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

JO on Sporting News Radio....

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

  • #46
    Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    Bingo, I don't get people being mad about this at all. He wants to win games and compete in the playoffs. If he was cool with rebuilding I would be far more worried. I would hope Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy would feel the same way.
    UH . . . he has to be on the floor to do that.

    Even if he is recovered from his injury and still here, I don't think we will even see 1/2 the player earning $19M.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

      I'll never understand the hate JO gets around Indy. The guy has been nothing but a class act for this organization and the city. Sure he has been injured, but I don't think there has ever been a question of JO's desire to play. He has admittedly and obviously played injured many times for this franchise and his contributions in the community are well documented. He has been very unlucky with his injuries, but you would think it was his own fault from the way people want to ship him off for cheese and crackers around here.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

        Originally posted by mb221 View Post
        I'll never understand the hate JO gets around Indy. The guy has been nothing but a class act for this organization and the city. Sure he has been injured, but I don't think there has ever been a question of JO's desire to play. He has admittedly and obviously played injured many times for this franchise and his contributions in the community are well documented. He has been very unlucky with his injuries, but you would think it was his own fault from the way people want to ship him off for cheese and crackers around here.
        It's a case of what have you done for me lately. I can see their point.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          Already two pages long, and we don't even know what he said yet?
          For real. Somebody pony up the $$$ for a free 14-day trial and let's get some facts in here.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

            I'll do the free trial and post a summary later tonight

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

              Who cares what he said? It's more than likely the typical "I can't take this team to the top" "I'm not happy here. I don't want to rebuild"

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                Originally posted by tora tora View Post
                Who cares what he said? It's more than likely the typical "I can't take this team to the top" "I'm not happy here. I don't want to rebuild"
                We have a 3-page discussion of comments that nobody has heard.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  We have a 3-page discussion of comments that nobody has heard.
                  details details
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                    Isn't JONeal just echoing what Bird thinks we should do?

                    Also....I forget....did TPTB say that we will rebuild?

                    or

                    Did they just say that we will just get players that we will be proud about ( which doesn't necessarily mean rebuild )?
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Also....I forget....did TPTB say that we will rebuild?

                      or

                      Did they just say that we will just get players that we will be proud about ( which doesn't necessarily mean rebuild )?
                      It necessarily does.

                      It can be a quick rebuild, but this team needs rebuilding.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        Already two pages long, and we don't even know what he said yet?
                        Friday, May 30, 2008 11:40 am EDT
                        Jermaine O'Neal sees himself being traded

                        By J.E. Skeets



                        Pacers center Jermaine O'Neal was a guest on The Monty Show on Sporting News Radio yesterday. It's an excellent interview, most notably for JO's remarks on where he sees himself in the Pacers' immediate future. The ($20 million) money quote:

                        "I really believe if it comes down to them totally rebuilding, I believe that they will move me. That's pretty much the consensus thought I got from the ownership and management before I left Indianapolis. I don't think it's going to come down to a situation where we got to go back and forth, back and forth for me to be moved on, because they've just totally re-hauled the team. I think if they're going to re-haul the team, then they will move me, and move me to another team that has a chance of winning a championship."

                        Not the complete interview, but that's it in a nutshell. It's not JO necessarily wanting to be moved, but him stating that if mgmt decided to do a complete rebuild that in his opinion they'd try to trade him.
                        Last edited by NuffSaid; 05-30-2008, 09:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                          Okay, I just listened to the interview and wanted to give a summary:

                          -- JO has spent the past few weeks in Vegas working out at Joe Abunassar's academy. (For those who aren't familiar, Joe is an IU grad who operated a camp in Bloomington and now has locations in Bradenton, Florida as well as in Las Vegas. A lot of NBA players work out with him during the off-season and a lot of NBA prospects work out with him before the NBA draft as well. I believe that Tinsley, Al Harrington and Ike Diogu (this summer) have all worked out with him in the past few years)

                          -- The host talked about Jermain'e Nike shoes and JO mentioned he has 200 pairs of his signature shoes and that Nike takes care of him and his son

                          -- The host suggested that purple would look good on his shoe (ala LA Lakers) and Jermaine laughed

                          -- Jermaine talked about his injured knee and how he played through pain the past few years and came back too early and that he was not going to rush anything and was now healthy

                          -- Said he can't worry about things out of his control and is looking to be back to an All Star level and dominating this year

                          -- Mentioned his wife told him to get mentally healthy before he can become physically healthy and is looking to come back strong this season

                          -- The host talked about Dunleavy and Murphy saying that they were not guys who could win a championship

