every day, so they give me compensatory time to use as vacation. Also, my manager had to buy a desk calendar out of her pocket because that wasn't in the budget, either. I also can't have new highlighters, because they're not in the budget. We have to steal them from another section of the agency. Finally, we made some sheets to do a seasonal job. This job required, at maximum, 6 sheets of paper per day. We were told to stop copying these sheets because we were wasting resources. They wanted it condensed, so we would use less paper for the worksheet. But I digress.

                        I laughed out loud when they said they were going to DNA test the baggie. I believe the claim of DNA testing was made for two reasons:

                        Giving voters the appearance of due diligence during an election year.

                        A scare tactic to get someone to confess.

                        Obviously, it worked on both counts

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I'm not willing to accept that.

                          If players do it during the season I want them gone
                          I thought Parrish got busted during the season getting on a plane. Maybe that's wrong. Regardless I feel pretty certain that Chief smoked during the season.

                          Regular smokers are a lot like regular drinkers, you'd be surprised at how totally functional they are with "regular" amounts (4 beers vs 4 shots, stoned out of your mind vs high).

                          BTW, I was a non-smoker who used to hang around with some very, very regular smokers. It's very possible that Quis could hang out with Tins and one of them never touch it. Assuming that is like assuming that every friend of a drunk is also a drunk.



                          RC's playbook - I say it all the time, usually after someone rants about "it's the same every time, throw it to JO". No, it's not.

                          When the players run the actual plays you have all sorts of varities of initial screens and methods for putting the ball in the hands of the actual scoring target. Often JO is touching it specifically to get it to someone else.

                          How do I know? I watch in detail and see these various plays show up over and over which tells you it's not just an accident or on the fly. It was the same way in 98-2K.

                          So the issue isn't lack of variety. Perhaps its too much for this current group. It certainly wasn't a problem with Jax running the show, but then that's like Manning and Tom Moore.

                          That's why I say you want guys to stay with Rick as a group for several years, something that hasn't really happened. Right now you'll catch Jeff or Tinsley telling other players what they are supposed to be doing, and it's not just the new guys. That is yet another reason why I'd really hate to see Jeff moved. He actually understands the plays and how they will or won't work (he can anticipate how a play will break down or be defended well, which lets him counter it for a rebound...IMO).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                            Originally posted by Cobol Sam View Post
                            I'm sure this won't matter to the conversation, but it fits. Part of my research load deals with the social construction of drug deviancy. I've been very interested in data produced in past research that indicates that the criminalization of marijuana was racial motivated, aimed at Mexican workers during a job shortage. The data isn't some small subset like what you might expect from this type of research. The N was just over 2400... meaning it is above the standard of reliable.

                            I'm not really trying to make a point on pot use, but it is fair to understand why it is criminal or deviant but alcohol use isn't. (not that alcohol didn't at one time experience criminalization for the same reasons)
                            Reinarman is the name of the researcher if anyone is interested.
                            The main reason pot is illegal is because the liquor companies spent 10's of millions of dollars in the 1920's to lobby their lawmakers. They MIGHT just have seen a slight threat to their empire from a weed that can be grown in anyones back yard...............

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                              Originally posted by PacerMan View Post
                              The main reason pot is illegal is because the liquor companies spent 10's of millions of dollars in the 1920's to lobby their lawmakers. They MIGHT just have seen a slight threat to their empire from a weed that can be grown in anyones back yard...............
                              But wait ... Alcohol was illegal in the 20's. So I think you've got your facts mixed up.

                              The true lobby push for the criminalization of Cannabis came from the cotton industry.
                              “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


                              • #60
                                Re: is anyone listening to Kevin Lee's post game show

                                I would like to add that I don't think they DNA tested a bag of pot. They may or may not of fingerprinted it, but that seems so far fetched. I'm not sure they'd even do that on a major drug bust let alone a personal amount. I don't care if these guys shoot heroin as long as they quit losing.

                                The only guy with a criminal record on this team, as far as I know , is Jermaine O'Neal. I'm not looking up every guy on the team but Jamaal Tinsley hasn't been arrested and has so far only been at the wrong place wrong time twice. I'd also like to mention Jamaal had no problems with off-court behavior in his first 5 seasons as a Pacer but suddenly Daniels arrives and they both have two run-ins with the law in 6 Months.
                                I'm in these bands
                                The Humans
                                Dr. Goldfoot
                                The Bar Brawlers
                                ME

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X