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

Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

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

  • #46
    Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
    You really didn't read anything I said earlier today, did you?
    I did, but the other poster made a pretty good point as well. I'm not putting this forum down, and I understand this rule, but deleting posts is going a bit too far, though I would understand if it was frequently the same poster doing it. I was pretty cranky when I posted those earlier and if I came off as an (censored) i'm sorry about that.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content


      I just enforce the rules...
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

        Originally posted by JGray View Post
        I did, but the other poster made a pretty good point as well. I'm not putting this forum down, and I understand this rule, but deleting posts is going a bit too far, though I would understand if it was frequently the same poster doing it. I was pretty cranky when I posted those earlier and if I came off as an (censored) i'm sorry about that.
        Well, you gotta do what you gotta do. Rules are rules, and you aren't being intentionally singled out, you just happened to have a brain fart and not do what was asked.

        When I first started posting, I linked another site (unintentional advertising) in my thread, and able was quick to delete it. I did plead my case to him, but it seemed fruitless at the time, and I gave up. You just have to be careful, and know what to do.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          Well, you gotta do what you gotta do. Rules are rules, and you aren't being intentionally singled out, you just happened to have a brain fart and not do what was asked.

          When I first started posting, I linked another site (unintentional advertising) in my thread, and able was quick to delete it. I did plead my case to him, but it seemed fruitless at the time, and I gave up. You just have to be careful, and know what to do.
          I never did anything, I haven't even offended this rule.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

            Originally posted by JGray View Post
            I never did anything, I haven't even offended this rule.
            I was making a relevant example.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

              I just enforce the rules...
              It's more like choreography, really.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                Also....Grammar and posting structure is huge. When I post from my touch, I notice less response.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  As a sidenote, I'm not sure why the admins allow people to post an article in its entirety.
                  I'm fine with our policy as stated (although I'd be more than willing to change if Wells or the Badger came on here and asked us to), but as a matter of personal whatever I usually try to post a catchy paragraph and make people follow the link to get the whole thing. Able's right that it's not legally required, but I consider it polite. I'd be happy (as would the IS, I imagine) if more people did it my way.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                    Which leads me to my next question, or first question really.......

                    If just posting a snip-it from an article, I know we need the link, but do we need the rest of the criteria, as if we were posting the entire article?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                      You could introduce the snippet as:

                      Mike Wells wrote in his article today:

                      blah blah blah.
                      And then include the link.

                      In fact, I think Anthem would tell you that's the proper writing style in the first place. Attribution is given, and therefore no problem.

                      Look, we don't need footnotes on here for every single source. We do need to treat the owners of the intellectual property with respect. These people create the articles, photos, and video that allow us to have this global forum about the team we love (or "used to love" )

                      I know the internet has changed a lot of peoples views on the ownership of creative content like news articles and music files. Stealing content is the 2000's equivalent of stealing cable television. But no matter the justification, that doesn't make it right. And to be clear, passing off another person's article as your own (by not giving proper credit) isn't just plagarism in your junior-level grammar class, if it is copyrighted (and they all are) it is also theft.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                        What Anthem and ChicagoJ are saying is sort of what I was talking about before.

                        Obviously, the effect that Pacers Digest has on the future of the Indianapolis Star is negligible. My offhand comment about reposting entire articles leading to the ouster of reporters and the like was intentionally melodramatic and silly.

                        But the cumulative effect of all message boards and forums reposting any and all written content in full on a whim will have an effect on all creators of written content, who are increasingly reliant on internet branding, web traffic and the online "extras" they provide (the polls, comment dialogues, photo galleries, etc, that while sometimes onerous and annoying, as Bball pointed out, also do often add to the story and the importance/prominence of the original creator).

                        By re-purposing the content down to simple text in a message board that encourages readers to never go to the original source, you are disallowing the creator of the content to display it in the manner originally intended and, ultimately, diluting the importance and relevance of those with the ability to create the content we desire for our personal information and discussions.

                        Of course, it's hard to care when its a global empire like ESPN or even a local institution like the Indy Star. And as ChicagoJ notes, the idea of ownership of this stuff has changed.

                        But, in concept, it's still borderline destructive at worst. And, at best, it's just sorta rude to the people whose job it is to create, design and display content that you clearly feel has enough value to be worth discussing.

                        Additionally, I also see arbitrary re-posting of a full article as a genuine disservice to PD readers. It's often lazy and an over-abundance of information needed to start a concentrated discussion.

                        When the only new point of discussion is two sentences in paragraph five of a normal post-game story, I'm not regularly gonna take the time to read the entire thing. The only place a full post-game recap is even relevant is in the post-game thread. If you want to start a new thread about a singular point raised within that post-game thread that isn't simply about the game that was just played, why not take the time to highlight just that singular point and display it in your original post? A lot of people aren't going to take the time to come up with anything interesting to say about something if they've already spent five minutes trying to figure out what you're talking about. And if you're not gonna take the time to start a focused thread about an interesting, refined topic, why should they?

                        For example, someone recently started a thread about a Bird comment that Dunleavy was "our best player" and only included that one relevant comment with a link to the full story.

