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

  • #61
    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
    interested in the diehards? there's diehard sports fans in the city of indianapolis? hmm...news to me...
    You do know where you are posting, right?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      Seth has got an early competitor for "most offensive" - watch out Nap!
      At first I was going to say that I can't compete with that. But then I thought "sack up chump, you've got way worse stuff than that in the bag, you're an A-class d***head".* Plus it's still only May, gotta save the good stuff for the home stretch.




      PS - thugs please


      PSS - not thugs per se, but let's say that I don't think the line between Reggie or Dale's character and Jackson and JO's is all that defined. I saw a crowd of fans go nuts when Dale came in and laid the smackdown foul on whichever Piston it was in his first game, or when Det mixed it up with Ewing. Fans LOVE the tough guys and even post-brawl plenty of Pacers fans were behind those guys sticking up for themselves against an out-of-control mob of drunks (several of which had clearly worse criminal backgrounds than any Pacer player).




      * offending myself, that's gotta be worth something

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
        He may just be a tweener, but he's got that killer instinct you just can't teach.
        Come on, we all know Manson was the COACH, not the star player. Dude could get killer game out of a 5'4" hippie-freak, imagine the motivation he could get into Harrison's brain. He'd send him home with Magical Mystery Tour and Hulk would go 20-10 for 3 months straight and change his name to Blue Jay.

        Of course Tinsley would switch to saying "And one your mother should know." Mike would be Squeaky Clean Fromme, naturally. You don't want to know what Foster would paint on the walls of the opponent's locker room.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-12-2008, 11:51 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          You do know where you are posting, right?
          it was sarcasm...95% of "sports fans" in the indianapolis region are nothing but bandwagon fans. this is a bandwagon city and always will be...yes, the people who post on this board are "diehards"...

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

            Originally posted by Bridge View Post
            The problem right now is that we have a bunch of "thugs" who won't win anything, and can't get healthy enough to see the court.
            See, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. We color the whole bunch by the actions of a couple. We do not have a "BUNCH OF THUGS" on this team. We have a couple (who will be out of here at the first opportunity), as well as the injury prone (which I'm still trying to figure out how being injury prone makes one a thug). The definition in your post seems to fit one player, and that's Jamaal, and he hasn't played for a bulk of the season. The support still wasn't there for the "good guys" who busted their butts in his stead.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Harrison's brain.
              There is two words I didn't think I'd ever see in the same sentence.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                Originally posted by johnnybegood View Post
                See, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. We color the whole bunch by the actions of a couple. We do not have a "BUNCH OF THUGS" on this team. We have a couple (who will be out of here at the first opportunity), as well as the injury prone (which I'm still trying to figure out how being injury prone makes one a thug). The definition in your post seems to fit one player, and that's Jamaal, and he hasn't played for a bulk of the season. The support still wasn't there for the "good guys" who busted their butts in his stead.

                Aw come on, fellas!

                Exactly how many bananas are in a "bunch?" Can't say? That is because the number is imprecise.

                I think Bridge chose the word "bunch" in order to avoid setting a number or giving a list that would be disputed. Then johnnybegood comes back and insists it isn't "a bunch" but rather "a couple." That is also a vague term, but one that implies a deliberate low-ball figure, since "a couple" usually means two and the Pacers certainly have no fewer than 4 players with blots on their record.

                The point is this: yes, the whole team is tarred by the same brush. That is the way it is. That is the way the masses always perceive groups that are in disfavor. Try being Black or Hispanic for a while and see how fair and reasonable you are treated as an individual. Try being the only American in a muslim city at the start of the Iraq War, and see whether the typical muslim man on the street appreciates that George Bush didn't consult you.

                Yes, the whole Pacers team is tarred by the same brush. Until the whole roster is clean (whatever that means) and the team's reputation is changed (however long that takes), the label "thugs" is going to be applied to the Pacers by the general public. It is incorrect and unfair to judge Foster according to Tinsley's behavior, but that is how people usually do it. We've got to stop being so indignant. A lot of PD members like to say, "Screw the casual fan." But Herb Simon and Jim Morris cannot afford to say that. There aren't enough diehards to make the team profitable. They need the casual fan.
                Last edited by Putnam; 05-12-2008, 01:50 PM.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  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
                  that seems to be the main problem. The "city" said they would coem to more games if the thugs were gone.

