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

Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

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

  • #46
    Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

    Am I the only one on the planet who thought calling Tinsley for a flagrant was a horrible call? I guess so.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

      Originally posted by Mal View Post
      Am I the only one on the planet who thought calling Tinsley for a flagrant was a horrible call? I guess so.
      No Mal, your not, I didn't think it was that much either.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

        Originally posted by Mal View Post
        Am I the only one on the planet who thought calling Tinsley for a flagrant was a horrible call? I guess so.
        I'm neither here nor there on it really, I enjoy physical play and letting the other team know where you stand on things...but it could have gone either way really. I hate to sit in the middle on that one but I do, it was called yea but it could have been not called and i would have been fine with either. I'm more concerned with the flagrant GAME he played, stuff was way uncool man, way uncool.
        Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          I would like to believe that we are going to rebuild....but am I the only one that thinks that TPTB are treating this entire season as a "shakedown" year where we implement our "new found" offense, ride out the entire season to see who fits and who doesn't fit and then wait til the 2008-2009 offseason to make whatever trades we need to make so that we can continue this effort to retool ( rather then rebuild ) for the Playoffs?

          The only way that I think that we will make a trade before the trade deadline is IF the right deal comes along. Otherwise...I think that we are stuck with this roster and all that comes along with it until the offseason.
          A deal is not just going to "come along", no one calls like "Hey..uh, so Larry...I was sitting around today and I got to thinking...how about I give you some picks and expiring contracts, all I want from you is Troy Murphy, Ike Diougu, and David Harrison. I've been thinking, you know, those guys aren't doing so hot for you and I think I would love the chance to have them on my squad". We have to actively SEARCH for what we need and I'm afraid that isn't happening. I hope I'm wrong though, because I feel a poop coming on.

          But I'm glad we're seeing eye to eye on this rebuild thing.
          Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

            Originally posted by BruceLeeroy View Post
            I'd consider any flagrant foul to be dirty. That's why they call it a flagrant.
            No it's not. A type 2 flagrant could be termed dirty, yes. But not all flagrants are dirty play.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul
            NBA flagrant fouls

            In basketball, a personal foul is a breach of the rules that concerns illegal personal contact with an opponent. The NBA flagrant foul rule was enacted in the 1990's as an attempt to deter contact which, in addition to being against the rules, puts an opponent's safety and health at risk. The terminology in the NBA rulebook for contact that puts safety and health at risk is unnecessary and/or excessive contact.

            Types of flagrant fouls
            The flagrant foul rule is described in several subsections of NBA Rule Number 12. The most extensive section is 12B (Personal Fouls) Section IV (Flagrant Fouls). There are two types of flagrant fouls defined, Type 1 and Type 2. Type 2 is the more serious infraction. A type 2 flagrant foul results in immediate ejection, whereas two Type 1 flagrant fouls are required before the player is ejected. Although the delineation between these two rules has evolved, the general distinction has been whether the excessive contact was intentional.
            -------------


            You could be chasing a player with the intention of fouling him and he could zig when you expected him to zag and you could foul him much harder than intended and be called for a flagrant. That's NOT dirty play!

            You want to see a classic dirty player, see some film if Bill Lambeer.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

              Did anyone notice this is Sam Smith writing this? He has less credibility than Dan Rather. If this had come from Vescey I would be worried but Sam Smith shoots in the dark with drunken abandon all the time.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                It seems a lot of people on here would approve of a bad trade just to do something. However they would later be the posters yelling loudest that it was a bad trade.

                For a trade to work both teams have to be getting something they want, and no one wants the other teams castoffs.

                We got JO why? Not because Portland wanted to give him up. It was because Portland thought they needed one more experienced big to get by LA.

                So what is needed is to find a team that needs a point guard bad, and has something we want.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                  Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                  Did anyone notice this is Sam Smith writing this? He has less credibility than Dan Rather. If this had come from Vescey I would be worried but Sam Smith shoots in the dark with drunken abandon all the time.
                  All Sam really said is it appears the Pacers are done with Jamaal Tinsley and are about to make some moves. I don't see that as shooting in the dark. Anyone that saw that game would conclude the Pacers weren't happy with Tinsley's performance at the end of that game.

                  As for us about to make some moves. we'll see. To get rid of Tinsley we will have to get something back we want or there's no use trading him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    No it's not. A type 2 flagrant could be termed dirty, yes. But not all flagrants are dirty play.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul
                    NBA flagrant fouls

                    In basketball, a personal foul is a breach of the rules that concerns illegal personal contact with an opponent. The NBA flagrant foul rule was enacted in the 1990's as an attempt to deter contact which, in addition to being against the rules, puts an opponent's safety and health at risk. The terminology in the NBA rulebook for contact that puts safety and health at risk is unnecessary and/or excessive contact.

