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

Bird Press Conference

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

  • #31
    Re: Bird Press Conference

    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
    I'm ready for changes in the roster to be made. However, I think it is classless, in a steak served on paper plates way, for management trash players in the press. It's not professional and serves no constructive purpose.
    Initially there was no trashing at all. Players immaturity persisted. I don't have a problem with being "open" about a player. Maybe calling them out will make them grow up a little. Besides, other than maybe Artest, who has done more to trash this franchise than Tinsley. Williams was becoming a tiny-Tin. And for the record, JO's mouth hasn't exactly helped this organization.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Bird Press Conference

      Originally posted by carpediem024 View Post
      Well the Lakers were actually thinking about moving down a few spots in the draft just to make sure they get George Hill... They were really impressed by him and knows the triangle offense. So surely he won't be available in the second round.

      The Lakers don't have a 1st, but was referring to moving down in the 2nd to get Hill. Hill won't go in the 1st round, but could go early in the 2nd. The Lakers want to trade down into the top of the 2nd to make sure they get Hill.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Bird Press Conference

        I watched the video before commenting more. I didn't think that Larry was too bad actually. I'm not bothered by saying Williams is on thin ice. I'm not worried about about trade value.

        I think Larry should have skipped the joke about a PG being on sale. (The other comments about Tins came from the press really.) This is my reasoning. Just like any severance of a relationship it always goes smoother if you just shake hands and wish them well. Making jabs may add to the price of a buy out. It may start yet more focus on things which have nothing to do with basketball creating more gossip and distractions and damaging reputations (I'm not talking about Tins rep).

        It might not do any of these things but why risk it aside from feeling good about saying it. That is very short term.

        Also giving the public assurance on where the Pacers stand on Tins isn't valid. It is to a point where they just need to unload him.
        "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


        • #34
          Re: Bird Press Conference

          Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
          I watched the video before commenting more. I didn't think that Larry was too bad actually. I'm not bothered by saying Williams is on thin ice. I'm not worried about about trade value.

          I think Larry should have skipped the joke about a PG being on sale. (The other comments about Tins came from the press really.) This is my reasoning. Just like any severance of a relationship it always goes smoother if you just shake hands and wish them well. Making jabs may add to the price of a buy out. It may start yet more focus on things which have nothing to do with basketball creating more gossip and distractions and damaging reputations (I'm not talking about Tins rep).

          It might not do any of these things but why risk it aside from feeling good about saying it. That is very short term.

          Also giving the public assurance on where the Pacers stand on Tins isn't valid. It is to a point where they just need to unload him.

          That's a fair position.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Bird Press Conference

            we should be going after the best talent, NOT who we think can help us most NEXT YEAR. that's a very dumb mindset imo.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Bird Press Conference

              Originally posted by iPACER View Post
              I'm sure he already did this.

              More than once.
              Yep.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Bird Press Conference

                Let me add like Arcadian, I'm not currently in a spot to see the video and how it comes off. I'm going by interpretations and the general idea of doing this stuff. I hate when Larry Brown pulls this crap too for the record.

                Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                I'm sure he already did this.

                More than once.


                This is a reminder that Bird and the Pacer fans have memories and they're either on the first plane out of town or on standby.
                I'm not against these factors as a reason to move them, but this is like firing a guy and on his way out the boss tells everyone what a lazy jerk the guy was. That's just not how you handle it. The boss doesn't even go around telling the other workers that "one more thing and he's fired", at least not a good boss.

                He goes, you feel strong in your reasons since you were more than fair to him, and you move on. If he wants to continue to be a jerk that's his issue unless it literally intrudes on the company's business. Otherwise it should be "whatever, we have our own house to look after".

                As for letting the fans know...um, maybe less "letting us know" and more "doing something about it" is in order there. Enough talk. Shut up and be professional and get your team cleaned up. Telling us a guy is on thin ice means nothing. It's words, words the player already heard and is nothing but lip service to the rest of us until there is action.

                And when that action comes which fans are going to say "what, they got rid of Tinsley!!!" We get it, Bird gets it and the players get it as much as they ever are going to or are willing to.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-24-2008, 01:12 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Bird Press Conference

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  And absolutely no credibility. Seriously, did you ever believe a word he said?
                  Totally. I just thought he was going for full tact and was leaving out all the negatives, hedging any criticism. So it was the truth, just cooled down.

                  And occassionally he would mention players efforts/games in the press. He was not very complimentary about Ron after one game I recall, and the next game Ron went off. Who knows if it was because of this or not. I just know it shouldn't have to come to that.

                  If a player is such a child that you have to say "that jerk sucks" in the press just to get him to play well, then my question is why is he even still on the team. STFU and move his butt, let someone else "get the most out of him" with whatever daycare antics it takes.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Bird Press Conference

                    The main pieces I got out of this press conference were....

                    -Bird said he would take the best player available at #11 regardless of position, he would LIKE to get a PG or a big man, but he said he WOULD take the best player available.

