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

I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

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

  • #61
    Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
    For those who want the rule changed what should it be changed to?

    It has to be something that is clear cut and easy identifiable. You can't just say these player shouldn't be suspended because they are nice guys. All the players know what the rule is. There is no excuse. You have to stay at the bench.
    Any player leaving their team's bench area with intent to exacerbate an on court altercation will be subject to suspension upon review by the NBA's commisioner.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

      How do you tell intent? Let Stu decide? I think the fewer decisions Stu has to make the better we are off. Interpreting intention is one of the reasons I don't like the flagerant fouls.

      I honestly believe in a situation like this the fairest way to do it is to have a zero tolerance policy that every one knows where they can step and enforce it consistantly.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

        Originally posted by Jay View Post
        On behalf of Rimfire, for everyone complaining about this happening during a playoff series - there isn't a single player suspended from an elimination game. Even Horry will be back for Game #7, although the two-game suspension seems harsh for as little contact as happened. He shouldn't have done it, clearly, but one game would've been sufficient.

        So stick a sock in it.

        10 years ago this week.
        http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/d...7/d01sp147.htm
        What sucked for us was that we had so many players DQ'd that we were missing starters for both games. Still almost pulled out game 6 but got rolled in game 7. Been better if we could have just lost the entire team for game 6 and been whole back in Miami. But that would have violated a rule.

        And what really sucks is that may have been our best shot at a championship. The Bulls won 70 games that year but split with us, 2-2 with every game down to the wire and both teams winning on the road court. Not saying we would have won - history's against that - but we sure had a shot.

        It's a stupid rule but our coaches should have known it and tackled players who started to wander - even Patrick who took about 3 ambling steps away from the bench and just looked at what was going on. It sucked - and we had nobody to blame but us.

        I do find it friggin' hilarious in this thread that some of the people arguing for ignoring the rule in this case are the first ones to scream bloody murder every time a call goes against the Pacers.

        Congratulations on finding the way to fairness and equity in sports - selective rules enforcement. Maybe you should just let ESPN decide which rules to follow?
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

          Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
          Any player leaving their team's bench area with intent to exacerbate an on court altercation will be subject to suspension upon review by the NBA's commisioner.
          How could we possibly know someones intent.

          Right now the rule is simple and easy to administer. If a player leaves the bench area during an altercation - he will get suspended for the next game. Simple

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

            As Pacers fans most of us understand the rule and know why it's so important, even if it has hurt us almost as bad as any team.

            What's shocking is the amount of NBA-ignorant Suns fans I've seen on the internet who are raging at this and didn't even know the rule existed in the first place. It's a weird consequence of the influx of casual fans brought in by the Suns who don't really know anything about the NBA.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

              And Barkley (much as I love him) is running his mouth with the absolute wrong story.

              The rule serves an important purpose.

              Indy0731, by the time a player's "intent" is revealed, its too late. There are eight other players on the court, and three referees, and they are the ones responsible for getting the situation under control. Now yes, we watched three officials who couldn't get Stephen Jackson and Ben Wallace under control fast enough and all Hell broke loose as that situation dragged on far longer than it needed to. But imagine how much worse it would've been if the benches cleared when the situation first began.

              The NBA can't have players leaving the bench to escalate an altercation, period. There is nothing wrong with that rule at all.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                Big Shot Rob hits again.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                  Originally posted by NorCal_Pacerfan View Post
                  Ok, so Baron Davis and clock Fisher in the head with his elbow, and NOT get suspended, but you think Amare should be suspended for stepping on the court? Why are flagrant fouls subject to the league's 'judgment' while stepping over a line in a given situation is not? Yeah, so it's a rule, but it's still an injustice, there's no question about it.
                  You make a great point. The flagrant foul and stepping on the court rule both need to be looked at in the off season. But the rule is the rule now. Although I despise the Spurs and am pissed about the suspensions, it is the rule.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                    There shouldn't be any penalty assessed to a player for leaving the bench, unless they do something to escalate the situation.

                    The NBA needs to use some common sense here. Like Barkley has said, for a lot of people, the first instinct is to either see what's going on, and/or try to defuse the situation.

                    It's really no different than if players who are already on the floor intervene when there's an altercation. You don't know a player's intentions then, either.

                    And for those who are championing the rules and saying that they all need to be consistent; where's the outrage over neither Jason Richardson nor Baron Davis getting suspensions? Horry didn't do anything worse to Nash than Baron did to Fisher.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                      Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                      There shouldn't be any penalty assessed to a player for leaving the bench, unless they do something to escalate the situation
                      Just how are you going to define escalating the situation. You can look cross eyed at Latrell Spreewell and he thinks you need to be punched in the face. You can say "yo mama" to Kobe and he'll take a swing. If you're sitting on the bench where you're supposed to be then none of that is likely to happen.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                        Originally posted by grace View Post
                        Just how are you going to define escalating the situation. You can look cross eyed at Latrell Spreewell and he thinks you need to be punched in the face. You can say "yo mama" to Kobe and he'll take a swing. If you're sitting on the bench where you're supposed to be then none of that is likely to happen.
                        So Raja Bell can come up and try to get to Horry?

                        It doesn't make any sense. If you're on the floor, you have free reign to get into the scuffle, to either escalate or to defuse it. No one knows their intentions when they run over there either, but they still can get in the scrum.


                        Lobby heavy fines and suspensions for fighting and allow people to come in and defuse the situation. I think you'll find that most players would rather get people apart than throw down. Amare and Boris didn't touch anyone or start yelling at any of the Spurs. I don't even think Amare took his hands off the towel wrapped around his neck, did he?

                        It's a stupid rule, always has been and always will be.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                          Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                          And for those who are championing the rules and saying that they all need to be consistent; where's the outrage over neither Jason Richardson nor Baron Davis getting suspensions? Horry didn't do anything worse to Nash than Baron did to Fisher.
                          That's the thing those rulings were made on judging the player intent. Why would you want to make it anymore murky. Players know that they need to stay on the bench when a fight breaks out. It's pretty simple.
                          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                            I think Raja Bell should've gotten a game.

                            I hate it when players on the court escalate the situations, too.

                            The rule is this: Its very, very hard to control the reactions of any of the playes, whether on the court or not. Its impossible to have a rule to prevent what Raja Bell did. At least its possible to ensure that the bench players don't do what Raja did.

                            If this rule is eliminated the NBA is taking a step backwards in its efforts to curtail oncourt violence.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                              Take a step backwards, like not suspending Tim for getting off the bench during the second quarter?

                              The league defended its decision not to punish him, because there was no altercation. He was off the bench, and on to the floor before one could even start. If one had started, he would have been in violation, but because others kept their head, he came off scot free.

                              You can't have it one way and not the other. He left the bench because of the possibility of Elson reacting. He should have been punished too.

                              Punishing those who don't even partake does nothing to stop on court violence. Punishing those who do fight with stiffer penalties would be much more effective.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB

                                I remember when Ron got suspended for walking 10 feet off the bench during the JO and the fat boy scuffle. While Fred Hoiberg ran off the bench almost to half court when KG and Antony Peeler got in a fight, and he didnt even get fined.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X