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

Indy Star comments

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

  • Putnam
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Also, Putnum, that was brilliant.

    Do you really have me on ignore? Shame if you do, I agree with you most of the time.


    No I don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • idioteque
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Don't waste your time with those article comments. You really think you're going to change the mind of such bullheaded people?

    I read them, too. Because I think they're funny (and sad, maybe more sad than funny) but like you, I can't resist.

    Leave a comment:


  • NuffSaid
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    ^^^^ Yup.



    USF. Those things bugged the heck out of me until I gave up on them. I suggest you stay here and ignore the fatheads at RATS.
    Who you calling a fathead? I'm over at RATS all the time.

    It isn't just about the Pacers. There is a deeper societal problem. Since the advent of on-line forums and message boards, ordinary people have the opportunity to publicly express their opinions about issues. But many are incapable of doing this with coherence and civility.

    ...

    We still have plenty of people who make statements contrary to fact. The one that bugs me the most lately is, "All the Pacers do is throw up 3 pointers." People keep saying that, even after games when 3 point attempts were only a third of the Pacers' total field goal attempts. One third is not, and never will be, all. But you've got a better change of calling someone out here and getting a fair reply than you do in other forums. And if not, IGNORE 'em.
    IMO, most of the people who reply to articles forums are just spouting off and are very immature. I don't think it's a mature of being well informed as much as it's just people spouting off whether they can separate fact from fiction or not. Yes, it does bother me when people inject their own racial bias into situations where it's not warranted, but I'm equally put off by poster who don't put much rational thought behind their words and are just blowing off steam or worse yet merely spouting off just to be saying something to stir the pot.

    I don't mind one telling it like it is, but there's a difference between doing that and "telling it the way you see it" and making it seem as if your summation is based on facts and/or first hand accounts when the truth is all you're doing is repeating the majority of what you've read elsewhere; it's not your opinion...you merely borrowed it from elsewhere.

    Still, I read what's relevant and try to ignore the BS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by grace View Post
    Here's what I don't understand. For years people bit... I mean complained that the writers for The Star were too easy on the Pacers. Now they're being too hard. I don't get it.
    Just to make sure you and everyone else is clear, what is being talked about is below every online article or column posted on the Indy Star website there is a 'comments' section. This is a "Topix" forum that is not the same as the Starnews forum most are familiar.

    So online Star readers can post immediate comments right under the article itself.

    IIRC once you've read an article you can click a "READ COMMENTS" link which opens the TOPIX forum to that exact topic and see all the comments.

    Any Pacer topic will generally have comment after comment of negative reactions from the posters. It's rare any real discussion is in the comments like on this forum or the normal Star forum. This is mostly just "These guys are a disgrace"... "The Pacers suck"... "Thugs"... ""I've given up on the Pacers" kind of quick comments not even intending for discussion. If it was at a forum like here you'd think many of these might be considered flaming even, but I have a feeling the format just leads to people venting more than anything. They aren't looking to discuss anything and don't care what someone else says/thinks... they just want to vent... IMHO...

    .

    -Bball

    Leave a comment:


  • grace
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Here's what I don't understand. For years people bit... I mean complained that the writers for The Star were too easy on the Pacers. Now they're being too hard. I don't get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    The article comments are far, far worse than the Star forums. Not really the same at all.

    -Bball

    Leave a comment:


  • BPump33
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Thanks to everyone for the responses. I was mainly talking about the article comments, but it looks like I will stay away from the message boards as well. I think I was just venting this morning because all of the "thug" comments on today's article.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Goldfoot
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post





    "Larry Bird is dead, found with goat"
    Link, please!











    A good percentage of the posts over there mirror this one right here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naptown_Seth
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Also, Putnum, that was brilliant.

    Do you really have me on ignore? Shame if you do, I agree with you most of the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naptown_Seth
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
    I peruse the Star boards and read the comments on certain articles. The ones with the loudest voices are usually the least informed. That goes for all topics. I mean have you tried to read the racing forums? I would venture to say at least 50% of the posts are trolls just making up stuff especially the open wheel subjects. I find it to be confusing actually. No links required and no accountability. I could start a thread over there that says "Larry Bird found dead" and it would be allowed. There would be a hundred pages of comments and many would really think he was dead. The comments on articles are even worse. Usually, it's just kids I think. There are alot of racial overtones going on over there too. All in all it's a crappy system.
    If there was an aspect that drove me away from the Star it was the OWR trolling all over the place, making any conversation on what should be a local passion completely useless, and the amount of Pats trolling that was allowed in the Colts forum.