                    -When asked if he would take a player at #11 that hasn't been worked out by the Pacers, he said it depends on who it is.....adding that if it was Eric Gordon he would have to "take a hard look"

                    -Asked if the team has any "untouchable" players when it comes to trades. He said Danny and Mike played real well and it would be very hard to give them up.

                    -When asked about the possibility of getting another first round pick. Bird said he "thinks we could get one if we wanted it" and "if it is in the right area where we could get a good player, we will take it"

                    -Bird said he can't see Mayo, Bayless or WESTBROOK being there when we pick.

                    -When asked about if he thinks Augustin will be gone at 11 he got a little uncomfortable it seems to me. "I don't know" "If somebody in front of us really likes him they'll take him. But uh....we have a group of guys...uhh ...4 guys...that we think three of them....uhhh...really two of them we will have a chance at". Just seems to me when he got into the details he was being VERY careful with what he said.....smokescreen!!

                    -Bird said he wants a player who can contribute next year, not somebody he has to wait on.

                    -When asked about our PG situation if Augustin and Westbrook are both gone. He said he isn't worried because he has other ways to get point guards.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Bird Press Conference

                      When he said Williams was on thin ice he also said if he could get someone back for him he would probably do it.

                      I thought it was a good press conference.

                      Edit; Thanks for the link to the video Whtwudsay!
                      Last edited by Will Galen; 06-24-2008, 01:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Bird Press Conference

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Totally. I just thought he was going for full tact and was leaving out all the negatives, hedging any criticism. So it was the truth, just cooled down.

                        And occassionally he would mention players efforts/games in the press. He was not very complimentary about Ron after one game I recall, and the next game Ron went off. Who knows if it was because of this or not. I just know it shouldn't have to come to that.

                        If a player is such a child that you have to say "that jerk sucks" in the press just to get him to play well, then my question is why is he even still on the team. STFU and move his butt, let someone else "get the most out of him" with whatever daycare antics it takes.
                        OK..that's fair, but I don't think Bird is trying to motivate the player when he says the **** he says. I think he figures "we've talked about it, he knows how I feel, these guys know how I feel, so what difference does it make?"

                        That's not to say that he's right that it makes no difference, just to say that I just attribute it more to Bird's personal style (or lack thereof, if you wish) than to any particular motivating scheme or ploy.

                        I think somebody mentioned Larry Brown in this thread, and I think that is a different situation. I do believe that Brown is a manipulative *******...kind of like Tony Soprano's sister or mother in the Soprano's, or any overbearing mother. (I'm watching the Soprano's right now, so that's why it comes to mind.) I read a quote in a book called Basketball Short about Larry Brown that said "Larry Brown absolutely believes everything he says when he says it to you. It's just that he believes something else 5 minutes later." I forget who it was.

                        I think Bird just blunders along without a consistent sense of the nuances of the language. I guess, in the end, it may not make any difference, but...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Bird Press Conference

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Let me add like Arcadian, I'm not currently in a spot to see the video and how it comes off. I'm going by interpretations and the general idea of doing this stuff. I hate when Larry Brown pulls this crap too for the record.


                          I'm not against these factors as a reason to move them, but this is like firing a guy and on his way out the boss tells everyone what a lazy jerk the guy was. That's just not how you handle it. The boss doesn't even go around telling the other workers that "one more thing and he's fired", at least not a good boss.

                          He goes, you feel strong in your reasons since you were more than fair to him, and you move on. If he wants to continue to be a jerk that's his issue unless it literally intrudes on the company's business. Otherwise it should be "whatever, we have our own house to look after".

                          As for letting the fans know...um, maybe less "letting us know" and more "doing something about it" is in order there. Enough talk. Shut up and be professional and get your team cleaned up. Telling us a guy is on thin ice means nothing. It's words, words the player already heard and is nothing but lip service to the rest of us until there is action.

                          And when that action comes which fans are going to say "what, they got rid of Tinsley!!!" We get it, Bird gets it and the players get it as much as they ever are going to or are willing to.
                          The media is not used for communication between players and management, it's a direct voice to the fans. His comments were to let the fans know where they stood with certain players. I guarantee that Shawne and JT know exactly where they stand.
                          Turn out the lights, this party's over!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Bird Press Conference

                            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                            we should be going after the best talent, NOT who we think can help us most NEXT YEAR. that's a very dumb mindset imo.
                            Larry's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. One minute he'll say, "someone who can help immediately," the next "best player available."

                            Confused, or just keeping people guessing, we don't know, but either way I think anything could happen Thursday.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Bird Press Conference

                              If it's so easy to get a point guard, why haven't they been able to even get a good backup in this decade?
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Bird Press Conference

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Larry's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. One minute he'll say, "someone who can help immediately," the next "best player available."

                                Confused, or just keeping people guessing, we don't know, but either way I think anything could happen Thursday.
                                Why would "someone who can help immediately" and "best player available" be mutually exclusive? In fact, I tend to think of the BPA as being someone who will have a more immediate (or at least a sooner) impact rather than a project. Danny Granger comes to mind...definitely a BPA who was also one of the most NBA ready guys in the draft.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X