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

Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

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

  • #31
    Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

    Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
    Well someone would have had to tell them there was a fight earlier and I'm sure it wasn't the doorman, bartender or valet. They would've at least gone inside, found a place to hang and ordered drinks. Did they actually get chased away from Cloud 9 or did they later realize they were being followed? Has anyone come out and said it was a high speed chase or more like a "Hey, aren't those the same guys from earlier? I don't want them to know where I live pull over here. Oh ****! they're shooting at us".
    Vecsey's account (which I'm raking as the definitive word on this for now) indicated that the chase was high speed and it was from the Cloud 9 place to downtown. In other words the chase was on immedietely as they tried to leave cloud 9.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

      Does it seem strange to anybody else that a forty-something equipment manager is hanging out with Tinsley & Co.?

      Is there any chance that Qatato has been assigned/asked to babysit Tins and keep him out of trouble? It does mention the close ties between Qatato and Bird.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        Does it seem strange to anybody else that a forty-something equipment manager is hanging out with Tinsley & Co.?

        Is there any chance that Qatato has been assigned/asked to babysit Tins and keep him out of trouble? It does mention the close ties between Qatato and Bird.
        I asked a similar question Sunday morning when this news first broke. I suppose he might be good friends with Tinsley, maybe wanted to see the fight on PPV, and decided sure I'll go to Cloud 9 with you guys, why not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

          Come on. Qatato is from Bawston and Tinsley is from New Yawk. I can see how they'd easily become friends.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

            Originally posted by PV
            But unless your crew is instantaneously ready to escalate a confrontation with their crew to the red zone and not give a spit about the consequences, you cannot compete in that warped world.
            Peter FTW!

            It's not wrong to go out, it's just that now we live in a pretty F'd up world. The only issue I have is that should we the public accept that and say "yeah, it's just not safe to be out anymore" or should we be as outraged as we were about the property tax issue or the life/choice debates or any other issue. I mean it's only a matter of life and death here, of total public safety.

            You'd think that would strike a stronger chord than "he should avoid those places and times, go hide in his home instead." Weee, what a fun world that will be, all of us hiding in our homes after 9 (because it will go from 3 to 2 to 1 to...).


            PS - remember last year when that woman was assaulted in the downtown parking garage after work, around 5 pm. Should she not feel safe going to her car alone at 5 freaking pm, or should the public think "that's BS, that's intolerable".

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              It is interesting how people read the same thing differently. I took that once they heard there was a fight they left almost immediately. Not that they left almost immediately after arriving.

              Go back and re-read that part.
              Yep thats how I read it. Not that they arrived at the club and immediately were informed of the fight. Rather they were at the club, partying or whatever, heard about the fight and left immediately after that.


              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kravitz comes up with a gem - and Vecsey's take

                Originally posted by owl View Post
                Call 911 anybody????????????????? This adventure probably took 15 minutes at least.
                Have the police meet you at the Conrad?
                Cloud 9 to Conrad at 100 mph? Maybe 8. I can hit the airport in 9 minutes, door to door, and it doesn't take 100. I'll assume 38th to 65, 65 to either West or Meridian, then it depends on the lights you catch. We go to the track that route and it never takes 15 minutes. Add in the excitement/drama of the situation (like being in a 100 mph car chase) and I can see it being over before you even thought about it. They were probably calling each other between cars deciding on where to go and what to do.

                Yep thats how I read it. Not that they arrived at the club and immediately were informed of the fight. Rather they were at the club, partying or whatever, heard about the fight and left immediately after that.
                Me too. Honestly it sounds like a really F'd up situation, one in which they were living a pretty normal night prior to that. Going to a nice club at 1 am is hardly the fringe of society. If it was you'd have a lot of bars out of business.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-11-2007, 12:21 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Kravitz comes up with a gem - and Vecsey's take

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Cloud 9 to Conrad at 100 mph? Maybe 8. I can hit the airport in 9 minutes, door to door, and it doesn't take 100. I'll assume 38th to 65, 65 to either West or Meridian, then it depends on the lights you catch. We go to the track that route and it never takes 15 minutes. Add in the excitement/drama of the situation (like being in a 100 mph car chase) and I can see it being over before you even thought about it. They were probably calling each other between cars deciding on where to go and what to do.
                  If it was truly a chase though, you think they were stopping at red lights? Maybe, but probably not.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Vecsey's account (which I'm raking as the definitive word on this for now) indicated that the chase was high speed and it was from the Cloud 9 place to downtown. In other words the chase was on immedietely as they tried to leave cloud 9.
                    To me it sounds like they may have even known that the people in the truck had a gun and had to peel out of the parking lot and the chase was on. I don't blame Tinsley for speeding either. I've had to do it myself once and I hope to never do it again. This whole situation is very interesting to me though sounds like they knew Tinsley was there and specifically targeted him.


