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

I have a serious question for PDers

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

  • #16
    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

    One thing that I think about is using these players sucsess as examples to young people. You can show them that if you are a good citizen and work hard you can acheive things, or you can show them that you can live however you want and as long as you have talent you will still win and be rich.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

      In theory I don't care about character. All winning teams have had some bad apples, hell, even MJ was far from really clean and Reggie as well.

      But have a team with a lack of good character bit us in the *** four years ago and has derailed this franchise. So I don't blame the people who want milkdrinkers. And hell, why can't we have a winning team full of pretty good citizens. Look what Portland has done with their franchise. They'll be contending for the title in 2-3 years and be doing so for maybe the next 6 or 7 years at least. That's what I would prefer.
      Last edited by idioteque; 05-11-2008, 10:49 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
        The goal is to win consistently, with the corollary here being that you aren't going to win consistently with a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases. Why is the choice between rooting for idiots and winning and rooting for "milk-drinkers" and losing when this isn't really the case?
        There are plenty of teams that have won with players that many fans seem to consider "idiots/criminals/nutcases". SJax and Rasheed come to mind. If having "milk drinkers" is really the key to winning then why has the team gotten worse the more of them we add? Why have the ultimate "milk drinkers", Dun and Troy, never sniffed the playoffs? Surely with those two, Travis, and Danny we should have enough to get to the playoffs in the weak east. Or is the truth simply that talent is more important?

        I keep hearing how this team was destroyed by "thugs". I don't believe that. This team was destroyed by injuries and poor managment. Injuries that have kept key talent off the floor and poor managment reactions to the few real issues the team has had - namely Ron Artest. Without injuries a core of JO, DG, Sjax, JT, and Foster would still be a contender in the east. Without poor managment the teams future would be much brighter than it is now. IMO, fans have latched on to the off court stuff primarily because the on floor product is poor. Let's see how many fans turn in their Colts tickets after KK's run in, the Harrison shooting, and the signing of Rhodes.

        The truth is that the key to building a team is balance and on court chemistry. Meaning that you can certainly win with players that you wouldn't want to watch your kids. IMO, you have to look past the headlines and figure out who causes true on court issues that restrict winning. I want no part of Ricky Davis, Stephon Marbury, or Zack Randolph, but I'd take SJax or Rasheed Wallace in a heart beat. I just hope TPTB understand the difference, because it doesn't appear many fans do.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

          Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
          There are plenty of teams that have won with players that many fans seem to consider "idiots/criminals/nutcases". SJax and Rasheed come to mind. If having "milk drinkers" is really the key to winning then why has the team gotten worse the more of them we add? Why have the ultimate "milk drinkers", Dun and Troy, never sniffed the playoffs? Surely with those two, Travis, and Danny we should have enough to get to the playoffs in the weak east. Or is the truth simply that talent is more important?
          Yeah, but there's almost always a core group of players with an actual head on their shoulders to keep that one troublemaker in line. I'm not saying that having a team full of "milk-drinkers" is the key to winning, but that having a team full of idiots/criminals/nutcases is pretty obviously not. And that's what the question was.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

            Really? This hasn't been discussed?

            Regardless, a team full of dysfunctional players won't win you a championship.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

              Originally posted by Robertmto View Post

              Would you rather have a team full of "thugs" (smh) that wins their games, plays defense, makes it to the playoffs, and actually has a legitimate shot at doing something in the playoffs.

              Or would you rather have a team full of players with no "off the court issues" that can't do a damn thing on the court. (sorry 07-08 Pacers)
              These are just two possible scenarios. Why are thugs winners and no OTCI are losers? How about the other two?
              3. Thugs that won't win anything. We've approached this already. This is more likely than thugs who win IMO.
              4. No OTCI who are winners. But this cannot be achieved until we've cleared our roster of thugs or at least have our thugs in check.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                well if u ask me, the current team has no chance to do anything
                O RLY?

                We've also discussed this topic many times post-brawl.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                  Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                  well if u ask me, the current team has no chance to do anything
                  Unfortunately, you didn't answer my question. If the milk drinkers can continue to improve over time and slowly build confidence, cchemistry and consistency and become competitive.... Then I will take the milk drinkers. But if you are saying that the only team that will ever win us a championship is the "bad apples" and that the "milk drinkers" will never improve nor get past the first round, then I ( obviously ) choose the "bad apples".

                  But assuming that the "milk drinkers" can improve and slowly build the championship level team over time, then I choose the "milk drinkers". I want a team that I can be proud of, not the laughingstock of the league. If it means being patient and building the team the right way, then so be it.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                    I had no idea that DeShawn Stevenson was a sex offender. Or at least arrested for it.

