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

  • #46
    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

    I want to go back to the days when we had crotch grabbin, gum throwin, class acts who won on a consistent basis.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
      Sorry, BlueNGold...Reggie was seen as a giant punk until about 1998.
      Yes, he pushed the envelope on the court even as a young player. He also had a few scuffles on the court, but so has Larry Bird. Scuffles on the court are not why our Pacers had the rep. they did. The difference is, he kept almost all of it on the court rather on W. 38th street or in front of the Conrad. I also don't recall any fire arms or drugs involved.

      As for the choke sign, he already had enough "cred" by the time he gave the choke sign to pull it off. No player on this team has earned the right at this point. Even if they did do it, it would be a minor, minor issue in comparison to the saga.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

        Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
        I want to go back to the days when we had crotch grabbin, gum throwin, class acts who won on a consistent basis.
        Yes, that would be fine...although it might depend on whose crotch is getting grabbed. Also, I could go with more gum throwing and less grenade throwing...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

          I think San Antonio has done it the right way. I also have to think that Detroit doesn't seem to have many off court issues and plays ball the right way - five on five. Other organizations I got to give props to would be Utah and Houston. Orlando and NO are also coming along nice.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Yes, he pushed the envelope on the court even as a young player.
            Try 30. Reggie matured into being classy because he played longer than almost anybody in the league.

            The difference is, he kept almost all of it on the court rather on W. 38th street or in front of the Conrad. I also don't recall any fire arms or drugs involved.
            Gold Club.

            Reggie was a jerk all through his 20s. He flopped like crazy, talked smack to refs/fans/opposing players, didn't defend, didn't pass, etc.

            As for the choke sign, he already had enough "cred" by the time he gave the choke sign to pull it off. No player on this team has earned the right at this point.
            Jermaine has had more big games in the playoffs than Reggie had, at that point. Heck, TINSLEY has done as much as Reggie had when "the choke" went down.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Gold Club.

              Reggie was a jerk all through his 20s. He flopped like crazy, talked smack to refs/fans/opposing players, didn't defend, didn't pass, etc.

              Jermaine has had more big games in the playoffs than Reggie had, at that point. Heck, TINSLEY has done as much as Reggie had when "the choke" went down.
              Hey, sorry. I was a Pacer fan and liked Reggie at the time.

              BTW, if you want to suggest flopping = Fire arms and talking trash = taking drugs....not sure what to say.

              In any event, Tinsley doesn't even deserve an honorable mention in the regular season let alone the playoffs. Jermaine was a bust in the playoffs at this point as we look back and you can stick a fork in him now. Neither of those part-time players deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph with the great one....

              Edit: As for the Gold Club, no charges were even made against Miller. In fact, there is no proof at all Miller did anything wrong there. There were allegations by the mafia attempting to prime the pump for bribes....and nothing was proven in the case. No athletes were convicted, including Ewing. The mafia couldn't even tell the difference between Dale and Antonio Davis who filed a counter suit. There's quite a big difference between going to a strip club and being a John. Neither are what a milk drinker would do I suppose, but the latter requires quite a bit more proof before you tag someone with it.
              Last edited by BlueNGold; 05-11-2008, 10:58 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                Good post Robertmto. There's always a thin line of what people will accept on a winning team and what they will tolerate with a team that is losing.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                  Well yes I was looking at t as two extremes, and i'm surprised by the answers. I don;t see a fan doesn't want to win at any (barring extremes this time) cost
                  STARBURY

                  08 and Beyond

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                    Lord Helmet said it best in the Colts forum...if you are consistently contending (and won a championship a year back) then a lot more will be tolerated than if you are bottom feeding.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      Lord Helmet said it best in the Colts forum...if you are consistently contending (and won a championship a year back) then a lot more will be tolerated than if you are bottom feeding.
                      that does make sense. And it probably explains the common fans, but i am much more interested in the diehards
                      STARBURY

                      08 and Beyond

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                        interested in the diehards? there's diehard sports fans in the city of indianapolis? hmm...news to me...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                          I've read none of these posts, but I will. after I comment.

                          Guys who know how to play the right way. I say this every summer. Guys with high B ball IQ and instincts. Guys who make others around them better. Guys who sacrifice for the team.

                          I don't really care if what they do off the court. With that said, if you are constantly suspended or a distraction to the team for off court stuff that does effect what happens on the court.

                          I don't know these guys, I don't care what they do in there spare time, as long as they are in shape when its go time and have there mind right when they are at work.

                          Tinsley for example, he takes it too far with his 3 incidents off the court, but thats not just it. It's Phoenix, its the Non public suspensions, its the eating hot dogs from the vendors at the game his first year in the league and not being in shape. It's the pouting on the bench, on the court. And again its Phoenix.

                          Lamar Odom was Mic'd up yesterday and he has had a past with dope and has been called aloof and injury prone, but the dude was telling the players in the huddle to quit holding the ball on offense, move the ball, keep the ball moving. This guy gets it, or seems to, I wouldn't have guessed that he understood it so well, but I think now he might.

                          So no, I don't care for Paul Pierce giving the Bloods killer sign, but if he was a guy who makes others around him better and takes care of his business, I wouldn't really care.

                          I'm not saying to my kids, hey look I want you to look at Paul Pierce to see what a functional adult should be.