                    Types of flagrant fouls
                    The flagrant foul rule is described in several subsections of NBA Rule Number 12. The most extensive section is 12B (Personal Fouls) Section IV (Flagrant Fouls). There are two types of flagrant fouls defined, Type 1 and Type 2. Type 2 is the more serious infraction. A type 2 flagrant foul results in immediate ejection, whereas two Type 1 flagrant fouls are required before the player is ejected. Although the delineation between these two rules has evolved, the general distinction has been whether the excessive contact was intentional.
                    -------------


                    You could be chasing a player with the intention of fouling him and he could zig when you expected him to zag and you could foul him much harder than intended and be called for a flagrant. That's NOT dirty play!

                    You want to see a classic dirty player, see some film if Bill Lambeer.
                    I don't see anywhere in there that says a flagrant 1 isn't a dirty foul. To me it just says a flagrant 2 is just more serious or dangerous. IMO if it's an illegal foul it's a dirty one. Unless like some believe he was trying to motivate his teammates or trying to strike fear into his opponent. Then I could accept it. I see what you're trying to say Will although I've never seen a flagrant called with the scenario you mentioned but I have seen incidental contact called flagrant when a players going up for a layup or dunk. Most often you see it called when there is no attempt at the ball which was the case last night. If you think the foul was unintentional then OK but what I saw last night was a frustrated player making a hard foul without going for the basketball and then running his mouth afterwards. That's dirty.

                    You guys can say what you want but I'd say the refs are better qualified to determine what's a flagrant and what's not. Tinsley wasn't going for the ball. It's that simple. I'm sure the **** talking didn't help his case either. This isn't the 80's fellas. You can't get away with what you used to.
                    Last edited by BruceLeeroy; 01-14-2008, 09:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

                      New Nets executive Kiki Vandeweghe, a great shooter in his time, listed his top shooters for the Newark Star Ledger: "There's no question Jerry West belongs there. He had the picture-perfect jump shot. You have to put Mark Price in there.
                      And by Bird proxy you have to add Travis Diener.

                      No offense ballboy, we love ya anyway.


                      A Tinsley move makes sense but Indy would want another PG somehow. JO's deal for Marbury make financial sense, but the Knicks just don't need JO at all and Marbury here would just be to get out of the cap space a year early. To me that's way too soon to take that on. Wait till his final season.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                        More on NY.

                        The following article speculates that Isiah is wanting to get fired.

                        I've thought for some time isiah's been messing up to get a good pick in the draft and Dolan was down with it, thus the reason Isiah hasn't been fired.

                        It would appear everyone in NY wants Isiah out of the Knick job, including Isiah, and Dolan. The difference is Isiah wants to be fired so he can collect his full contract, and Dolan wants him to just quit, so he won't have to pay him. That means this could get interesting.
                        Remember that Seinfeld episode where they want George to quit but won't fire him? They move his office, etc, and even finally board it up. But he keeps it up and finds a way in anyway.

                        And now this will play out for real. Beautiful.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                          Originally posted by Mal View Post
                          Am I the only one on the planet who thought calling Tinsley for a flagrant was a horrible call? I guess so.
                          I thought it was a horrible call too. If Ellis hadn't reacted the way he did, I don't think it would have been called flagrant. Not sure why it was called flagrant anyway though.
                          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Remember that Seinfeld episode where they want George to quit but won't fire him? They move his office, etc, and even finally board it up. But he keeps it up and finds a way in anyway.

                            And now this will play out for real. Beautiful.
                            Yup...this will certainly Play Now.

                            My prediction, Isiah ends up dropping a balloon full of oil out a window onto Anucha Brown-Sanders while Starbury is yelling "Helllllll-OOOO."
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              It seems a lot of people on here would approve of a bad trade just to do something. However they would later be the posters yelling loudest that it was a bad trade.

                              For a trade to work both teams have to be getting something they want, and no one wants the other teams castoffs.

                              We got JO why? Not because Portland wanted to give him up. It was because Portland thought they needed one more experienced big to get by LA.

                              So what is needed is to find a team that needs a point guard bad, and has something we want.

                              Amen to that.

                              It's very difficult to make any trades in the NBA. I think based on Bird's comments in that radio interview that he wants to make some moves and stuff but it's much easier said than done.

                              I don't know about the Knicks wanting Jamaal. I don't know if Thomas and Tinsley really got along and I don't know that Thomas and Bird make a deal with each other.

                              Maybe the Heat would have some interest in Jamaal. However it would probably leave us with Travis as our starting point guard.

                              What about the Clippers? They may have a little interest in Jamaal.

                              I just feel for someone to take on Jamaal's contract it will be very difficult ever if the Pacers were to add a pick, Ike, Jeff, etc to the deal.

                              I think we are stuck with this roster until the off season.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Sam Smith has a couple Pacer Blurbs

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                Yup...this will certainly Play Now.

                                My prediction, Isiah ends up dropping a balloon full of oil out a window onto Anucha Brown-Sanders while Starbury is yelling "Helllllll-OOOO."
                                More likely scenario... Isiah steals Willis Reeds championship jersey from the vault and wears it during a game getting mustard on it from one of those $6 hot dogs.
                                "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                                Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X