                    NBA is not for the faint of heart.

                    Since when did Bird say that there is a no tolerance policy?

                    OT: The Chief smokes the peace pipe.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                      whatever it takes to win a championship within the rules for me

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                        Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                        After reading through thousands of posts on here after the brawl days I've noticed something, yet no one else had ever seem to bring it up (or at least have a serious debate about it)

                        Would you rather have a team full of "thugs" (smh) that wins their games, plays defense, makes it to the playoffs, and actually has a legitimate shot at doing something in the playoffs.

                        Or would you rather have a team full of players with no "off the court issues" that can't do a damn thing on the court. (sorry 07-08 Pacers)

                        I've seen comments referring to not wanting Melo because of his "rep", I've seen people swear up and down that trading SJax was a GOOD thing for this team WHEN IT COMES TO A BASKETBALL STANDPOINT. I've seen people say don;t trade for Marcus Williams because of his "character", I've seen people say trade Quisy and Shawne because of their "character". I've seen people saying don;t draft Mayo because of his "character" (although i wouldn't want him because he's horrid at basketball ) And of course there is the Ron Ron thing.

                        So to those whom it may concern: is PR really that important to YOU, that you are willing to go through multiple losing seasons just so you can say "well at least we're squeaky clean!"
                        Let's get the obvious out of the way first.

                        Both are extremes, and neither is ideal. What you want of course is a good-character team that wins big.

                        Now, if I view the question as "forced to choose between extremes", depending on the definition of "thugs", I take the character team.

                        If by "thugs" we mean they smoke pot or something the same or "lighter", then I take that team that wins.

                        If by "thugs" we mean they are involved in shootings, other violence, heavier drugs, or heinous crimes, then I don't accept that.

                        If by "thugs" we're talking questionable behavior during a game or during practice or during any other team-related event, such as Ron Artest actions (breaking things, going after fans, flipping off crowds, getting suspended because he keeps flagrant fouling in stupid/unnecessary ways, faking injuries to pout, acting like a jackass showoff by flexing in front of the opponent's bench), then I don't accept that.

                        If by "thugs" we're talking questionable behavior during a game or during practice or during any other team-related event, such as Stephen Jackson actions (cussing/yelling at the officials too much/often, cussing/yelling at the coach) then I'm more on the fence. I was ready to see him go when he did because other things had lowered my tolerance for "nonsense", but if that was the only or the worst thing happening over a stretch of seasons, I might be willing to put up with it in small doses. Maybe. I still wouldn't be happy.

                        Ultimately, I think any team is going to have SOME baggage, but I think you want that to come from anyone OTHER than your best player(s) so that it's more of a side-show, easier to get rid of, and usually less distracting to everyone (the team and the fanbase). You also want anything that happens to be the exception, not the standard, and to not cross your personal "line in the sand" in terms of tolerance. I think the majority of honest fans will put up with "some" things to a point if the team is doing well. When things are not going well, the tolerance level drops.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                          I didn't read the whole thread... so forgive me if I am reiterating stuff already said but...

                          -I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive
                          -I prefer to root for a team that I can get behind on a personal level


                          Who are the most successful sports franchises of the last 10 years? Oh yeah, you mean the San Antonio Spurs? The Colts? The Patriots? (prior to last year)I rest my case... Ideally you want good character guys who besides just pure basketball talent are great TEAMMATES and UNSELFISH. That is a winning formula right there.

                          I would take our 90s pacers sqaud who never won it all over any other team. I loved that team. Of course the ultimate goal is a championship, but I would not feel very good about getting their with a team full of ****heads.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                            I'm a little disturbed by the mentally some seem to carry.

                            It that appears to say, "Winning is more important than whether or not you are, or try to be, a good person".

                            Should I then be lead to believe that, as an elementary teacher, that is the message my kids should be taught? That winning means you can do whatever you want as long as it's not "the worst" of bad things?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                              If Charles Manson could shoot 45% from three, I'd want him on the Pacers.

                              These people aren't my role models. In fact, about 33% of the League seems to be douchebags I wouldn't want to hang out with.

                              They are just very good at my favorite sport. That's my only qualification for wanting them in blue and gold.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                If Charles Manson could shoot 45% from three, I'd want him on the Pacers.

                                These people aren't my role models. In fact, about 33% of the League seems to be douchebags I wouldn't want to hang out with.

                                They are just very good at my favorite sport. That's my only qualification for wanting them in blue and gold.
                                Which is to say that winning is all that matters, correct? That appears to be enough for you, but it's certainly not for me. I could not disagree with you more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X