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

A series of questions....

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

  • #61
    Re: A series of questions....

    To echo, Goldfoot, Ph.D....The brawl in and of itself was fantastic.

    Had it been Bucks, Rockets or Knicks players throwing haymakers at Piston fans, there would have been no downside.

    Well, except for the fact that you sort of need a guy like Tru Warier involved. Okay...Had it Had it been Bucks, Rockets or Knicks players plus a back-from-retirement Anthony Mason throwing haymakers at Piston fans, there would have been no downside.
    Last edited by JayRedd; 07-16-2008, 02:38 PM.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: A series of questions....

      There's a HUGE difference between NBA men slugging it out on the court, resulting in small suspensions, and what happened that night, with players going after fans, and the consequences of that night. Huge, still-paying-for consequences.



      *edit* Looking back on what it did to our reputation, to our team, to our title hopes, etc. to call it awesome is offensive, to put it nicely.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: A series of questions....

        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
        To echo, Goldfoot, Ph.D....The brawl in and of itself was fantastic.

        Had it been Bucks, Rockets or Knicks players throwing haymakers at Piston fans, there would have been no downside.
        Always welcome to at least 1 comment from the peanut gallery.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: A series of questions....

          I think some people are pushing buttons, and some people are getting their buttons pushed.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: A series of questions....

            I prefer fights of the on-court variety. No fans involved.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: A series of questions....

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              I think some people are pushing buttons, and some people are getting their buttons pushed.
              Some people are supporting the brawl, what do you expect?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: A series of questions....

                Only one reasonable solution to this argument - AN ALL-OUT BRAWL!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: A series of questions....

                  Hicks, I was much more disturbed by the uncontrolled masses, especially at the tunnels.

                  Guys mix it up, even with a "fan" if that fan tries to interject himself into the situation by throwing, grabbing, or whatever.

                  As a kid one of my favorite moments was when the Rangers (or was it Islanders) jumped the glass in Boston (IIRC) when a fan took one of their sticks. The guy ended up upside down getting beat with his own shoe.

                  Even writing that I find it funny and just. I don't fully approve of violence as a solution, but I do acknowledge it.

                  Looking back at it I'd rather have Jack punching some beer throwing jerk in the face than shooting off a gun at 3 AM while a car races toward him.


                  Had those rowdy Pacers redeemed themselves by coming together as a team and winning big time, not only would we love them but so would the country. Double that if they had gone on to win the ECF in Detroit that next season.

                  That's what sports legends are made of.

                  Instead they mostly punked out and spun the whole thing into the gutter.


                  Just make sure to skip Batman. I hear there's simulated violence in it and no one likes to see the simulation of someone being hurt or killed.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: A series of questions....

                    I'm not supporting the brawl. I just refuse to act like I didn't find some pleasure in JO knocking the block off some a-hole in a $200 jersey with $15 dollar jeans who thought it was a good idea to step up on the behemoth that is Ron Artest.
                    I'm in these bands
                    The Humans
                    Dr. Goldfoot
                    The Bar Brawlers
                    ME

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: A series of questions....

                      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                      I'm not supporting the brawl. I just refuse to act like I didn't find some pleasure in JO knocking the block off some a-hole in a $200 jersey with $15 dollar jeans who thought it was a good idea to step up on the behemoth that is Ron Artest.
                      You are too supporting the brawl, you've said so in previous posts. Just the past few you are trying to recognize the fact that some of the punches and action were good.

                      NO.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: A series of questions....

                        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                        Some people are supporting the brawl, what do you expect?
                        Duke, Goldfoot has been around here and the Star a long time and he's one of the most reasonable posters I typically read.

                        What's happening is that people love to comfort themselves with a black and white painting of something which ignores the subtle and sometimes contradictory nature of things.

                        Unless WWF/E matches stopped outselling Pacers games in Conseco.


                        So first Goldfoot was somewhat satirical and then has gone on to point out some legit truth to the fact that to some degree that brawl could have been seen as an embarrassing but slightly comical situation. The media really fueled the outrage fire with their typical Walton-esque hyperbole.


                        Hicks - I 100% agree that given the tangent it sent the team off on it was a disaster, but I'm sure Peck will happily read me say that the fact is the brawl didn't really do that, it was the players themselves. They were always headed that direction it would seem.

                        Even in my slight defense of Jackson (simply as not that bad sometimes) I can still see and agree that the mix of players and attitudes clearly stunk and just got worse.


                        Hands up, who stopped rooting for Reggie after the Jordan face claw or the Lakers bench body slam or the night he was with Barkley and a fan got tossed threw a window.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-16-2008, 02:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: A series of questions....

                          The only funny part (and it was funny in a sick way) of the whole brawl was when Ben Wallace's brother started beating on Fred Jones.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: A series of questions....

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Duke, Goldfoot has been around here and the Star a long time and he's one of the most reasonable posters I typically read.

                            What's happening is that people love to comfort themselves with a black and white painting of something which ignores the subtle and sometimes contradictory nature of things.

                            Unless WWF/E matches stopped outselling Pacers games in Conseco.


                            So first Goldfoot was somewhat satirical and then has gone on to point out some legit truth to the fact that to some degree that brawl could have been seen as an embarrassing but slightly comical situation. The media really fueled the outrage fire with their typical Walton-esque hyperbole.


                            Hicks - I 100% agree that given the tangent it sent the team off on it was a disaster, but I'm sure Peck will happily read me say that the fact is the brawl didn't really do that, it was the players themselves. They were always headed that direction it would seem.

                            Even in my slight defense of Jackson (simply as not that bad sometimes) I can still see and agree that the mix of players and attitudes clearly stunk and just got worse.

                            In all due respect, I don't care how long he has been around here. The fact of the matter is that he is making the brawl look like this glorious event that should have been recognized for the best fighting that there has been televised in a long time.

                            In no way did the brawl have a positive outcome. For the fans, city, or the franchise.

                            A lot of the people here know that I am typically one who ignores the media when it comes to these things, but it wasn't a bar fight. This was at an event. The media's job is to engage the viewer/listener. Of course they are going to do everythin they can to attract ratings. I don't care about that. The fact of the matter is that it happened.

                            You can't speculate that the players were already on a downward spiral even without the brawl. That is what it is...speculation. "What if?" "Maybe?" You just can't say that.

                            No. I stand strong on this topic.
                            Last edited by duke dynamite; 07-16-2008, 02:59 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: A series of questions....

                              Seth wins the thread.

                              The brawl, or something like it, was inevitable for that team. After months of selfish play, in-fighting, general lunacy and finding themselves in bad situations, they reached thier actual potential. It just wasn't the on-court glory we all hoped for.

                              In fact, if anything it was better for the fans. Had Artest attempted to kill teammate - specfically Jermaine (which I do think is a reasonable expectation for Artest) behind-the-scenes, you'd have a lot of people playing the misunderstood-Artest card for even longer. Between the brawl and subsequent trade demand, it was clear to almost everyone that Artest was real problem (admittedly, he wasn't the only probem, just the most obvious one.)
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: A series of questions....

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                Seth wins the thread.

                                The brawl, or something like it, was inevitable for that team. After months of selfish play, in-fighting, general lunacy and finding themselves in bad situations, they reached thier actual potential. It just wasn't the on-court glory we all hoped for.
                                Months of selfish play? They weren't even a month into the season! How can that even be taken into account?

                                The previous season was a great season. We started off strong the brawl season minus some of Artest's antics. That isn't enough to say that the team was going down anyway. There isn't enough triggers there to say that they were a falling team from the get-go.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X