                          I liked George Gervin as a young kid. I didn't try to emulate him and grow up to be the person he was. (I really don't even know what kinda guy he was)

                          So do I want the group of guys I play with on Sundays to be Pro ball players, hell no. They all, mostly, understand the game, but you have to have talent and physical attributes as well.

                          It's like Boyle would say, you can't win in the NBA without talent. It sounds obvious, but its true.

                          I had thought that Chicago was doing it the right way. Get a bunch of big time college program- mature high IQ players like Ben Gordon, Kurt Henrich, Deng, Duhon, and Noah, but they were bad this year, so maybe that's not right.

                          I do really think that many of the guys the Pacers have now are those smart type players, but they don't have the talent.

                          I guess if you could mesh Atlanta and Indiana, you may have a contender.

                          I digress, but I guess my answer is I don't care what kind of off the court person they are as long as they aren't the kingpin of an interstate dog fighting ring and that anything they are into doesn't get them in a position where they effect the team, makes me no never mind.

                          For the record, Tinsley and S Jackson drove me crazy for the crap they do ON the court, I could care less that they have to go to court.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            I've read none of these posts, but I will. after I comment.

                            Guys who know how to play the right way. I say this every summer. Guys with high B ball IQ and instincts. Guys who make others around them better. Guys who sacrifice for the team.

                            I don't really care if what they do off the court. With that said, if you are constantly suspended or a distraction to the team for off court stuff that does effect what happens on the court.

                            I don't know these guys, I don't care what they do in there spare time, as long as they are in shape when its go time and have there mind right when they are at work.

                            Tinsley for example, he takes it too far with his 3 incidents off the court, but thats not just it. It's Phoenix, its the Non public suspensions, its the eating hot dogs from the vendors at the game his first year in the league and not being in shape. It's the pouting on the bench, on the court. And again its Phoenix.

                            Lamar Odom was Mic'd up yesterday and he has had a past with dope and has been called aloof and injury prone, but the dude was telling the players in the huddle to quit holding the ball on offense, move the ball, keep the ball moving. This guy gets it, or seems to, I wouldn't have guessed that he understood it so well, but I think now he might.

                            So no, I don't care for Paul Pierce giving the Bloods killer sign, but if he was a guy who makes others around him better and takes care of his business, I wouldn't really care.

                            I'm not saying to my kids, hey look I want you to look at Paul Pierce to see what a functional adult should be.

                            I liked George Gervin as a young kid. I didn't try to emulate him and grow up to be the person he was. (I really don't even know what kinda guy he was)

                            So do I want the group of guys I play with on Sundays to be Pro ball players, hell no. They all, mostly, understand the game, but you have to have talent and physical attributes as well.

                            It's like Boyle would say, you can't win in the NBA without talent. It sounds obvious, but its true.

                            I had thought that Chicago was doing it the right way. Get a bunch of big time college program- mature high IQ players like Ben Gordon, Kurt Henrich, Deng, Duhon, and Noah, but they were bad this year, so maybe that's not right.

                            I do really think that many of the guys the Pacers have now are those smart type players, but they don't have the talent.

                            I guess if you could mesh Atlanta and Indiana, you may have a contender.

                            I digress, but I guess my answer is I don't care what kind of off the court person they are as long as they aren't the kingpin of an interstate dog fighting ring and that anything they are into doesn't get them in a position where they effect the team, makes me no never mind.

                            For the record, Tinsley and S Jackson drove me crazy for the crap they do ON the court, I could care less that they have to go to court.

                            So, win at all costs is what you are saying? Or is it winning at half costs? Murder is not ok for your players, but wife beating is? NBA players are paid employees and as such should be held to the same standards as you and I are, by our employers. All off court incidents effect the team, whether they are big or small incidents.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                              Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                              So, win at all costs is what you are saying? Or is it winning at half costs? Murder is not ok for your players, but wife beating is? NBA players are paid employees and as such should be held to the same standards as you and I are, by our employers. All off court incidents effect the team, whether they are big or small incidents.
                              It's a good question. Does it effect the team then ya, I'm against it. Do I need my players to be pristine, nope, I don't care.

                              I could flip the question and say do all my players have to go to church and not drink, well no, what do I care.

                              All of the big off court infractions do effect the team and there do matter, but if a guy wants to go to a strip club or whatever, it doesn't matter to me, if it doesn't effect the team or his performance.

                              Now a shootout at a strip club and you're hit by a car is different.

                              Also, I don't WANT them to be wife beaters, but I'm not a person who believes these guys should be role models in any way. We ALL are against wife beating, its an extreme example.

                              I guess I'm usually conservative in how I approach things, but in this case I don't care that much.

                              I'd like every athelete to be Peyton Manning, but that isn't the case nor would I expect to be.

                              Lastly, I do think there is a diference between guys who make mistakes and between wife beating and going to a strip club, discreetly. For the record, I don't go to strip clubs, even if my wife WOULD approve of it, but if you want to go I don't think any less of you. It's a free country.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                                I'm late to this thread. I have only read the first post by mto

                                My first and immediate gut reaction is this - I can live with a team full of "thugs" but the city of Indianapolis cannot deal with that right now - the pacers reputation within the city is too low right now

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X