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

Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

    So this is off-topic but I was at a "religious" camp last week and we were taking a picture. The photographer was standing on a ladder trying to get 150 people clearly into the picture. Everything was fine until he called a counselor coloured. He laughed it off but I have noticed that NE Indiana it seems it is accepted by some blacks. I have a freshman guy at work where he calls himself coloured. My wife had students say black and then change quickly to coloured, thinking that black was racist. All I am saying is for some reason some people think coloured is the correct word to describe fellow humans who were not from native America, Europe, Asia, or any other continent but Africa.


    Delete this if you need to. Oh yeah and the Simmons are not racists. Bird is not a racist. Zeke was not racist. And Magic is not racist. You want to know racists go to Elwood with a non-Caucasian.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

      I just don't see it myself. I think we are looking for good players and good community members at the same time.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

        Originally posted by Indy View Post
        I believe that most people in this state wouldn't care if our players are purple with green polka dots on their skin if they were winning basketball games.

        Oh I do, those purple people with green polka dots are the worst if they were green people with purple polka dots maybe...but come on..the line has to be drawn somewhere...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          well, if the lack of blacks in baseball, hockey, golf, and motor sports needs to be addressed, then so does the lack of white americans in the nba
          I think this should be nominated for post of the year.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

            Originally posted by pacers31tc View Post
            Let's be honest here...

            Let's say 0% of the people who have posted in this thread are "racist" (aka "think Bird has targeted acquiring white players b/c of any perceived decrease in off-court problems, more character, etc.)

            While it's unsafe to make an assumption that white players in general possess better character or less off-court problems, there are hundreds of thousands of white people (think rural Indiana, many old white guys, and other groups) who have fallen off b/c of the Pacers off-court problems.

            All I'm saying is there are certain groups who will always think white people/players are better as far as character, etc. And I don't think there is any doubt that the Jack/Al trade for Murph/Dun was an attempt to bring in perceived character in exchange for Jack's off-court issues.

            IMHO, some people will never get over this issue, b/c of the way they grew up, etc. We all know those people who have an old white grandfather who is a democrat but would die before voting for Obama.

            That's all I've got...
            I hate to say it but as a person that lives in the state and has traveled all over it, this is sadly true. And it's not limited to "old", it's still being passed on. I had a stomach turning discussion with a college degreed guy of about 35 years old on the subject of Obama and his terrorist agenda. I won't even get into the off hand racist comments I have to overlook in a lot of circles (where fighting about it gains you nothing). If it's someone that matters to me I'll say something so they know I don't appreciate it.

            The city/state is frustrating, and at times it makes me want to move back out. But then by staying I figure that's one more person not like this that lives here.


            But I don't think the Pacers are targeting skin color as a goal in the least. Why? Well let's see.

            Rush, Hibbert, Jack, and Ford are 4 of the 5 biggest off season acquisitions. When Brad Miller couldn't be reasonably resigned (and now we wonder about their views of his off court issues) they let him go.

            They made one bad trade, the GS trade, and that was a financial mistake mostly. It happened to involve 2 black players swapped for 2 white players mostly, though a white player (Saras) did go out in exchange for 2 black players as well (Ike, McLeod).

            Foster was a great draft pick. Ball Kid was a solid signing for need and price. What else is there? I don't see a white agenda in total. Certainly the "racist" fans didn't pour back into the arena to see Dun/Troy. In fact it was more empty than ever thanks to all the losing.

            I'd bet that a lot of the "problem" citizens of the state weren't involved with the Pacers fanbase in the first place. The people they lost aren't these type of people, they are just people either frustrated by the incidents or frustrated by the losing/crap basketball.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

              Originally posted by intridcold View Post
              So this is off-topic but I was at a "religious" camp last week and we were taking a picture. The photographer was standing on a ladder trying to get 150 people clearly into the picture. Everything was fine until he called a counselor coloured. He laughed it off but I have noticed that NE Indiana it seems it is accepted by some blacks. I have a freshman guy at work where he calls himself coloured. My wife had students say black and then change quickly to coloured, thinking that black was racist. All I am saying is for some reason some people think coloured is the correct word to describe fellow humans who were not from native America, Europe, Asia, or any other continent but Africa.


              Delete this if you need to. Oh yeah and the Simmons are not racists. Bird is not a racist. Zeke was not racist. And Magic is not racist. You want to know racists go to Elwood with a non-Caucasian.

              quickly here..I'm from Fort Wayne (NE Indiana), and "black" and there is no time that I consider being labeled as "colored" acceptable. I've been refered to it a few times, but it is usually by someone in their 50's or older. In all of my social circles, being refered to as colored is pretty close to being labeled "spook", darky, or any other derogitive slur just short of ni**er.

              Now with that said... Being refered to as "colored" doesn't bother me to the point where I'm going to get terribly upset, but I could see where someone would. Personally, I'd just tell someone not to refer to me as "colored" and go from there. Usually, that is good enough to solve any problem.