                  However, the city also doesn't attend the games without thugs because the team loses.

                  Ultimate Catch-22?
                  STARBURY

                  08 and Beyond

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                    Originally posted by johnnybegood View Post
                    See, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves. We color the whole bunch by the actions of a couple. We do not have a "BUNCH OF THUGS" on this team. We have a couple (who will be out of here at the first opportunity), as well as the injury prone (which I'm still trying to figure out how being injury prone makes one a thug). The definition in your post seems to fit one player, and that's Jamaal, and he hasn't played for a bulk of the season. The support still wasn't there for the "good guys" who busted their butts in his stead.
                    i know there isn;t a "bunch of thugs" on this team. But there was on the team before this, which was probably 200% better
                    STARBURY

                    08 and Beyond

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      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
                      I can't believe that you posted this. Has someone kidnapped you and made you post this under duress. This post is very unBuck like.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Gold Club.
                        Are you really trying to compare a sex scandal and Tinsley's crew shooting up downtown?

                        Reggie may have been a jerk, but grabbing yourself and flopping aren't crimes last time I checked. I was a little young during the 90's so they might have changed the laws since then though, I really don't know.

                        You can paint Reggie as a jerk who rubbed opposing fans the wrong way until you go blue in the face, and it doesn't even come close to comparing to JO, Tinsley, Ron, or Sjax.

                        Tell me the last time Reggie was suspended for the remaining year, or for even 15 games? Tell me the last time Reggie was put in handcuffs, booked/fingerprinted, or had any type of charges brought against him.

                        When Reggie does anything close to the antics that the above players have done, then you can bring him into the discussion, but until then it's two completely different situations.

                        Being a jerk doesn't mean you've committed crimes while in a jersey, or at a club. Allegations that you had sex with strippers is such a horrible thing. What next? Did he rip the tag off of his mattress too?

                        EDIT: If you remember the Gold Club allegations, they said that the club owner paid his dancers to have sex with celebrities. So Reggie wasn't even accused of paying for it. Unless having sex with someone that you aren't married too is a crime, he didn't do anything illegal.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                          One thing I hate first of all is labeling these guys as thugs. They aren't thugs they are just young guys that grew up in bad neighborhoods. A lot of them don't know how to manage money and fame so it gets them in trouble. Also, I don't like how people look down on players that get caught with marijuana or smoke it. I mean come on. It is as common if not more than underage drinking. It is not that big of a crime. Also, supposedly, Michael Beasley smokes it almost everyday and says it makes him play better. I'm not saying it's ok to smoke and play, but ya get my point.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                            You can't look at this in a vaccuum.

                            The character issue is the VERY REASON we have a terrible team to this day. The off-color behaviors of our players DESTROYED OUR FRANCHISE.

                            I'm deeply offended at the suggestion that the better players in the league are trouble makers. That's a big heaping pile of BS right there.

                            I'm offended by the idea that good guys always finish last. That's another pile of horse crap.

                            Every team will have one or two players that get in trouble either in the press or with the law. It happens and it's part of the game.

                            But in the Pacers' situation, it was more than one or two.

                            And finally, if you think Jackson would have been capable of his numbers while getting booed by the home crowd, I hope to see you at a Poker table sometime soon. Daddy needs a new car.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Tinsley's crew shooting up downtown?
                              What's the latest with that, by the way? We had a ton of breathless commentary the morning of, and I haven't heard much since then. Regardless, the last I heard it was less "Tinsley's crew shooting up downtown" and more "Tinsley trying to avoid getting carjacked."

                              Reggie may have been a jerk, but grabbing yourself and flopping aren't crimes last time I checked.
                              Never said they were. I was just refuting the idea that Reggie was always classy.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: I have a serious question for PDers

                                Tinsley getting shot at is him shooting up the town on this message board, didn't you get the memo?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X