                        To me, that method is not only the better practice (in regards to the original point of this post), but a better way to garner focused, pointed discussion on a new topic. Posting the whole article is going to get discussion of other, non-related aspects of the article (i.e., Troy Murphy's weight loss, which may have been included in paragraph nine) that is not only redundant, but disruptive to the fresh commentary on whether or not Dunleavy can still be considered our best player.

                        Or not. Who knows? As most of you know, I'm often dumb.
                        Last edited by JayRedd; 12-30-2008, 01:53 PM.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          Or not. Who knows? As most of you know, I'm often dumb.
                          You might be dumb, but I agree with you.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            What Anthem and ChicagoJ are saying is sort of what I was talking about before.

                            Obviously, the effect that Pacers Digest has on the future of the Indianapolis Star is negligible. My offhand comment about reposting entire articles leading to the ouster of reporters and the like was intentionally melodramatic and silly.

                            But the cumulative effect of all message boards and forums reposting any and all written content in full on a whim will have an effect on all creators of written content, who are increasingly reliant on internet branding, web traffic and the online "extras" they provide (the polls, comment dialogues, photo galleries, etc, that while sometimes onerous and annoying, as Bball pointed out, also do often add to the story and the importance/prominence of the original creator).

                            By re-purposing the content down to simple text in a message board that encourages readers to never go to the original source, you are disallowing the creator of the content to display it in the manner originally intended and, ultimately, diluting the importance and relevance of those with the ability to create the content we desire for our personal information and discussions.

                            Of course, it's hard to care when its a global empire like ESPN or even a local institution like the Indy Star. And as ChicagoJ notes, the idea of ownership of this stuff has changed.

                            But, in concept, it's still borderline destructive at worst. And, at best, it's just sorta rude to the people whose job it is to create, design and display content that you clearly feel has enough value to be worth discussing.

                            Additionally, I also see arbitrary re-posting of a full article as a genuine disservice to PD readers. It's often lazy and an over-abundance of information needed to start a concentrated discussion.

                            When the only new point of discussion is two sentences in paragraph five of a normal post-game story, I'm not regularly gonna take the time to read the entire thing. The only place a full post-game recap is even relevant is in the post-game thread. If you want to start a new thread about a singular point raised within that post-game thread that isn't simply about the game that was just played, why not take the time to highlight just that singular point and display it in your original post? A lot of people aren't going to take the time to come up with anything interesting to say about something if they've already spent five minutes trying to figure out what you're talking about. And if you're not gonna take the time to start a focused thread about an interesting, refined topic, why should they?

                            For example, someone recently started a thread about a Bird comment that Dunleavy was "our best player" and only included that one relevant comment with a link to the full story.

                            To me, that method is not only the better practice (in regards to the original point of this post), but a better way to garner focused, pointed discussion on a new topic. Posting the whole article is going to get discussion of other, non-related aspects of the article (i.e., Troy Murphy's weight loss, which may have been included in paragraph nine) that is not only redundant, but disruptive to the fresh commentary on whether or not Dunleavy can still be considered our best player.

                            Or not. Who knows? As most of you know, I'm often dumb.
                            Agreed.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              By re-purposing the content down to simple text in a message board that encourages readers to never go to the original source, you are disallowing the creator of the content to display it in the manner originally intended and, ultimately, diluting the importance and relevance of those with the ability to create the content we desire for our personal information and discussions.

                              ...

                              For example, someone recently started a thread about a Bird comment that Dunleavy was "our best player" and only included that one relevant comment with a link to the full story.

                              To me, that method is not only the better practice (in regards to the original point of this post), but a better way to garner focused, pointed discussion on a new topic. Posting the whole article is going to get discussion of other, non-related aspects of the article (i.e., Troy Murphy's weight loss, which may have been included in paragraph nine) that is not only redundant, but disruptive to the fresh commentary on whether or not Dunleavy can still be considered our best player.
                              You and Anthem raise an excellent point that I haven't thought of previously. Out of laziness, I liked having the the entire article posted to save myself a couple of clicks (and IndyStar.com and ChicagoTribune.com don't play nicely with the browser on my home computer because of scripting errors that I'm too lazy to solve). But I will make a point of clicking through, and in the event that I post articles again, I will just post the teaser paragraph with a linkback for the rest of the article.

                              Good insight. Thanks.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: Guidelines for posting "off-site" content

                                Jayredd. without the melodramatics i agree, with one exception, for many "foreign" readers (EU, Asia etx) of which we have quite a few, it is very hard top read the content in most published articles if links are followed, simply because you need to sign up or even pay to get to the content, unlike for you.
                                Links that are "slightly" older dont work anymore, making it hard to have a coherent archive, IF the link works it in most cases (Star) points to a pay per page archive

                                In short, they are not making it easy for the reader to allow this to happen or to view their adverts and such

                                If those above reasons did not exist I would probably support an "excerpt only" rule, which we had in the beginning, for all the right reason, but if it takes me 10 minutes to get to the article, then I have usually given up 9 minutes and 50 seconds ago.

                                strangely enough huge conglomerate sites as ESPN who you mention, have not made it that hard and are very understanding for reposting as well as lenient with allowing such, providing the bylines and links, since they reckon that interested ppl will stil check the original article or the comments on that site and yes that even goes for the "paid for access" articles

                                To them it is "free advertising" straight into their target group

                                I hope you can see where my ambivelence comes from.
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X