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

SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

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

  • #46
    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Peck, sorry to overlook one part though it's implied in my response too. I agree that ultimately DW is overseeing Bird and this situation.

    My angle is that DW is trying to ease Bird into the situation though, letting him make the calls even if he disagrees with them to some extent. I mean forget the fans, DW and the Simons want to also find out if Bird can hack it before sending him off by himself totally.

    How could Bird be trained and groomed if he just had to let DW run the show?

    And why would DW let this stuff happen the way it has? Maybe he believes that Bird is getting it, has the instincts and will at the end of the day learn to be a good GM through the process of some guided trial and error.

    To me this is the training wheels period, Bird's still peddling and steering, he's not so restricted that he doesn't get to make some serious decisions on matters.

    Ultimately DW is trying to walk away, and honestly I think if things hadn't been so messy the last few years he'd already be gone.


    But I do agree with you that perhaps DW made some risky choices before Bird came along. He did let Isiah keep them hanging on with his CBA crap, and in the process he left Rick dangling too. He did decided to get Bird back in here, though I wonder if that was an olive branch to Rick originally.


    Of course as I pointed out and now Arcadian as well, Bird likes to use the press a lot and in ways that often don't come across very well. For example he seems noticeably confrontational and I'm not sure that plays well with others when it's done publically.

    As I mentioned, when did things like the SVG situation used to happen to the Pacers? That "he said/she said" sort of stuff
    .

    Well in all fairness to all partys involved from the Pacers front, things like this didn't use to happen around here because our local print press were almost on the Pacers payroll.

    The moment they moved Montieth away from being the main beat writer was the moment that actually questions started getting asked.

    So I don't know if anybody should blame Bird or Walsh or even SVG, it's just the new way the press operates.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      BTW, during most of DW's career how often did stories come out about where a player or coach claimed they were never given an offer or were seriously low-balled, the stuff that sounds bitter and you brush off as sour grapes if it happens once?

      Now you have it with Peja (Bird's boy no less), SVG, Fred Jones...makes a person wonder if DW jumped the shark or if the new guy involved has altered how some of this stuff is handled.
      "Wintermute, the problem is the end of those deals, you just went up in salary using the exception rather than down. Neither player was better than the cheaper versions they already had. You could trade down in salary on Jackson if you were willing to take a talent hit (and in 3pt shooting they took a hit, despite Jack being unsteady himself, along with defense - just ask Dirk) and you could actually trade up in talent on Al due to his lower-than-market deal.

      Heck, I'd bet NOK would love to dump Peja back on Indy for the cheaper Al."

      So if NOK doesn't want him, why was it a blunder to not resign him? And who HAS hired SVG and just how much is Fred Jones playing now? Seems like TPTB might have known what they were doing. Once again. I'm not really a TPTB apologist but they get blamed for things that really have no blame to be assigned to them.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

        ...Still "flying casual"
        @roaminggnome74

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

          There was nothing rushed about the Sjax trade at all. It was a foregone conclusion that he'd need to be moved by the end of the previous season. In fact, he was on shaky ground during/after the brawl season. And anyone waiting and hoping his Indiana career could be salvaged got a wakeup call when Sjax decided to go clubbing with JT and played a game of 'shoot 'em up' while the ink was drying on the "It's Up To Us" billboards.

          Only, Donnie Do Nothing could wait wait wait and let the situation fester like he did until he just HAD to do something and make a deal. This stuff about this being a knee jerk, rushed trade is ridiculous.

          Walsh is out of touch with Indiana, Indianapolis, and today's NBA... and has been for quite some time. His window was closing a decade ago. We need to close the book on this era so we can truly start to see the future. The loyalty the Simons' have shown Walsh is running the franchise right into the ground.

          You take the slowest reacting GM in the league and then make him part of a committee, yet give him ultimate power, and is it any wonder why we're mired somewhere between being one of the worst teams in the league and mediocrity?

          Walsh is absolutely one of the worst people we could have running the show right now and how he continually gets passes from some of you by praising things that happened nearly 20 years ago is amazing. Yet the past 10 years has been mistake, after misjudgement, after misstep.

          His handling of the 99 and 2000 team was criminal. He should've been fired for that alone.

          Oh, and JO for Dale Davis belongs in the mistake category too.

          -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


          • #50
            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              Indianans


              Huh? Are Indianans related to Hoosiers somehow?
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                old buggeyes
                Ahhh. Peck is back and all's right with the world.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                  So the decision on O'Neal's future hasn't been resolved?

                  "Not really,'' Bird said. "He's still thinking about it, we've talked about it a couple of times. We're looking and we're talking to people, and he wants to do what's best for the franchise and that's what we'll do.'' Bird added that O'Neal recently has been leaning toward remaining with Indiana.
                  Can someone explain to me why this is O'Neal's decision? Last I checked O'Neal plays for the Pacers, not the other way around. Bird needs to grow a pair and make a decision, which is probably part of his ineptness right now. Is O'Neal in your plans or not. It is not up to him whether he plays here - he is under contract and huge one that overpays him at that. If you want to rid the franchise of his ridiculous contract then trade him. But either way it is Bird's decision not O'Neal's.
                  "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                  - Benjamin Franklin

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                    Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post
                    Can someone explain to me why this is O'Neal's decision? Last I checked O'Neal plays for the Pacers, not the other way around. Bird needs to grow a pair and make a decision, which is probably part of his ineptness right now. Is O'Neal in your plans or not. It is not up to him whether he plays here - he is under contract and huge one that overpays him at that. If you want to rid the franchise of his ridiculous contract then trade him. But either way it is Bird's decision not O'Neal's.
                    Why stir a hornets nest and get JO to publicly say the same stuff like Bryant has? Answer, you don't. It would be silly on Bird's part to say the Pacers control JO and if he doesn't like it then tuff.
                    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                      I need to say something. I don't want to steal someone else's thunder.

                      I want to thank Adam1987 for the line about the Simon's loyalty to Walsh running the franchise into the ground. I'm only parroting what I think is one of the most astute and succinct comments I've read on here in a long while.

                      -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