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

Bird press conference

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

  • Re: Bird press conference

    So your blaming the Simons?

    To take your point and go further with it, if the Simons did not approve of his making this statement about O'Neal in the press then they certainly could do something about it as well.
    I get the feeling that you perhaps see this as a "gotcha", but in fact I do somewhat agree with this. Now there is a caveat here and that is that owning a team can be either hands on or hands off. Some film producers just put in the money, others like to both be executive producer AND a regular producer (ie, hands on) at the same time.

    But the people hired to do the production, if they are in fact different, they become the top man if they are the top person involved with clear production affairs and knowledge of the tangible business.

    The Simons have financials to think about, but in terms of how the team is handled they are paying someone to handle that. And on top of that they are NOT BLASTING Bird in the press, not complaining about the situation as if they have no ability to resolve it.

    Bird OTOH was VERY outspoken about Rick's discipline, as well as about all facets of the roster, especially JO. Now you and I both know that you love that last bit, the digs on JO, so perhaps you are cutting him some slack for being "right".

    But the fact is that it's been Bird doing the talking, and given his position of power I'd expect some walking to go with that.

    The Simons aren't Mark Cuban, they are not proactive but they also don't yap on about the league or how the team is being run. That's the difference. At some point if they start holding press conferences to moan about how poorly the salary is being spent and about how little revenue is coming in due to the losing, THEN I'd expect heads to roll right after that and for them to make a move to resolve the situation.

    What they wouldn't do is pull a Dolan and say "boy Zeke spends money and I don't like it....but what can I do about it?". And that's what Bird did in regards to team behavior behind the scenes. "I'm sick of guys coming in late....but what can I, president of basketball operations/GM/whatever do about it?"

    The fact that he would even ask that question (implicitly) is troubling to me.

    Comment


    • Re: Bird press conference

      BTW, I still think they can make the playoffs. I also don't think that would be the end of the world.

      So ditto your "Go Pacers". I already put my motto for the team into my avy. Get some Lizzy going, dust off, and just get after it, and that means fans too. These are the dog days where only hard core fans dare tread. When I look around and see PD people at the games all over the place it makes me proud to be honest.

      Maybe Bird should have had Able host the presser via a PD netcast. Cut right to the important fans, the ones that actually show up.

      Comment


      • Re: Bird press conference

        Believe me there was no "gotcha" vibe from my end. In fact I was really trying to say that I am really leary of myself after a Bird conferance.

        Honestly I am being very careful so that I am not like the cobra dancing to the rhythmn of the snake charmer.

        As you said, I dig all of the comments he makes towards O'Neal and others as well. Hey I'm weird like that, as a fan I loved Larry Browns open and honest discussions as well. However I am also aware that as a player I would probably hate that.

        Sadly right now until proven otherwise both Bird and O'Brien are in my catagory of "they talk the talk but so far don't walk the walk".

        But I agree with you also about the Simons and the hands off nature. They hired Walsh to run the show and they will just either reap the benefits or pay the costs. For them it has been far more benefit so that is why they allowed Walsh to bring in Bird.

        I'm not sure if they will give Bird the same amount of freedom. My guess is no.


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

        Comment


        • Re: Bird press conference

          I've seen Jermaine get on teammates about missed assignments and not running plays. I don't know what Larry is talking about. I've seen Jermaine take over games especially when his team is struggling. What is Larry talking about?

          I just don't see how Jermaine is selfish, the guy wants to win. Maybe he should pull a Kobe, hoping something gets done. Cause look at what happened in LA. They are at the top of the west cause Kobe was pleading for help.

          I think most of the "Jermaine Haters" are just frustrated to the fact that he isn't healthy all the time. Cause seriously, when he's healthy and playing well, nobody complains. All of a sudden he's hurt and can't contribute, people kick him when he's down saying he's washed up BLAH BLAH BLAH.

          Sometimes I just hope they trade Jermaine to a team where fans would appreciate what he's done/ capable of. The reason why Jermaine gets paid the money he gets is because he was worth that money at the time of the signature. He's not like some players who get that MAx contract, and start slacking off. The guys is an all-around player.

          Look at the Golden State game, just shows what Jermaine is capable of when he's healthy and focused.

          Larry Bird can say whatever he wants. He put himself in this situation. He's the one who took on those big contracts and now we can't make a move. We gotta sign people for under a million dollars and expect this team JUST TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. How can you expect to pay a "leader" good money and you don't have the funds to get him. Seems to me, Larry can only make trades with his friends. but still gets the bad end of the stick. So before people go and blame Jermaine, look at Larry Bird first.

          I can't wait to see what so called moves he is going to make in the offseason. Cause at this point, even if he moves Jermaine, I can't stomach what we would get back in that deal
          R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

          Comment


          • Re: Bird press conference

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            I'm not sure if they will give Bird the same amount of freedom. My guess is no.
            If it's even their call in a few years.

            Yeah, I hate the Brown/Bird public call-out method. You can do that behind closed doors to a man, and if the player isn't man enough to react to that then why is he on your team anyway?

            I'm not a ends justify means type, but that doesn't mean I'm kid gloves. What it means in my case is that you must consider the means and ask yourself what it tells you about the situation if those are the means you must resort to. If you have to call a guy out in the press then you have a bigger issue than what you are calling them out about.

            Plus as I said you define the world you live in and I hate buck passing on that. We all talk about Reggie not being a true leader, but that's total crap. He was a leader because he defined the team environment. He worked hard, took crap from guys like Brown when he didn't deserve it, and kept his public off-court house in order it would seem.

            He didn't have to go to Dan Dunkin and say "some guys need to start showing up to practice on time" to get the attention of his teammates.

            Think about how Mannning established that work ethic with Harrison which in turn made guys like Edge or Wayne feel both obligated AND more importantly comfortable with that level of extra work. Instead of being a butt kissing player or a goof for working extra it became the comfortable norm instead. Some guys want to act a certain way but won't if everyone around them isn't, or at least not a good chunk of the really important guys.


            And on that I'll give you this - it could be that JO is letting the team down in that way. I don't think he's lazy, but maybe he's not setting an elite tone either. Just doing the basics, being fair, that works for average joes but from the elite guys it sends a "just a paycheck" message I think.

            Comment


            • Re: Bird press conference

              Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
              I've seen Jermaine get on teammates about missed assignments and not running plays. I don't know what Larry is talking about. I've seen Jermaine take over games especially when his team is struggling. What is Larry talking about?

              I just don't see how Jermaine is selfish, the guy wants to win.
              Personally, I don't think JO is selfish, per se. He just doesn't have what it takes--the talent, if you will--to be a true leader. I don't think there's anything he can do about it.

              He's not a born leader. He was placed in the position. He did what he could. It's really on TPTB for creating the situation.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • Re: Bird press conference

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Yeah, I hate the Brown/Bird public call-out method. You can do that behind closed doors to a man, and if the player isn't man enough to react to that then why is he on your team anyway?

                I'm not a ends justify means type, but that doesn't mean I'm kid gloves. What it means in my case is that you must consider the means and ask yourself what it tells you about the situation if those are the means you must resort to. If you have to call a guy out in the press then you have a bigger issue than what you are calling them out about.
                I remember reading some stuff on the Reagan administration. His top aides didn't have the cohunas to tell the President the hard truth, so they would leak the info to the Washington Post or Times so Reagan would read it in the paper.

                Those kind of people need to be horse whipped.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment

                Working...
                X