    As bad as Pistons/Miami trolls were in the Pacers area it was nothing compared to the Colts area, which is why it first got a moderator, for what that was worth.

    It is the wild west still. I have a lot of good friends over there, at least via online, and others that I at least respect, but as Goldfoot says you can just do about anything.

    Of course when I insulted one of these trolls a few years ago by implying (not actually stating) that they had relations with a goat I got the quick ban till the good folks asked to have me brought back. As Goldfoot says, I could have posted "Larry Bird is dead, found with goat" all day long but you don't dare insult the poster that is saying stuff like that.

    Cats and dogs living together over there, you know, real Old Testiment stuff.

    Oh, and no pix and avys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Putnam
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

    P.S. I know lots of people with pit bulls and they've never killed anyone. They are nice dogs.

    The difference is, dear colleague, if you were other than an esteemed member of this serene and august body of great minds, you would have written back saying, "Bull****, you stupid-***ed mother****er, Why the **** don't you learn some **** facts before ******* that bull****?"

    You understanding that the "lots of people" you know personally represent a small sample of all pit bull owners, and probably a sample that is not representative. So you add a comment which is also valid, without thinking that your observation disproves the larger data.

    That's why we're all such a happy family here since Jermaniac quit.
    Last edited by Putnam; 03-05-2008, 02:27 PM. Reason: It didn't take all the heywoode words

    Leave a comment:


  • McKeyFan
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
    "Larry Bird found dead"
    Wow. Now that's news.

    P.S. I know lots of people with pit bulls and they've never killed anyone. They are nice dogs.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyFavMartin
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    That's why I switched to PD from the Indystar Pacers MB. The posters here tend to be more civil and more informed and more insightful. This is an overall generalization, so don't let this go to your head UB.

    Leave a comment:


  • Putnam
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    ^^^^ Yup.

    Originally posted by USF View Post
    Am I the only that hates reading the comments on Pacers articles? It's like a car wreck on the opposite side of the interstate, I don't want to look, but I always do.
    USF. Those things bugged the heck out of me until I gave up on them. I suggest you stay here and ignore the fatheads at RATS.


    It isn't just about the Pacers. There is a deeper societal problem. Since the advent of on-line forums and message boards, ordinary people have the opportunity to publicly express their opinions about issues. But many are incapable of doing this with coherence and civility.

    Rhetoric, elocution and discourse are not taught in most schools. Neither is logic. Consequently, many people don't know how to express a thought, and do not know how to hear the thoughts of others. They don't know how to make a point, and they don't know when a point has been firmly established by someone else. For just one common example, many people think that one exception disproves a point. If I say, "Pit Bulls are vicious," someone else will say, "You are wrong. I have a pit bull that is docile." And they will think that their anecdote disproves my data -- which clearly shows that pit bulls (or mixed breed dogs with some American Staffordshire Terrier in them) are responsible for dozens of fatal attacks per year -- far more than their share of all American dogs.

    Since the brief Roman republic and the Athenian democracy under Pericles, it didn't matter that people were, for the most part, idiots, because they seldom or never had opportunity to display their idiocy outside of their own household. The American constitution guaranteed freedom of expression, but it did not provide the means to more than half of a half of a half of one percent of the people in the country.

    Then, suddenly, a dozen or so years ago, the internet made us all bloggers and daily participants in debates that can be published (at no cost to us) before thousands or millions of readers. Suddenly, the idiots have a mighty voice.

    Pacers Digest is better than most other forums because the moderators enforce decent behavior and bleep profanity.

    We still have plenty of people who make statements contrary to fact. The one that bugs me the most lately is, "All the Pacers do is throw up 3 pointers." People keep saying that, even after games when 3 point attempts were only a third of the Pacers' total field goal attempts. One third is not, and never will be, all. But you've got a better change of calling someone out here and getting a fair reply than you do in other forums. And if not, IGNORE 'em.
    Last edited by Putnam; 03-05-2008, 12:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Goldfoot
    replied
    Re: Indy Star comments

    I peruse the Star boards and read the comments on certain articles. The ones with the loudest voices are usually the least informed. That goes for all topics. I mean have you tried to read the racing forums? I would venture to say at least 50% of the posts are trolls just making up stuff especially the open wheel subjects. I find it to be confusing actually. No links required and no accountability. I could start a thread over there that says "Larry Bird found dead" and it would be allowed. There would be a hundred pages of comments and many would really think he was dead. The comments on articles are even worse. Usually, it's just kids I think. There are alot of racial overtones going on over there too. All in all it's a crappy system.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X