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

                      If Qatato told Vescey, which I think is possible.

                      Has anyone wondered if Qatato was supposed to be babysitting Tinsley for Bird?

                      Maybe I'm reaching....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kravitz comes up with a gem - and Vecsey's take

                        Originally posted by AB1077 View Post
                        If it was truly a chase though, you think they were stopping at red lights? Maybe, but probably not.
                        I meant just how that impacts your driving choices, slowing to look or having to outright avoid someone maybe. And I wasn't saying it would limit them really anyway, I'm with you totally. You challenge me to hit Conrad from C9 with no ticket risk and I'll do that in under 10 np.

                        Also like you, I think Goldfoot's version is on target. It's not like "they were told" means a person came and reported to them like a scout. They are BSing, a guy says "after that crap earlier". Someone says "what crap". "Oh, DJ and Len got into it with..." and so on.

                        And then even from that the person that hears that comes back to the group and it starts all over till enough people have heard and start talking about maybe just leaving instead.


                        Or maybe the telephone game is at work here and PV meant to report that the group was sitting there, then later a fight broke out which they were told about, they decide the last place Tins needs to be (or any of them) is in a bar where a fight is going on, and when they go to leave they run into some guys still running hot from their fight (which explains "backup" arriving too).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

                          I really don't buy the babysitting thing...You think Tinsley would honestly accept someone babysitting him? I'm 19 and the idea of someone "babysitting" me makes me angry. Tinsley (or any other grown man for that matter) would never agree to someone babysitting him.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kravitz comes up with a gem - and Vecsey's take

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            The local media hasn't done a very good job of describing the whole evening - which gives it proper context. For all the local media was telling us I figured they had been at the 9 cloud place all evening. Although I would love to have heard the conversion that took place when deciding whether to go the 9 cloud place. Those type of things facinate me, as I think back at the things I was talked into doing and place I was talked into going at 1 in the morning.

                            Owl, Sure they should have called the cops, although if I was driving 100 MPH south on 65, I would expect the police would find us, or some other car not involved in what sounds like a 4 or 5 car chase, would have called the police. Although I wonder what the chase was like from 65 to the Conrad.
                            If you listen to the NBA Full Court Press interview that MR posted with Mike Wells.....Wells pretty much says the same thing ( except for the "We're gonna party with you whether you like it or not )....or at the very least...Vescey lifted this from Wells.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              I really don't buy the babysitting thing...You think Tinsley would honestly accept someone babysitting him?
                              Yes....

                              I'm 19 and the idea of someone "babysitting" me makes me angry. Tinsley (or any other grown man for that matter) would never agree to someone babysitting him.
                              If he's truly trying to turn over a new leaf then I think he'd probably agree to have someone who has shown themself to be responsible, be around in certain situations. Maybe that's what this is... maybe not...

                              As for why the police weren't called initially- Booze? DUI? Weed?
                              Those immediately cross my mind. I can also see "Keeping this out of the headlines and hoping it goes away" as another possibility. Obviously, it didn't go away, it escalated and the chase continued until shots were fired.

                              And I still say there is more to this story that we've yet to hear. Things still don't add up. Jamaal may still end up the victim but I bet it will look differently than what we're seeing now and what many are hanging their hat on.

                              -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


                              • #45
                                Re: Kravitz on Tinsley - and Vecsey with new info !!!

                                I'm not too heavy on the "babysitting" angle, but I can easily see the trainer being the designated driver of the vehicle Tinsley was riding in if he or whoever was driving was buzzed after a night of drinking.

                                Originally posted by bball
                                Things still don't add up. Jamaal may still end up the victim but I bet it will look differently than what we're seeing now and what many are hanging their hat on.
                                I really don't care what these "machine gun firing" a-holes have to say to change my opinion of the situation. No matter what Tinsley did, it doesn't deserve him being murdered in downtown of the city that I call home with a weapon of war.

                                Anyway, I still have a hard time believing Tinsley is going to be involved in anything that illeagal with the team's trainer around. I just can't see it.
                                ...Still "flying casual"
                                @roaminggnome74

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X