              As far as your wife's student, he was better off staying with the "black" reference, then the colored reference.
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                I hate to say it but as a person that lives in the state and has traveled all over it, this is sadly true. And it's not limited to "old", it's still being passed on. I had a stomach turning discussion with a college degreed guy of about 35 years old on the subject of Obama and his terrorist agenda. I won't even get into the off hand racist comments I have to overlook in a lot of circles (where fighting about it gains you nothing). If it's someone that matters to me I'll say something so they know I don't appreciate it.

                The city/state is frustrating, and at times it makes me want to move back out. But then by staying I figure that's one more person not like this that lives here.


                But I don't think the Pacers are targeting skin color as a goal in the least. Why? Well let's see.

                Rush, Hibbert, Jack, and Ford are 4 of the 5 biggest off season acquisitions. When Brad Miller couldn't be reasonably resigned (and now we wonder about their views of his off court issues) they let him go.

                They made one bad trade, the GS trade, and that was a financial mistake mostly. It happened to involve 2 black players swapped for 2 white players mostly, though a white player (Saras) did go out in exchange for 2 black players as well (Ike, McLeod).

                Foster was a great draft pick. Ball Kid was a solid signing for need and price. What else is there? I don't see a white agenda in total. Certainly the "racist" fans didn't pour back into the arena to see Dun/Troy. In fact it was more empty than ever thanks to all the losing.

                I'd bet that a lot of the "problem" citizens of the state weren't involved with the Pacers fanbase in the first place. The people they lost aren't these type of people, they are just people either frustrated by the incidents or frustrated by the losing/crap basketball.
                I agree that most of rural Indiana (I'm talking to YOU Martinsville) is still way behind the times and some people in the city still have their issues as well, but like you I don't believe the Pacers are motivated by it.


                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                  quickly here..I'm from Fort Wayne (NE Indiana), and "black" and there is no time that I consider being labeled as "colored" acceptable. I've been refered to it a few times, but it is usually by someone in their 50's or older. In all of my social circles, being refered to as colored is pretty close to being labeled "spook", darky, or any other derogitive slur just short of ni**er.

                  Now with that said... Being refered to as "colored" doesn't bother me to the point where I'm going to get terribly upset, but I could see where someone would. Personally, I'd just tell someone not to refer to me as "colored" and go from there. Usually, that is good enough to solve any problem.

                  As far as your wife's student, he was better off staying with the "black" reference, then the colored reference.
                  I wonder if the confusion was over the phrase "person of color", which in some areas has gained acceptance as a term to refer to anyone non-Caucasian.

                  It also hasn't been very long since Jesse Jackson and others raised some fuss over no longer using "black" or "Afro-American" in favor of "African-American".

                  From a person of non-color perspective, it is easy to get confused and wonder what you are supposed to do.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                    As for Larry Bird,

                    We are talking about a guy that would step on his own mother to WIN, so I don't believe for a second that he would let that goal be distracted by the race of the players he wants on the team.
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                      KStat-

                      To quote the late, great Johhny Carson, no, 'I did not know that'.

                      But, aside from the 1980 Olympics experience, I'm completely
                      uninterested and clueless when it comes to hockey.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I wonder if the confusion was over the phrase "person of color", which in some areas has gained acceptance as a term to refer to anyone non-Caucasian.

                        It also hasn't been very long since Jesse Jackson and others raised some fuss over no longer using "black" or "Afro-American" in favor of "African-American".

                        From a person of non-color perspective, it is easy to get confused and wonder what you are supposed to do.
                        "Person of color" or "man of color" is a phrase that doesn't draw the same ire as "those coloreds". As for Jesse Jackson, I could give a **** about what he wants, the man is a clown that figures less then creative ways to keep himself in the news. I get so tired of his... nevermind! Unlike J. Jackson, I can only speak for myself and have never refered to my race other then "black".

                        I am a man of color and I will agree with you on the fact that it is easy to get confused. That is why I don't fuc* with it more then saying I'm black, or best yet....

                        I'm just american!!
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                          "Person of color" or "man of color" is a phrase that doesn't draw the same ire as "those coloreds".
                          I meant that the teacher may have heard someone say "person of color" and elided it to "colored" because that was a phrase heard more often in the past.

                          And there is no question based on your previous services to the Digest that you are The Man.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I meant that the teacher may have heard someone say "person of color" and elided it to "colored" because that was a phrase heard more often in the past.

                            And there is no question based on your previous services to the Digest that you are The Man.

                            No kidding! He's the guy who posted to the counting thread while sitting in the dentist's chair.

                            58
                            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


                            • #59
                              Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                              I am shocked every time someone refers to any people as colored. I was raised better than that.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Is the increasing whiteness of the Pacers an intentional reaction to the team's tarnished image?

                                Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                                I am shocked every time someone refers to any people as colored. I was raised better than that.

                                That's not reasonable, I-co. "Colored" was the polite word to use up through the mid-70s. Many well-raised and courteous people still use that word from force of habit.

                                I don't mean to criticize you. You are doing your best to avoid giving offense, which is the right thing to do. But you aren't "better" just because you grew up while the phrase was out of fashion.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X