                          -- Jermaine then mentioned that if the Pacers do rebuild, he would prefer to go to a championship contender as he said he has 6-7 years left in the NBA --
                          --Host mentioned JO's contract being for 2 more years and that it may be difficult to move him and JO mentioned he has "2 big years ahead of me" and that he is still under contract with the Pacers for 2 years (i.e. he's not opting out) and not a free agent

                          -- Jermaine talked about his loyalty to Indianapolis and the Simon brothers as they made a huge gamble in trading for him from Portland and allowed him to make his name known in the NBA. Mentioned that the Simons had done a lot for him and that he didn't want to do anything to tarnish his image like other players had before they left a team

                          -- The host mentioned that Walsh was now gone and Bird was under fire and JO responded that he and Donnie had a good relationship and that he and Bird "had not had the greatest relationship"

                          -- Mentioned that the Simons knew where he was coming from in wanting to play for a contender and a rin and that this was a business and he understood that and could only control the basketball portion

                          -- Jermaine feels the Pacers are rebuilding and he will probably be moved this summer. Mentioned that his agent has been in talks with the Pacers and that he spoke with Bird and the Simons after the season and that they would talk again after the draft and mentioned Herb told him that if he is moved, they would try and trade him to a championship contender

                          Overall, a rather interesting interview. JO really sounds like he is done in Indy. He is obviously not opting out and didn't demand a trade publicly (although it sounds like he demaned one privately), but would prefer a trade as he feels the Pacers are indeed rebuilding. The host didn't seem to care for the Pacers whatsoever as he trashed Dunleavy, Murphy and Bird. Somewhat interesting to hear him mention his relationship with Bird as not being strong. But he praised the Simons and Indy and mentioned that he has a lot of support from Pacer fans and the city and does not want to upset them as a lot of athletes tarnish their image before they leave a city.

                          Any thoughts? What "championship contender" might be interested in JO's services and contract?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                            Friday, May 30, 2008 11:40 am EDT
                            Jermaine O'Neal sees himself being traded

                            By J.E. Skeets



                            Pacers center Jermaine O'Neal was a guest on The Monty Show on Sporting News Radio yesterday. It's an excellent interview, most notably for JO's remarks on where he sees himself in the Pacers' immediate future. The ($20 million) money quote:

                            "I really believe if it comes down to them totally rebuilding, I believe that they will move me. That's pretty much the consensus thought I got from the ownership and management before I left Indianapolis. I don't think it's going to come down to a situation where we got to go back and forth, back and forth for me to be moved on, because they've just totally re-hauled the team. I think if they're going to re-haul the team, then they will move me, and move me to another team that has a chance of winning a championship."

                            Not the complete interview, but that's it in a nutshell. It's not JO necessarily wanting to be moved, but him stating that if mgmt decided to do a complete rebuild that in his opinion they'd try to trade him.
                            Ummm...duh...isn't it basically a Mr. Obvious quote to say that if they really rebuild, they'll move JO? I mean isn't trading JO the basic definition of rebuilding the Pacers?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                              Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
                              Any thoughts? What "championship contender" might be interested in JO's services and contract?
                              Championship contenders over the next few years

                              1. Lakers-They don't want Jermaine or they would have given up on Bynum, Besides they don't need him with Pau around anyway.
                              2. Celtics-The C's only have room for one PF who talks a big game and fails to come through in the clutch, and at least the one they have plays.
                              3. Hornets - Not likely. In order to get Jermaine, I'm sure the P's would insist on Chandler and I don't think that's gonna happen.
                              4. Pistons - I just threw up in my mouth a little.
                              5. Jazz - I can't think of anything they'd be willing to part with. AK and Okur maybe but it would take WAY more to match JO's salary.
                              6. Cavs - Good fit for JO but they'd try to dump Big Z on us. No thanks.
                              7. Spurs - I can't come up with any realistic scenarios. He'd immediately be the highest paid player on their team and most of them have 3 or more rings. Something doesn't seem right about that.

                              Nothing stands out. Who are the other contenders or close to contending. Orlando is pretty close. Portland will be tough to deal with soon.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: JO on Sporting News Radio....

                                Originally posted by travmil View Post
                                5. Jazz - I can't think of anything they'd be willing to part with. AK and Okur maybe but it would take WAY more to match JO's salary.
                                I don't think Utah would send them to us, but AK and Okur are scheduled to make a combined $24.1mm next year vs. JO's $21.4mm, which works under cap rules...(actually increasing our payroll).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X